Speeding train.. not stopping... keep the mail going!!

From Linthicum eh...maybe I should say hi.

I guess we are all suffering loss aversion mental deficiency, does this make us a prohibited person under the mental health provision?

Selection Votes
Support 2% 23
Oppose 97% 941
Undecided 0% 2

966 votes total
http://www.pambeidle.com/

Wonder how long they will leave this poll up?

Sent another round of emails to Delegates Beidle, Love, and Sophocleus. Delegate Beidle has responded to my messages even though it was a form letter.. I still have yet to see a single response from Delegates Love or Sophocleus.

Today's reply from Delegate Beidle (emphasis mine) seems to have shifted more in our favor:
-----

Thank you for contacting my office concerning legislation regarding increased gun control. The legislation that is generating the most controversy is the Governor’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013. This bill not only attempts to limit the purchase of “assault” weapons, but also addresses background checks, mental health and school safety. The text of the bill can be found at: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=hb0294&stab=01&ys=2013RS.

My offices, and the offices of all my colleagues, are receiving large volumes of letters, phone calls and emails from citizens who oppose, and others who support this legislation. Personally, as firm believer of Second Amendment rights, I have some issues supporting this bill in its present form. There are parts of it I find attractive, particularly the mental health and firearms training components, but other parts, as presently written, would impose excessive regulatory burdens on legitimate gun owners without providing any significant public safety benefit. This bill and the other “Gun Control Bills” will be heard by the Health & Government Operations (HGO) and/or Judiciary Committee, where they will be subject to public hearings and a Committee vote prior to reaching the House floor. I fully expect every bill to be heavily debated and many will never be voted out of Committee. As a member of the Environmental Matters Committee, I will not have a vote until a bill reaches the House floor.

I also believe Maryland citizens have a right to feel safe in their day-to-day lives, and that reevaluating current laws and regulations may be necessary in order to ensure this safety. I will be paying close attention to this issue as the session progresses.

I ask that you take some time to review this bill and vote on my poll at www.pambeidle.com. I would like to hear from you about this important issue.

Sincerely,

Pamela G. Beidle
Delegate, District 32
(410)841-3370
Environmental Matters Committee
Subcommittees:
Environment
Housing and Real Property

I received the same email.

In elections, who gets the votes from the unheard thousands that do not vote?

SomeGuy said:

In elections, who gets the votes from the unheard thousands that do not vote?

Click to expand...

you mean the deceased and illegal immigrants? Obama..

So, according to the psychologist we should all be willing to give up our rights (and therefore our freedom) for more security. So how come people in Chicago and D.C. don't feel more secure?

Psychologists describe such a response as “loss aversion.” That’s the theory that we’re motivated more by loss than gain. Research suggests a golfer is more determined to score a par, thus avoiding a bogey, than a birdie. And a sprinter is more determined to not finish last, rather than come in first.

The same theory applies to the Firearms Safety Act, said Dan Nataf, director of the Center for the Study of Local Issues at Anne Arundel Community College.

“In this case, the fear of losing a right is far stronger than the desire to gain security,” Nataf said. “The whole concept is entrenched in the culture of gun owners: small loss leads to bigger loss leads to total loss.”

Click to expand...

And using dead kids to sell a policy has nothing to do with loss aversion? Liberals have a habit of using science to make their arguments appear rational, it's a variation on the appeal to authority fallacy. In this case it is embarrassingly vacuous.

I just sent Dan Nataf an email through my AACC account with some insider information on how they marginally briefed faculty and staff after Virginia Tech. I will share any response to my request for him to substantiate his claims.

981 against to 24 for - comment left

kharris said:

So, according to the psychologist we should all be willing to give up our rights (and therefore our freedom) for more security. So how come people in Chicago and D.C. don't feel more secure?

Click to expand...

Gee Ben Franklin had an observation on that aspect of human nature.

Prof. Nataf was kind enough to reply to my request to further explain his position that he was taking in the article. Seems to me from his response, he is proposing only a loss aversion theory and not a false dilemma of gun rights or security. Here is his response.

Thanks for your comment about my quotation in the Capital's recent article about the disproportionate number of gun control opponents who were notifying elected officials about their concerns. The reporter accurately characterizes the "loss aversion" concept, which is a major part of the work by Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel prize winning psychologist. You might be interested in reading his book, Thinking: Fast and Slow in which he lays out the premises of "prospect theory" which is an attempt to address the unevenness in people's appreciation of threats and gains based on reference points and the prominence given to losses over gains.

Your argument seems to be that gun owners perceive a loss of security rather than just constitutional/legal rights. The point remains the same: gun control legislation is always perceived by opponents as a loss in something and thus to be avoided. By contrast, proponents perceive it as a gain in security - and thus the explanation based on the relative weakness of 'gains' as a motive rather than 'losses.' The question of disproportionate response of opponents over proponents of gun control is what I was addressing, not the empirical question of whether there is a net increase or decrease in security with more or fewer guns. That issue can be debated endlessly with selected facts that a cherry-picked to prove a point. What is at issue in the article is the disproportionate response, and that is what I attempted to address.

Thanks again for your comment - glad to see that people are reading the Capital! I hope that my answer clears things up.

Dan Nataf, Ph.D.
Director, Center for the Study of Local Issues
Associate Professor, Political Science

I personally appreciate the bias free response he gave you. The point he was making was that people will fight more strongly to avoid losing something than they will to gain something (usually).

I personally feel that in this scenario it is more about the type of people that are for gun rights vs for gun control though. I don't think you are going to find many people that believe that gun regulation is a basic human right or would be willing to fight for that position. On the other side of the coin, many of us do feel that gun rights are and in fact would fight for that belief.