Bad news for the AWB supporters

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here's a potted history of Dr. Lott courtesy of Hal.

Lott produced statistical results based on a telephone interview he claimed to have personally conducted of 2000 randomly choses (he said) participants.

Problems:

1. The University of Chicago has NORC, one of the nation's premier phone survey systems where faculty get a VERY LARGE incentive to conduct their interviews in a non-biased format (where questionaires get designed to avoid investigator bias).

2. When asked to produce his statistical results that he used to conclude his already well-known conservative affiliations to the gun nutjob crowd, he claimed his hard drive crashed. Anyone can make a data back-up, and with anyone who publishes this is expected (and common sense). When dealing with hundreds of hours of your time and invested funds - its simply irresponsible not to.

3. Regarding academic tenure. The U of Chicago has a 7 year tenure-track granting system much like other institutions. Faculty that do not reach tenure are typically asked to leave at the end of those 7 years if they fail to produce reproducible results in the field they work in. It is quite ridiculous to claim that he was let go due to politics since the U of Chicago has notable faculty that span the entire political spectrum with much more serious conservative (and liberal) impact on politics and society than this one apparently odd fellow.

4. The University of Chicago has the Chicago Crime Lab - a premier crime analysis investigation group involved in realistic analysis of crime data based on actual crime statistics and qualitative interviews of victims, criminals, and randomly sampled members of the population.

[*Robert* 2]

Since this topic has to do with the 2nd amendment, I wonder if we can't steer it back to the original topic. The points made about the 2^nd amendment and the Constitution as to how it applies today, as opposed to when it was written, makes no difference. The writers of the Constitution were very wise beyond their years, and the Constitution still applies under today's technology, as it did then. I would really like to see the debate turn towards "inalienable rights", which under the Constitution, cannot (and should not) be taken away, even if convicted of a felony or a violent crime, as there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for that. If a person has served their time, and is released back into society, then they should continue to have the same rights as any other citizen, or they shouldn't be back out on the streets. By being incarcerated, their rights are merely suspended due to the circumstance. The real reform needs to be with our prisons and criminal system, so that the penalties for committing violent crimes are more severe and more deterrent. The "three strike rule" is preposterous, and should be changed to "any repeat offender", as they have already clearly demonstrated a lack of regard for our laws.

Thoughts?

what other rights are taken due to incarceration? 1st? 4th? 9th?

The right to vote, is another notable one, even though once released, remains taken, which is not covered by the Constitution. So should the right to bear arms also be taken, as a result of being convicted, whether its a case of domestic violence, or of assault and battery.

I guess the point I'm trying to make, though not as eloquently as some here, is that our rights should NEVER be taken away, as that is what a "right" means, as defined by the Constitution.

Edited April 1, 2009 by roi_aggie

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

Since this topic has to do with the 2nd amendment, I wonder if we can't steer it back to the original topic. The points made about the 2^nd amendment and the Constitution as to how it applies today, as opposed to when it was written, makes no difference. The writers of the Constitution were very wise beyond their years, and the Constitution still applies under today’s technology, as it did then. I would really like to see the debate turn towards “inalienable rights”, which under the Constitution, cannot (and should not) be taken away, even if convicted of a felony or a violent crime, as there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for that. If a person has served their time, and is released back into society, then they should continue to have the same rights as any other citizen, or they shouldn’t be back out on the streets. By being incarcerated, their rights are merely suspended due to the circumstance. The real reform needs to be with our prisons and criminal system, so that the penalties for committing violent crimes are more severe and more deterrent. The “three strike rule” is preposterous, and should be changed to “any repeat offender”, as they have already clearly demonstrated a lack of regard for our laws.

Thoughts?

i think if a convicted of a felony, they've waived their rights for quite a few things forever. i'd not relish the idea of someone convicted of murder by firearm a few decades ago getting out of prison and living next to me and being armed to boot.

agreed on the 3 strike rule

[*Robert* 2]

While incarcerated, rights should not be removed, since the Constitution doesn't allow for it. However, once they are, the 2nd is gone, the 4th is definitely gone, and the 15th is gone.

Edited April 1, 2009 by roi_aggie

[*Robert* 2]

i think if a convicted of a felony, they've waived their rights for quite a few things forever. i'd not relish the idea of someone convicted of murder by firearm a few decades ago getting out of prison and living next to me and being armed to boot.

agreed on the 3 strike rule

Now there in lies the problem... if they have served their time, and are deemed a "reformed" individual, then should should have access to all their rights once released.

If they should not be allowed to have all their rights... then they should NOT be released.

[*Robert* 2]

Can't have it both ways... either we have rights, or we don't. Who decides which rights we can or cannot have?

The Constitution does not allow for selective rights.

Either a person is reformed and released from prison, or either you execute the SOB or keep them locked up until they are.

[*Robert* 2]

i think if a convicted of a felony, they've waived their rights for quite a few things forever. i'd not relish the idea of someone convicted of murder by firearm a few decades ago getting out of prison and living next to me and being armed to boot.

agreed on the 3 strike rule

I understand your concern, but if they aren't truly reformed, they shouldn't be released from prison.

Even if you take their 2nd amendment right away, and they are released from prison, do you honestly think they can't buy a gun if they want to?

The point being... if they are still dangerous, and still have the potential to commit a crime, then they should still be in prison.

[natty bumppo 297]

i think if a convicted of a felony, they've waived their rights for quite a few things forever. i'd not relish the idea of someone convicted of murder by firearm a few decades ago getting out of prison and living next to me and being armed to boot.

agreed on the 3 strike rule

Now there in lies the problem... if they have served their time, and are deemed a "reformed" individual, then should should have access to all their rights once released.

If they should not be allowed to have all their rights... then they should NOT be released.

The person brings the 3 strikes on themselves ..

the law hands down a mandatory/ extended period of incarceration to people convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions.

they were let out ... only missed the 3 hots per day, free cable, and exercise equipment

[*Robert* 2]

i think if a convicted of a felony, they've waived their rights for quite a few things forever. i'd not relish the idea of someone convicted of murder by firearm a few decades ago getting out of prison and living next to me and being armed to boot.

agreed on the 3 strike rule

Now there in lies the problem... if they have served their time, and are deemed a "reformed" individual, then should should have access to all their rights once released.

If they should not be allowed to have all their rights... then they should NOT be released.

The person brings the 3 strikes on themselves ..

the law hands down a mandatory/ extended period of incarceration to people convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions.

they were let out ... only missed the 3 hots per day, free cable, and exercise equipment

To me, if they commited a crime once, then turned around and commited a second crime... I think that should be enough to show a "negative trend". I don't believe we should wait around for the 3rd time. Crime is not a baseball game!

[justashooter 430]

Here's a potted history of Dr. Lott courtesy of Hal.

Lott produced statistical results based on a telephone interview he claimed to have personally conducted of 2000 randomly choses (he said) participants.

Problems:

1. The University of Chicago

3. Regarding academic tenure. The U of Chicago

4. The University of Chicago has the Chicago Crime Lab - a premier crime analysis investigation

So you have a problem with methodology in one piece of a man's work? Tell me how this invalidates teh entire body.

I have a problem with credibility of anything funded by public money in Shitcago, the only place in America that makes New Orleans look honest.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here's a potted history of Dr. Lott courtesy of Hal.

Lott produced statistical results based on a telephone interview he claimed to have personally conducted of 2000 randomly choses (he said) participants.

Problems:

1. The University of Chicago

3. Regarding academic tenure. The U of Chicago

4. The University of Chicago has the Chicago Crime Lab - a premier crime analysis investigation

So you have a problem with methodology in one piece of a man's work? Tell me how this invalidates teh entire body.

I have a problem with credibility of anything funded by public money in Shitcago, the only place in America that makes New Orleans look honest.

Its an example of the man's work. If he was shitcanned because he couldn't meet the academic standards it calls his credibility into question. Not hard to understand.

That said - you seem intent on believing the guy because you agree with him politically.

[justashooter 430]

Here's a potted history of Dr. Lott courtesy of Hal.

Lott produced statistical results based on a telephone interview he claimed to have personally conducted of 2000 randomly choses (he said) participants.

Problems:

1. The University of Chicago

3. Regarding academic tenure. The U of Chicago

4. The University of Chicago has the Chicago Crime Lab - a premier crime analysis investigation

So you have a problem with methodology in one piece of a man's work? Tell me how this invalidates teh entire body.

I have a problem with credibility of anything funded by public money in Shitcago, the only place in America that makes New Orleans look honest.

Its an example of the man's work. If he was shitcanned because he couldn't meet the academic standards it calls his credibility into question. Not hard to understand.

That said - you seem intent on believing the guy because you agree with him politically.

brits never could stand tom paine.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't know about Tom Paine, but plenty of other conservative luminaries attended the University of Chicago at some time or other: Paul Wolfowitz and (not least) former Attorney General John Ashcroft. So perhaps the former AG's corrupt Chicago experience also led to his being extremely lenient to potential criminals aquiring guns.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Cabinet/John_As...Gun_Control.htm

[justashooter 430]

talking, talking, talking, bigga bu hao. mei guanxi, go shir.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

talking, talking, talking, bigga bu hao. mei guanxi, go shir.

I guess you have nothing to add - other than that you have a love affair with John Lott and nothing must come between you.