Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Happy Jack

Most violent? USA vs England ... The upside to Guns

Recommended Posts

All the talk about guns and violence in America often brings up a comparison between the US and other western nations where guns are not prevalent. Today it occurred to me that the prevalence of gun might actually be a restraint on violent acts. "Should I punch that guy? After all there is a better than 1 in 10 chance he has a CC permit in Florida.

 

So I decided on a lark to look and see if violent crime rates differ between the UK and the US .

 

What I found shocked me .

 

Using the first raw data I could fine the violent crime rate in the UK is 3,500 per 100,000 while in the USA it is only 386.9 per 100,000 About 9 times higher.

 

Such a discrepancy seems crazy so is the data collected or defined differently in the two countries?

 

After digging deeper I found the definition in the US is Murder, Rape, Robbery and Aggravated assault. Aggravated assault requiring injury and indeed the UK definition "Violent crime covers a wide range of offences, from minor assaults, such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder."

 

Fortunately the actual statistics reported by the UK split out the injury vs non injury violent crime. At which point the definitions should be roughly similar.

 

Using the UK injury statistic alone comes up with this

 

 

The violent crime rate (with injury) in the UK is 2,400 per 100,000 while in the USA it is only 386.9 per 100,000 Still over 6 times higher.

 

 

Statics for other nations was harder to find but it seems the trend is similar for France and Germany

 

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls

 

2a8ji2o.jpg

 

 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-december-2013/stb-crime-stats-dec-2013.html#tab-Violent-crime

 

2lnkbrc.png

 

 

 

 

 

90vhwj.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stats on rates of violence.

 

Not a valid conclusion tho about guns. You'd have to do way more correlation v causation to verify. Not saying it's not true, but this does not prove anything about guns v no guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an inverse relationship between gun ownership and crime, particularly the violent type. There are lots of data on this. More guns less crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stats on rates of violence.

 

Not a valid conclusion tho about guns. You'd have to do way more correlation v causation to verify. Not saying it's not true, but this does not prove anything about guns v no guns.

 

You are only partially right. While this data can't show that guns reduce violent crime is does lay to rest the myth that the American gun culture increases violent crime.

 

All I know is I was surprised that other western democracies that are held up as models of civilization actually have higher levels of violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW I think it is a reasonable hypothesis that people are less likely to engage in violent behavior knowing that it could escalate to death by gun. Sort of the same deterrence behind MAD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an inverse relationship between gun ownership and crime, particularly the violent type. There are lots of data on this. More guns less crime.

 

Wrong wrong wrong!

Gotcha! You are the victim of gun lobby urban myth, false propaganda spread locally by Badgeless Tom Ray.

DOZENS of studies disagree with your statement.

 

 

The book by that catchy name (More Guns, Less Crime) , and the hypothesis of that name, were soundly dis-credited. In fact, author John L. Lott took his name off of the second defense of the peer- review drubbing he received by his colleagues.

He runs his own conervative think-tank now, and fibs like a bot for Fox News.

Not surprisingly, Lott's model fails several statistical specification tests designed to determine its accuracy, and other models lead to very different results. For example, Jens Ludwig, an economist at Georgetown University, uses a different statistical approach and finds that the movement to shall-issue laws has, if anything, caused homicide rates to increase.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/david-hemenway/files/2013/02/Hemenway-Book-Review.pdf

 

Multiple studies from a variety of sources unequivocally show that more guns = more homicide (and more suicide) in most states.

 

**States With Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death

Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Wyoming Have Highest Gun Death Rates

Washington, DC--States with higher gun ownership rates and weak gun laws have the highest rates of gun death according to a new analysis by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of just-released 2008 national data (the most recent available) from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Wyoming. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.38 per 100,000 for 2008. Each state has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates. By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last in the nation for gun death was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York and New Jersey (tie). (See rankings below for top and bottom five states. Seehttp://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart11.htm for a ranking of all 50 states.)

VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, “The equation is simple. More guns lead to more gun death, but limiting exposure to firearms saves lives.” The total number of Americans killed by gunfire rose to 31,593 in 2008 from 31,224 in 2007.

 

http://vpc.org/press/1110gundeath.htm>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf, read the fuking FBI chart and you'll (once again) see how wrong you are.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interesting stats on rates of violence.

 

Not a valid conclusion tho about guns. You'd have to do way more correlation v causation to verify. Not saying it's not true, but this does not prove anything about guns v no guns.

 

You are only partially right. While this data can't show that guns reduce violent crime is does lay to rest the myth that the American gun culture increases violent crime.

 

All I know is I was surprised that other western democracies that are held up as models of civilization actually have higher levels of violence.

 

Yep, HJ. Demonstrably, we are not, essentially, a more violent country.

David Hemenway notes that some of our violence indices are lower than NZ, CA, and AUS.

Yet our gun violence figures are pegged 20X greater than other leading nations?

Plus our gun suicides alone average 16,000/yr?

 

This speaks to the availability of guns being a significant part of our gun violence problem. This is eva dent, but firmly denied on these boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf, read the fuking FBI chart and you'll (once again) see how wrong you are.....

 

Hi Rick. Present your figures, then your generalizations, please.

A problem will soon develop--

Yo, I can find a half dozen recent, credible sources saying the same thing:

based on evidence-based research, guns are not devices of public safety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

JokeAwf, read the fuking FBI chart and you'll (once again) see how wrong you are.....

Hi Rick. Present your figures, then your generalizations, please.

A problem will soon develop--

Yo, I can find a half dozen recent, credible sources saying the same thing:

based on evidence-based research, guns are not devices of public safety

 

Jfc, READ THE G-DAMN FBI CHART, will ya? It debunks everything you've been saying here for two f'ng years now.

 

Jeezis but I give up....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lordy. How many of those "studies" are agenda/funding driven?

 

Egg-zactly. But surprisingly the FBI's own stats show a decrease in 'gun violence', even though they could have donea TSA style bullshit chart, in an attempt to both scare the public AND to recieve more funding. But they didn't. Sadly JokeAwf thinks they're lying, and instead chooses to put all his unicorn eggs in baskets woven by agenda-driven coalitions.

 

Sigh....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gawd but I can hear the PNW Cut 'n Paste fairy frantically trying to prove the FBI wrong, all the way from here.

 

Good luck with that, JokeAwf. .......:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This study is significant because it is the newest, AND the most comprehensive (covering 30 years).

It suggests that fewer guns = less crime.

 

 

SIEGAL 2013: The Relationship Between Gun Ownership

and Firearm Homicide Rates

in the United States, 1981–2010.

Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio=1.009; 95% confidence interval=1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

Studies analyzing data over long periods are valuable because they assess the effects of variation in gun availability not only between states but within states over time. Although we are aware of no multiyear studies of interstate variation in gun ownership and homicide rates since 1999, national data from the General Social Survey show that the prevalence of household gun ownership has decreased by approximately 12% since then.46 This presents an opportunity not only to bring the existing literature up to date, but also to investigate temporal changes in gun ownership to explore its potential relationship with changes in homicide rates, within and between states. Annual, state-specific homicide data are readily available from as early as 1981 and as recently as 2010.8 During this period, the prevalence of gun ownership decreased by about 36%.46 Thus, it is feasible and useful to study the relationship between gun availability and homicide across states over the entire period 1981 to 2010.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409>

The results of the research are consistent with previous studies that have demonstrated a correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher levels of firearm homicide.

 

Siegel noted that the study did not determine causation, allowing that it is theoretically possible that people are more likely to purchase guns if they live in states with higher levels of firearm homicide. But he said the issue w

is

arrants further study. “In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, last year, many states are considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths. This research is the strongest to date to document that states with higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides. It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates,”

 

Further, studies show that the violence, if any, may be increased, or spun lethally, if a gun is present.

Based on evidence, not bumper stickers, more guns DO NOT equate to less crime.

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Publication Date: November 2009

This is a case-control study that looks at the relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

The most striking finding from the study is that individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, the adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.5.

The study concludes that: “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.”


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

JokeAwf, read the fuking FBI chart and you'll (once again) see how wrong you are.....

Hi Rick. Present your figures, then your generalizations, please.

A problem will soon develop--

Yo, I can find a half dozen recent, credible sources saying the same thing:

based on evidence-based research, guns are not devices of public safety

 

Jfc, READ THE G-DAMN FBI CHART, will ya? It debunks everything you've been saying here for two f'ng years now.

 

Jeezis but I give up....

 

The FBI has lots of charts.

Rick, state your case by presenting your actual source information, as requested above. Or STFU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's true then, not only are you an illiterate piece of shit who can't even read a fuking chart.....but you're a troll as well.

 

Fuk me but you are a piece of work. Fuking idiot.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Middlesboro Daily News - Nov 12, 1938

 

"The official phase of Nazi Germany's anti-Jewish campaign was opened today with a law forbidding Jews to possess firearms or other weapons. This law was the first of a series designed to effect a "permanent solution" of the Jewish problem. It forbids Jews to buy, own or carry guns, ammunition or weapons designed for striking or thrusting. Jews now possessing such weapons must deliver them to the police at once under pain of fine or imprisonment up to five years. Foreign Jews may be exempted at the discretion of the minister of interior."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lordy. How many of those "studies" are agenda/funding driven?

You tell me. They get bashed a lot.

However, the competition is now all about private funding, since the supposed front lines of gun safety research, the CDC, has zero budget in 2014, after the $60,000 it got to store some data. Plus, the gynormous HHS has now been cut off from gun research, since just before Sandy Hook. Shameful shit.

 

I hear whinging about researcher agenda but not even flakey sources like Glen Beck or the Firing Line bother to document any actual conspiracy.

Note: many of these independent researchers don't know one another, as a rule: about ten new researcher names appear every year.

 

A certain core group would have to be central in any alleged conspiracy, since some have worked hard here and there as colleagues (and have been frustrated and marginalized together for 30 years). Under the bus you might put Kellerman, Wintemute, Webster, Hemenway (whom they say is the prince in their field), ex-CDC's Rosenburg, Seattle's Rivara, and Josh Sugarman of the VPC. They ALL know (and many have publicly challenged), Dr. Gary Kleck, whose conclusions are an anomaly to their body of work. If you suspect junk science I challenge you to read the careful product of these men.

 

Somehow Gary Kleck ran the DGU aspect the 2013 CDC study, while Sugarman's encyclopedia of work (forty studies over three decades) seems to be ignored...this certainly taints the report to anyone who knows the players. John Lott did an interview in February telling blatant lies--denying that the CDC had any run-in with the NRA, basically. The man in charge of the CDC at the time, Rosenburg, however, remembers otherwise.

 

I can only submit to you what I have found after earnest research: a credibility problem has been often noted (see last paragraph), but not on the side of the researchers, or on the side of any scientific examination of gunowner behavior.

 

If YMMV, present that shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's true then, not only are you an illiterate piece of shit who can't even read a fuking chart.....but you're a troll as well.

 

Fuk me but you are a piece of work. Fuking idiot.....

You seem to be huffing and puffing again.

Present your chart, and your figures, Rick. Third request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chart has been right in front of ^you^ for four hours now. Can you not understand what it means?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chart has been right in front of ^you^ for four hours now. Can you not understand what it means?.....

It has been there ...

 

Looks like lower violent crime rates in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. Now lets review the FBI's own stats for our resident idiot from the Pacific North Wet;

 

1). Millions more Americans today in the U.S. than in 1993.

 

2). Millions more firearms in private possession.

 

3). Violent crimes down about 30% from twenty years ago.

 

4). You got that now, JokeAwf? Really, I couldn't make this any fuking easier for you to comprehend if I tried......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW I think it is a reasonable hypothesis that people are less likely to engage in violent behavior knowing that it could escalate to death by gun. Sort of the same deterrence behind MAD.

 

 

A teenager playing “knockout game” punched a man in the face after he made certain that the victim was not carrying a gun, a Florida man told police.

 

According to a witness who saw the attack unfold, a teenager approached a man who was walking alone on Neptune Beach on July 31, the Florida Times-Union reported Friday.

 

According to the victim, the teen, who was with three accomplices, asked him if he had a “glock.”

 

While Glock is a weapons manufacturer, the term “glock” is also used generically to describe any type of handgun.

 

After the man said that he did not have a weapon, the teen punched him in the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is an inverse relationship between gun ownership and crime, particularly the violent type. There are lots of data on this. More guns less crime.

 

Wrong wrong wrong!

Gotcha! You are the victim of gun lobby urban myth, false propaganda spread locally by Badgeless Tom Ray.

DOZENS of studies disagree with your statement.

 

 

The book by that catchy name (More Guns, Less Crime) , and the hypothesis of that name, were soundly dis-credited. In fact, author John L. Lott took his name off of the second defense of the peer- review drubbing he received by his colleagues.

He runs his own conervative think-tank now, and fibs like a bot for Fox News.

>Not surprisingly, Lott's model fails several statistical specification tests designed to determine its accuracy, and other models lead to very different results. For example, Jens Ludwig, an economist at Georgetown University, uses a different statistical approach and finds that the movement to shall-issue laws has, if anything, caused homicide rates to increase.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/david-hemenway/files/2013/02/Hemenway-Book-Review.pdf

 

Multiple studies from a variety of sources unequivocally show that more guns = more homicide (and more suicide) in most states.

 

**States With Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death

Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Wyoming Have Highest Gun Death Rates

Washington, DC--States with higher gun ownership rates and weak gun laws have the highest rates of gun death according to a new analysis by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of just-released 2008 national data (the most recent available) from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Wyoming. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.38 per 100,000 for 2008. Each state has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates. By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last in the nation for gun death was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York and New Jersey (tie). (See rankings below for top and bottom five states. Seehttp://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart11.htm for a ranking of all 50 states.)

VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, “The equation is simple. More guns lead to more gun death, but limiting exposure to firearms saves lives.” The total number of Americans killed by gunfire rose to 31,593 in 2008 from 31,224 in 2007.

 

http://vpc.org/press/1110gundeath.htm>

 

 

 

He said "crime, particularly the violent type" and you, clever boy, pretend that only homicide counts,

 

Notice in the UNODC comparison in the OP which is an apples to apples database. France and Germany have been on an upward trajectory this century and the US on a sharp downward trend.

 

The point of this thread that simplistic sound bites don't tell the true picture. Western Europe has more violence than America. Homicides being the exception and even that data point to trending down here and up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW I think it is a reasonable hypothesis that people are less likely to engage in violent behavior knowing that it could escalate to death by gun. Sort of the same deterrence behind MAD.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting stats on rates of violence.

 

Not a valid conclusion tho about guns. You'd have to do way more correlation v causation to verify. Not saying it's not true, but this does not prove anything about guns v no guns.

 

You are only partially right. While this data can't show that guns reduce violent crime is does lay to rest the myth that the American gun culture increases violent crime.

 

All I know is I was surprised that other western democracies that are held up as models of civilization actually have higher levels of violence.

 

Yep, HJ. Demonstrably, we are not, essentially, a more violent country.

David Hemenway notes that some of our violence indices are lower than NZ, CA, and AUS.

Yet our gun violence figures are pegged 20X greater than other leading nations?

Plus our gun suicides alone average 16,000/yr?

 

This speaks to the availability of guns being a significant part of our gun violence problem. This is eva dent, but firmly denied on these boards.

 

But suicide it far more prevalent in many other first world countries. For you the method is all important. To me dead is dead and beat up is beat up. Do I really care how?

 

I think that a good case can be made to at least test my hypothesis.

 

This last spring in Europe I saw the growing effects of the de-whitification of Europe. Gypsy camps. London's activist muslim population. Just this month we hosted friends from Geneva and they were talking about the immigrant backlash in Switzerland. Europe is learning about the good and bad of being a melting pot for the first time. Something the US has much more experience with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This last spring in Europe I saw the growing effects of the de-whitification of Europe. Gypsy camps. London's activist muslim population. Just this month we hosted friends from Geneva and they were talking about the immigrant backlash in Switzerland. Europe is learning about the good and bad of being a melting pot for the first time. Something the US has much more experience with.

 

Its not a "melting pot" if the immigrants have no desire to assimilate. The muslims in Europe seem to want to keep their honor killings and female genital mutilation traditions. So much for escaping to a better life when you bring your fucked up traditions with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So it's true then, not only are you an illiterate piece of shit who can't even read a fuking chart.....but you're a troll as well.

 

Fuk me but you are a piece of work. Fuking idiot.....

You seem to be huffing and puffing again.

Present your chart, and your figures, Rick. Third request.

 

 

1553qfk.jpg

 

 

 

 

florida-full.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the graphs, HJ. Yes, I note their downward trend of homicide concurrent with CCP popularity in Florida.



I am against violence, period (and intended no slight-of-hand by using homicide data). I have sincere concern about the 70,000 non-fatal gun injuries in the U.S. each year. That number is quite high.




Thanks for the data, but the graph is far from a clearly stated conclusion of a formally published research essay connecting CCP and improved homicide numbers. For the record, Jack, I have easily presented six studies, as predicted, which clearly, specifically conclude that lots of guns are connected to lots of gun violence.


(Which is a no-brainer IMO.)



More guns, more homicide: four different Harvard studies:



1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).


Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.


Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.



2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.


We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.


Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.



3. Across states, more guns = more homicide


Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).


After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.


Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.



4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)


Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.


Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.



Pasted from <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/>


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paging Jeff B, paging Jeff B, big fuking clean-up needed on aisle Idiot-stick stat!....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jokey, serious question----why do you continue you pull out ridiculous 'studies' that America's premier law enforcement agency proves, in black & white, are wrong? Wtf is the matter with you? Are you calking the FBI liars?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, not that it really matters but did anyone look at the dates of JokeAwf's 'studies'. Jfc but I'm surprised there's nothing there dating back to the Revolutionary War.

 

Another Jokey fail......:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And? Are you still gonna sit there and tell the rest of the class that twenty years of FBI stats are wrong? And that your 'studies' you've posted are correct? 'Cuz I'll give you a hint, honey, they both can't be right. So who are ya going with? ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the graphs, HJ. Yes, I note their downward trend of homicide concurrent with CCP popularity in Florida.

I am against violence, period (and intended no slight-of-hand by using homicide data). I have sincere concern about the 70,000 non-fatal gun injuries in the U.S. each year. That number is quite high.

Thanks for the data, but the graph is far from a clearly stated conclusion of a formally published research essay connecting CCP and improved homicide numbers. For the record, Jack, I have easily presented six studies, as predicted, which clearly, specifically conclude that lots of guns are connected to lots of gun violence.

(Which is a no-brainer IMO.)

More guns, more homicide: four different Harvard studies:

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

Pasted from <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/>

 

 

4 Harvard studies... I'd hardly call Harvard an independent non-agenda driven resource. They are a factory for left-wing political agenda.

 

The nebulous terms listed in the study summaries suggest statistics that can be easily skewed for polital purpose. Example: "...where guns are more available..." What the hell does more available mean? Is there a strict statistical quantification for "more available"? Terms like that scream of bullshit to anyone trained in statistics or quatification of data in any way.

 

"...people in states with many guns...", again, nebulous terms, with limits that can be defined to any criteria for any point one wishes to push. Bullshit.

 

"...higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide..." correlation without causation. Shit like this screams of agenda-driven, politically based statistical gamesmanship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does 'talking' to JokeAwf bring back memories of trying to explain to your three year old why it's not acceptable to pull his turds out of the toilet and put them in the fireplace? During Thanksgiving dinner?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how Jack's Bushmaster investment is doing.......

 

Hopefully offsetting the costs of ObamaScare....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paging Jeff B, paging Jeff B, big fuking clean-up needed on aisle Idiot-stick stat!....

 

Nah dude..... I'm out. I'm frankly sick of jojo's circular arguments. Its been the same thing for years now. People have discussions and post their well thought out opinions and write logical rebuttals - and jojo posts the same cut n pastes. He doesn't listen to anyone and instead talks around them. When he does write something original (or at least in his own words instead of endless C-n-p's) - its the most convoluted 3rd grade level language skills I've ever seen. It frankly hurts my head to read it most days.

 

So no, sorry.... he's all yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder how Jack's Bushmaster investment is doing.......

 

Hopefully offsetting the costs of ObamaScare....

 

Colt LE6920's and Core 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Paging Jeff B, paging Jeff B, big fuking clean-up needed on aisle Idiot-stick stat!....

Nah dude..... I'm out. I'm frankly sick of jojo's circular arguments. Its been the same thing for years now. People have discussions and post their well thought out opinions and write logical rebuttals - and jojo posts the same cut n pastes. He doesn't listen to anyone and instead talks around them. When he does write something original (or at least in his own words instead of endless C-n-p's) - its the most convoluted 3rd grade level language skills I've ever seen. It frankly hurts my head to read it most days.

 

So no, sorry.... he's all yours.

 

Dick....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Paging Jeff B, paging Jeff B, big fuking clean-up needed on aisle Idiot-stick stat!....

Nah dude..... I'm out. I'm frankly sick of jojo's circular arguments. Its been the same thing for years now. People have discussions and post their well thought out opinions and write logical rebuttals - and jojo posts the same cut n pastes. He doesn't listen to anyone and instead talks around them. When he does write something original (or at least in his own words instead of endless C-n-p's) - its the most convoluted 3rd grade level language skills I've ever seen. It frankly hurts my head to read it most days.

 

So no, sorry.... he's all yours.

 

Dick....

 

Guilty. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you, fuker even gives my cat a migraine. So here's my last reply to him. (I'm sure he'll understand it, given that it's just as coherent as his are)........

 

 

 

uÇÚVÑ3BºZþ÷–ƒgÇÿäÉYÅùžµÚñú˜'g?>IºººÔuD1©øñIê:'_ßÑÚ=~Œˆ(ÇŸLŸ•œœ,#¤Ëã hMhëÖæµoŽÿÉ“³&?>ImA„U¬åç–;Ê,ƒöXPÎŒ1á‹ç\—¤§Ïxüq‘®–ÿýæ™nIµªËh®(¢/=ãé3&£»õ˜ÞøädcáѶ®I9aÎœnƒÇGh›i»¬wË1sÆVyéòœéî>Û#r}Ù«Gƒwæøœð[g4éXÈþ±ÚÉÞÐêŒ>9¿ö´i­–êå&&Y¬—ÀTBF­J«¬¬l۶͒_|pòä¸ÈP ÄK€Ï¯—$õ €¿ö´i­–êå&&Y¬—ÀTBF­J«¬¬l۶͒_|pòä¸ÈP uÇÚVÑ3BºZþ÷–ƒgÇÿäÉYÅùžµÚñú˜'g?>IºººÔuD1©øñIê:'_ßÑÚ=~Œˆ(ÇŸLŸ•œœ,#¤Ëã hMhëÖæµoŽÿÉ“³&?>ImA„U¬åç–;Ê,ƒöXPÎŒ1á‹ç\—¤§Ïxüq‘®–ÿýæ™nIµªËh®(¢/=ãé3&£»õ˜ÞøädcáѶ®I9aÎœnƒÇGh›i»¬wË1sÆVyéòœéî>Û#r}Ù«Gƒwæøœð[g4éXÈþ±ÚÉÞÐêŒ>9ˆ ÄK€Ï¯—$õ €

 

 

 

7ChakrasandEnergyChannels.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That actually makes more sense than some of jocal's ramblings and photoshops.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.itukforum.co.uk/Thread-Rape-Statistics-by-Country

 

 

 

 

Interesting stats on rates of violence.

 

Not a valid conclusion tho about guns. You'd have to do way more correlation v causation to verify. Not saying it's not true, but this does not prove anything about guns v no guns.

You are only partially right. While this data can't show that guns reduce violent crime is does lay to rest the myth that the American gun culture increases violent crime.

 

All I know is I was surprised that other western democracies that are held up as models of civilization actually have higher levels of violence.

Far be it from me to defend the Brits, but you've based an entire conclusion on one ill-posed, ill-collected statistic.

 

Unless you can actually break down the specific crimes and compare them to each other, I think this politically motivated pseudo-science won't work.

 

You're a super nice guy Jack, but you shouldn't publish things like this. Once you create your theory you should correlate with additional sources of data and additional countries that have similar gun ownership.

 

For instance, compare just rape, which is arguably a more well-defined crime than "violent crime."

 

I put the link at the top from The European Institute for Crime Prevention, and maybe I'm oblivious, but I don't see the correlation that you do.

 

But the bigger point is that our "violent crime rate" from the FBI doesn't include simple assault and all sexual offenses, we only include forced rape and aggravated assault. Daniel Bier's opinion is below, he comes to different conclusions than you ...

 

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

 

Another interesting bit is that he suggests that our general homicide rate is about four times higher than the UK, remembering that many homicides are committed here without any gun.

 

I agree with your basic assumption that our gun culture isn't necessarily responsible for our crime, but much of the rest of that may need to go into the ash bin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jokey, serious question----why do you continue you pull out ridiculous 'studies' that America's premier law enforcement agency proves, in black & white, are wrong? Wtf is the matter with you? Are you calking the FBI liars?.....

I looked through those and don't see disagreement with FBI data. Could you be specific?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is an inverse relationship between gun ownership and crime, particularly the violent type. There are lots of data on this. More guns less crime.

 

Wrong wrong wrong!

Gotcha! You are the victim of gun lobby urban myth, false propaganda spread locally by Badgeless Tom Ray.

 

 

If that were true, you would be able to post at least one example of my making that claim.

 

But it's just another lie, so you can't and won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The charts, graphs & pretty pictures don't explain crucial factors such as percentage of crimes reported & how reported data is handled by the respective country & how much weight it's given when interpreting these type of statistics

 

The casual argument that more guns equals less crime is no stronger than the inverse. You could reasonably argue it's actually a weaker argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLDR:

Your chance of getting in a fight, raped, or mugged is higher elsewhere.

Your chance of getting killed is higher here.

And 'that' sums it up in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you, fuker even gives my cat a migraine. So here's my last reply to him. (I'm sure he'll understand it, given that it's just as coherent as his are)........

 

 

 

uÇÚVÑ3BºZþ÷gÇÿäÉYÅùžµÚñú'g?>IºººÔuD1©øñIê:'_ßÑÚ=~(ÇL,#¤Ëã hMhëÖæµoŽÿɳ&?>ImAU¬åç;Ê,öXPÎ1áç\¤§Ïxüq®ÿýænIµªËh®(¢/=ãé3&£»õÞøädcáѶ®I9aÎnÇGhi»¬wË1sÆVyéòéî>Û#r}Ù«Gwæøð[g4éXÈþ±ÚÉÞÐê>9¿ö´i­êå&&Y¬ÀTBF­J«¬¬lÛ¶Í_|pòä¸ÈP ÄKϯ$õ ¿ö´i­êå&&Y¬ÀTBF­J«¬¬lÛ¶Í_|pòä¸ÈP uÇÚVÑ3BºZþ÷gÇÿäÉYÅùžµÚñú'g?>IºººÔuD1©øñIê:'_ßÑÚ=~(ÇL,#¤Ëã hMhëÖæµoŽÿɳ&?>ImAU¬åç;Ê,öXPÎ1áç\¤§Ïxüq®ÿýænIµªËh®(¢/=ãé3&£»õÞøädcáѶ®I9aÎnÇGhi»¬wË1sÆVyéòéî>Û#r}Ù«Gwæøð[g4éXÈþ±ÚÉÞÐê>9 ÄKϯ$õ

 

 

 

7ChakrasandEnergyChannels.jpg

If you read that backwards at 33 and third RPM's it makes perfect sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://www.itukforum.co.uk/Thread-Rape-Statistics-by-Country

 

 

 

 

Interesting stats on rates of violence.

 

Not a valid conclusion tho about guns. You'd have to do way more correlation v causation to verify. Not saying it's not true, but this does not prove anything about guns v no guns.

You are only partially right. While this data can't show that guns reduce violent crime is does lay to rest the myth that the American gun culture increases violent crime.

 

All I know is I was surprised that other western democracies that are held up as models of civilization actually have higher levels of violence.

Far be it from me to defend the Brits, but you've based an entire conclusion on one ill-posed, ill-collected statistic.

 

Unless you can actually break down the specific crimes and compare them to each other, I think this politically motivated pseudo-science won't work.

 

You're a super nice guy Jack, but you shouldn't publish things like this. Once you create your theory you should correlate with additional sources of data and additional countries that have similar gun ownership.

 

For instance, compare just rape, which is arguably a more well-defined crime than "violent crime."

 

I put the link at the top from The European Institute for Crime Prevention, and maybe I'm oblivious, but I don't see the correlation that you do.

 

But the bigger point is that our "violent crime rate" from the FBI doesn't include simple assault and all sexual offenses, we only include forced rape and aggravated assault. Daniel Bier's opinion is below, he comes to different conclusions than you ...

 

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

 

Another interesting bit is that he suggests that our general homicide rate is about four times higher than the UK, remembering that many homicides are committed here without any gun.

 

I agree with your basic assumption that our gun culture isn't necessarily responsible for our crime, but much of the rest of that may need to go into the ash bin.

 

 

Did you look at the last chart? It adheres to a rigid United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime unified reporting standard as defined by The United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems ( UN-CTS reporting form & Definitions)

 

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/cts-data-collection.html

 

Any more objections? Do your own research and you will find these are pretty much apples to apples comparisons. The FBI and the UK reporting standards are very close. Both seem to define assault with injury as an injury requiring treatment. So unless the Brits are 6 times more wimpy than Americans I doubt the gap can be explained away on a different standard of data collection.

 

Also notice how closely the UN rate for the US matches the FBI rate.

 

The bottom line is clear; the Gun Restricting 1st world nations often have much higher rates of physical violence than gun nutty America. What is clear from the data is that any effect the prevalence of Guns has seems to be dwarfed by cultural differences between nations.

 

In other words Guns are not the culprit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The charts, graphs & pretty pictures don't explain crucial factors such as percentage of crimes reported & how reported data is handled by the respective country & how much weight it's given when interpreting these type of statistics

 

The casual argument that more guns equals less crime is no stronger than the inverse. You could reasonably argue it's actually a weaker argument

 

 

I repeat

 

Did you look at the last chart? It adheres to a rigid United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime unified reporting standard as defined by The United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems ( UN-CTS reporting form & Definitions)

https://www.unodc.or...collection.html

Any more objections? Do your own research and you will find these are pretty much apples to apples comparisons. The FBI and the UK reporting standards are very close. Both seem to define assault with injury as an injury requiring treatment. So unless the Brits are 6 times more wimpy than Americans I doubt the gap can be explained away on a different standard of data collection.

Also notice how closely the UN rate for the US matches the FBI rate.

The bottom line is clear; the Gun Restricting 1st world nations often have much higher rates of physical violence than gun nutty America. What is clear from the data is that any effect the prevalence of Guns has seems to be dwarfed by cultural differences between nations.

In other words Guns are not the culprit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'We should be more like ___________'.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm with you, fuker even gives my cat a migraine. So here's my last reply to him. (I'm sure he'll understand it, given that it's just as coherent as his are)........

 

 

 

uÇÚVÑ3BºZþ÷gÇÿäÉYÅùžµÚñú'g?>IºººÔuD1©øñIê:'_ßÑÚ=~(ÇL,#¤Ëã hMhëÖæµoŽÿɳ&?>ImAU¬åç;Ê,öXPÎ1áç\¤§Ïxüq®ÿýænIµªËh®(¢/=ãé3&£»õÞøädcáѶ®I9aÎnÇGhi»¬wË1sÆVyéòéî>Û#r}Ù«Gwæøð[g4éXÈþ±ÚÉÞÐê>9¿ö´i­êå&&Y¬ÀTBF­J«¬¬lÛ¶Í_|pòä¸ÈP ÄKϯ$õ ¿ö´i­êå&&Y¬ÀTBF­J«¬¬lÛ¶Í_|pòä¸ÈP uÇÚVÑ3BºZþ÷gÇÿäÉYÅùžµÚñú'g?>IºººÔuD1©øñIê:'_ßÑÚ=~(ÇL,#¤Ëã hMhëÖæµoŽÿɳ&?>ImAU¬åç;Ê,öXPÎ1áç\¤§Ïxüq®ÿýænIµªËh®(¢/=ãé3&£»õÞøädcáѶ®I9aÎnÇGhi»¬wË1sÆVyéòéî>Û#r}Ù«Gwæøð[g4éXÈþ±ÚÉÞÐê>9 ÄKϯ$õ

 

 

 

7ChakrasandEnergyChannels.jpg

If you read that backwards at 33 and third RPM's it makes perfect sense.

All I got was S/A is dead .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALL - If I may be so bold as to request your indulgence, please, snip your quotes of JoCal's offerings. Thanks - AGITC.

 

I will do so in the future, Sir....but I've a gut feeling that hypocritical gun-owning Troll of the PNW is gonnalay low for quite a while. Even a myopic idiot eventually understands that there's just so many times you can get your ass handed to you on a continuous basis before realizing that maybe, just maybe, you should stfu and go away.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BF66253EEC794232919224A875EB3172.jpg

 

3C9D2D72AA9B4221861276B897DF0CBA.jpg

I'll bet that you have a lot better inverse correlation between homicides and GDP than homicides and gun ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The charts, graphs & pretty pictures don't explain crucial factors such as percentage of crimes reported & how reported data is handled by the respective country & how much weight it's given when interpreting these type of statistics

 

The casual argument that more guns equals less crime is no stronger than the inverse. You could reasonably argue it's actually a weaker argument

 

I don't know of anyone who is seriously arguing a causal link between more guns = less crime. What we are and have been saying for a long time is that the inverse also has no causal evidence i.e. less guns = less crime (or more guns = more crime). In areas of the world where guns are heavily regulated and even outlawed - there is both low crime (AUS) and off the scale crime (MEX). In areas of the world where guns are prevalent and widespread - there is both low crime (SUI) and high crime (Somalia).

 

Even in the US - the common and widely understood paradigm is that in areas where guns are heavily regulated and limited - crime is typically the highest (Chi, DC, LA, Baltimore, etc) yet in areas of the US where guns are easy to come by and regulations are a lot more lax - gun crime is often very low (UT, ID, WY, VT, etc).

 

The point being that it is simplistic and disingenuous to try to point out causal relationships between something like gun availability vs gun crime. The numbers are all over the map. Its an incredibly complex equation that must take into account population density, culture, demographics, drugs, economic status, etc.

 

Where jocal's and other's arguments breakdown utterly and completely is when they try to make that case (less guns = less crime) in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. All of jokey's studies don't take into account all the incredibly complex set of factors that contribute to crime rates.

 

But no one on the pro-gun side (that I'm aware of) is seriously trying to make a causal link that more guns = less crime. All we are pointing out is that there is ample evidence that more guns =/= (in many cases) more crime and that there is lots of evidence of just the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BF66253EEC794232919224A875EB3172.jpg

 

3C9D2D72AA9B4221861276B897DF0CBA.jpg

 

Ruh roh. That's going to put jojo onto a suicide watch. Someone take his gun away from him, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make some good points across international lines. However, we are discussing inside the USA.

I seem to have a point to make, if it is well-supported in general research.

I have presented six solid studies. Here are some more, and a journalist's look at it.

Duggan, More Guns, More Crime

Economist Mark Duggan: Rate Of Gun Ownership "Significantly Positively" Correlated With Incidence Of Homicide. A study by economist Mark Duggan found that "changes in homicide and gun ownership are significantly positively related," as he reported in "More Guns, More Crime" in the Journal of Political Economy in 2001. Duggan wrote:

My findings reveal that changes in homicide and gun ownership are significantly positively related. This relationship is almost entirely driven by the relationship between lagged changes in gun ownership and current changes in homicide, suggesting that the relationship is not driven simply by individuals' purchase of guns in response to increases in criminal activity.

[...]

These findings contradict the results from recent work suggesting that legislation allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons (CCW) caused a significant decline in violent crime (Lott and Mustard 1997). [Journal of Political Economy, 2001]

Pasted from <http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/17/who-is-gun-advocate-john-lott/191885>

Firearm ownership and homicide across the United States

Debate over firearm laws in the United States flares with every tragic event — Columbine High School in 1999; Virginia Tech in 2007; Tucson in 2011; Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., in 2012, to name just a few — and the issue is never far from the national consciousness. Among developed countries, the U.S. has the highest rate of gun ownership as well as one of the highest rates of homicide. Reviews of the research literature suggest that it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions, but some U.S.-based studies have drawn significant correlations between gun ownership and murder rates.

In any case, more than half of the homicides in the country in a given year are typically committed with firearms, according to FBI data. Still, over the period 2000-2012 the Pew Research Center has found a significant shift in public opinion toward favoring gun rights.

A 2002 study published in the American Journal of Public Health, “Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across U.S. Regions and States, 1988-1997,” looked at the ratio of homes owning guns and the homicide rate in the given area.

The study’s findings include:

  • In the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership, an average of 53% of households owned firearms; in the four states with the lowest rates of gun ownership, an average of 13% of households contained firearms.
  • From 1988 to 1997, the high-gun states had more than 21,000 individuals who were homicide victims, compared with 7,300 in the low-gun states.
  • People living in the high-gun states were 4.2 times more likely to die in a gun-related homicide than those in the low-gun states, and 1.6 times more likely to die in a non-gun-related homicide.
  • After controlling for rates of poverty, urbanization, unemployment, per capita alcohol consumption, and violent crimes other than homicide, the association between rates of firearm ownership and homicide remained significant.

The researchers state that the study shows that “in areas with more firearms, people of all ages were more likely to be murdered, especially with handguns.” The study does not provide information about causation, however — for example, local homicide rates could drive gun acquisition.

Tags: crime, safety, guns

By Rozanne Larsen | March 21, 2011

- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/firearm-ownership-and-homicide-rates/#sthash.q1EtTYGT.dpuf

Truthmeter: 2 out of 10, Factchecker

Do more guns lead to less crime?

2:53 pm, Dec 22, 2012 | Written by Mark Robison

in

The claim

More guns lead to less crime.

The background

When there’s a tragic shooting, it’s always a time for reflection about guns’ role in society.

Say you’re going to work and you see someone pull a gun, threatening to harm others. Do you wish you had a gun so you could shoot down the gunman (they’re almost always men)? Or do you wish the other person didn’t have a gun? Which scenario do you think would be better?

Or maybe you think it’s unrealistic to think that guns can be kept out of the hands of those intent on harm so it’s best you have one, too.

To this, Australia makes an interesting case study. After a mass shooting that killed 35 people there, coincidentally in New Town, the big hunting nation outlawed assault rifles, semiautomatic rifles and even shotguns. The government bought back 650,000 of them at a profit to the gun owners. It hasn’t had a mass shooting in the 15 years since.

America has been reluctant to embrace an effective gun ban, and many instead call for more guns as a solution to gun violence.

Last Sunday after the Newtown, Conn. school massacre, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) said, “The facts are every time guns have been allowed, concealed-carry has been allowed, the crime rate has gone down.”

A letter-to-the-editor this week by John Vettel of Carson City had a similar message: “Had the teachers in the (Sandy Hook) school (in Newtown, Conn.) been armed, far fewer people would have been harmed. Had the shooter been aware that teachers in the school were armed, he may not have attempted this crime.”

Both sides in the debate have anecdotes to support their views.

Those who think more guns would cause more carnage point out an August incident at the Empire State Building when a man shot a former co-worker. Two police officers — trained professionals, not civilians — caught up with the shooter and opened fire, hitting him as well as nine bystanders. Such cases are rare.

There also aren’t many good anecdotes for those who think more weapons would thwart crime.

In some cases that proponents cite — at Virginia, Mississippi and Pennsylvania schools — armed civilians did apprehend assailants but only after the shootings were over. In fact, of the 62 mass shootings in the past 30 years in the United States, not one was stopped by a civilian with a gun, according to a roundup by Mother Jones magazine.

Seldom mentioned are cases where gun-carrying Good Samaritans got seriously wounded and even killed when trying to intervene, as at a Tyler, Texas courthouse and a Tacoma, Wash. mall.

Perhaps the best anecdote for those supporting right-to-carry laws has a Reno connection.

It happened in 2008 at Players Bar in Winnemucca. A guy entered the crowded tavern to confront two brothers accused of shooting his brother. The guy shot and killed the brothers. A Reno man who was a U.S. Marine with a licensed concealed weapon shot and killed the guy.

Another piece of the puzzle to figure out is whether places with more guns have more or less violence.

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center reviewed the research and found that places with more guns have more violence. It found this was true literally everywhere. In homes with more guns, there are more homicides; in cities with more guns, there are more homicides; and the same is true of states and countries.

One passage: “After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”

This is called correlation, not causation. Correlation just means that when you find one thing, you tend to find the other, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that one caused the other. For instance, leaves fall from trees when the temperature drops but that doesn’t necessarily mean lower temperatures cause leaves to fall, although that could be why.

But it’s hard not to notice that the United States ranks tops in the world for per capita gun ownership while — according to a 2011 study in the Journal of Trauma, Injury Infection & Critical Care — it also has a gun homicide rate about 20 times higher than other affluent nations.

The first prominent attempt to show that the presence of guns decreases crime came in a 1998 book by Yale professor John Lott called “More Guns, Less Crime.” He argued, based on county crime data analyzed by him and David Mustard, that violent crime goes down when states approve laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons.

As happens with verifiable mathematical claims that gain widespread media attention, other researchers set out to verify whether he was right. When asked for his data, Lott said he lost it.

Maybe he did, but when the data was reconstructed from other sources, the consensus was that the data didn’t show what he said it did.

A 1998 study in The Journal of Legal Studies concluded, “Our reanalysis of Lott and Mustard’s data provides no basis for drawing confident conclusions about the impact of righttocarry laws on violent crime. … Their results cannot be used responsibly to formulate public policy.”

The National Research Council analyzed everyone’s gun-crime data in the 2004 book “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review,” available free online. It found: “With the current evidence, it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.”

In 2009, Yale’s John Donohue and Ian Ayres revisited the efforts of Lott to counter these findings.

They found that if Lott’s methods were used on crime data ranging from 1977 through 2006, then more guns increase crime.

They don’t agree with Lott’s methods, though. Using what they consider the most appropriate methods, they write: “The one consistent finding that is statistically significant … is that RTC (right-to-carry) laws increase aggravated assault.”

Verdict

A lot of ideas are being floated about policy actions that could lessen the chance of another Sandy Hook massacre — increased mental health services, armed guards at schools, restrictions on ammunition, an assault weapons ban, better background checks and databases, etc.

But when people say it’s obvious that more civilians carrying guns is the solution, the evidence is simply not there.

Truthmeter: 2 (out of 10)

Pasted from <http://blogs.rgj.com/factchecker/2012/12/22/do-more-guns-lead-to-less-crime/>

This takes us back to the only pro-gun researchers is the business, Lott and Kleck. Both have PhD's. One wrote More Guns, Less Crime.

Both focused on gun behavior inside the USA.

Kleck and Lott's formal peer review conclusion (written by Daniel Webster)

Although research by John Lott and Gary Kleck has challenged the prevailing view that

gun regulations can reduce lethal crimes, the many limitations of Lott’s and Kleck’s research

indicate that there is no reason to move from view of guns and violence backed by research in

previous decades. Until proven otherwise, the best science indicates that more guns will lead

to more deaths.

http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

Now, let's extend the formula Dr. Lott presented, oh, let's say another five years, which further suggests that More Guns Less Crime is just a catchy, dishonest bumper sticker.

The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report:

The Latest Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy

Abhay Aneja, John J. Donohue III, Alexandria Zhang

NBER Working Paper No. 18294

Issued in August 2012

NBER Program(s): LE

For over a decade, there has been a spirited academic debate over the impact on crime of laws that grant citizens the presumptive right to carry concealed handguns in public – so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws. In 2004, the National Research Council (NRC) offered a critical evaluation of the “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis using county-level crime data for the period 1977-2000. 17 of the 18 NRC panel members essentially concluded that the existing research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased crime. One member of the panel thought the NRC's panel data regressions showed that RTC laws decreased murder, but the other 17 responded by saying that “the scientific evidence does not support” that position.

We evaluate the NRC evidence, and improve and expand on the report’s county data analysis by analyzing an additional six years of county data as well as state panel data for the period 1977-2010. We also present evidence using both a more plausible version of the Lott and Mustard specification, as well as our own preferred specification (which, unlike the Lott and Mustard model presented in the NRC report, does control for rates of incarceration and police). While we have considerable sympathy with the NRC’s majority view about the difficulty of drawing conclusions from simple panel data models and re-affirm its finding that the conclusion of the dissenting panel member that RTC laws reduce murder has no statistical support. We disagree with the NRC report’s judgment on one methodological point: while the NRC report states that cluster adjustments to correct for serial correlation are not needed in these panel data regressions, our randomization tests show that without such adjustments the Type 1 error soars to 21 - 70 percent.

Our paper highlights some important questions to consider when using panel data methods to resolve questions of law and policy effectiveness. We buttress the NRC’s cautious conclusion regarding the effects of RTC laws by showing how sensitive the estimated impact of RTC laws is to different data periods, the use of state versus county data, particular specifications, and the decision to control for state trends. Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from both the state and county panel data models conducted over the entire period with and without state trends and using three different specifications is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. If one narrows the focus to the most complete data (state data over the entire 1977-2010 period) or the period from 1999-2010 (thereby removing the confounding influence of the crack cocaine epidemic) and looks at the dummy and spline models using our preferred specification, then there is always evidence within the four estimates for each of the seven crime categories that RTC laws are associated with higher rates of crime. In six of the seven crime categories, the finding that RTC laws increase crime is statistically significant at the .05 level, and for robbery, it is statistically significant at the .10 level. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and/or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel-data analysis.

Pasted from <http://www.nber.org/papers/w18294>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Joey,

 

Looks like I stumbled across this just in time for you. Make the most of it.

 

"Wouldn't you prefer to be that girl who smells and tastes a treat down there?" this incredibly irritating and offensive blog post begins.

 

Here we go again: women being told their vulvas and vaginas aren't good enough in their natural state. They have to be scrubbed and waxed and have food products shoved inside them. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

 

"How to Make Your Vagina Smell and Taste Delicious," the post is titled, because of course you have to make it that way because A) it isn't that way already, and B) you somehow owe it to the world to do that.

 

All of this pussy shaming is exhausting. It leaves women -- even women-loving women -- feeling like there's something wrong with us, that we're not worthy, that our sexuality hangs in the balance of other people's approval of our naturally lacking body parts. Argh.

 

"Wash it!" this blogger begins. "The obvious first step to having fragrant, delicious private bits would be to thoroughly wash down there at least twice a day."

 

Nope. Your vulva and vagina do not need to be scrubbed clean twice a day. It is not dirty. I repeat: Unless you just ran a marathon, sat in the sun for hours, or rolled naked in the mud, your nether regions are not inherently dirty. The vagina creates a very particular, balanced environment for itself. There's no need to mess with it.

 

Language like this adds to the vulvar and vaginal shame that so many women already feel. And, sadly, despite the presence of two vulvas and vaginas, this shaming and self-loathing can still exist in lesbian relationships. Your pussy is perfect. It looks perfect. It smells perfect. And it can cause you to feel perfectly wonderful things. Barring an infection -- yeast, bacterial or otherwise -- all it needs is some lovely, warm water run over it when you shower. Period.

 

Yes, as the blogger explains, pussies like fresh air, and they do not like to be sprayed. But, once again, neither she nor anyone else should be dictating your undergarment or laundry-detergent choices. I don't know what kind of detergent she's using, but mine has never left a Downy-fresh smell on my pussy. (Note: Don't put dryer sheets in your vagina.) And my lacy thongs are cotton or have a cotton lining. So I'm all good, thank you.

 

"Wax it! Sweat cause odors and pubic hair retains sweat. By waxing, the chance of odor caused by sweat is significantly reduced and in my opinion, a waxed vagina is visually more appealing."

 

The only thing I really want to say to this is, quite simply, "Fuck you." First of all, you can't wax a vagina. It has no hair. The vagina is the internal canal.

 

A vulva, on the other hand, can be waxed, shaved, or plucked, or it can be left in its perfectly lovely, perfectly natural, untouched state. Sometimes I wax my pussy. Sometimes I shave it. Sometimes I leave a trail. Sometimes a triangle. Sometimes nothing at all. It's my pussy, so I do whatever I want with it.

 

We have to stop telling women what to do with their pussies. It's your pussy. I recommend treating it nicely and respectfully. I recommend pleasuring her regularly. I recommend only sharing her when you want and with whom you want and how you want. But, honestly, those are only recommendations. It's your body. Your choice. And no one, especially not some random blogger, should be telling any woman how she should groom her pussy. Fuck that.

 

"Wet Wipe it! Using baby wipes after each trip to the toilet can reduce urinary tract/vaginal infections plus they are designed to be soft and gentle on the skin. So keep some baby wipes handy."

 

Once again, no need, at all. If things get a little messy on your backside, sure, use a wipe if you choose. And always wipe from front to back to keep bacteria from being transferred from you backside to your pussy. But you don't need wipes. You don't, and neither does your home's plumbing system.

 

"Eat it!"

 

Well, yes, I certainly recommend eating pussy. But, sadly, that is not what this dear blogger is recommending.

 

"Did you know that vegetarians have been proven to have better tasting secretions than meat eaters?!"

 

I'd love to see that study, if it's a blind, peer-reviewed, scientific one. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

Some argue that eating pineapple and some other sweet fruits can make your pussy taste sweeter, and that some harsher-tasting foods may have the opposite effect. But -- and my apologies if this is too graphic or personal for you -- my girl must tell me a million times a day how much she loves the taste and smell of my pussy, and I am always saying the exact same thing about hers, and we are two seriously meat-loving girls. So I'm calling bullshit on this too.

 

"Treat it! Yeast infection is one cause of foul odor. You will need to treat it before you can start tasting and smelling good down there. A cream like Vagisil, which can be bought over-the-counter at pharmacies, can eliminate odor and itchiness."

 

There's all kind of confusion going on here. Vagisil is not for yeast infections. If you are itchy and/or have a white discharge, see your doc. It may be yeast, and you may need meds. If it is foul- or fishy-smelling, you may have a bacterial infection, and you should see your doc for meds. Simple as that.

 

"Dip it! An old wives remedy for healthy vaginas is to dip a clean tampon into plain, unsweetened yoghurt and then insert it into your vagina for an hour. By fighting the unhealthy ones, the healthy bacteria in yoghurt help eliminate any fishy and unpleasant odor. Do remember to wash your vagina thoroughly after removing the tampon."

 

Holy shit. No, no, and no. Here's the thing: Yogurt is food. That means it's not made for putting in or leaving in your vagina. Even if you use a cucumber as a dildo, which is a perfectly reasonable, it's a good idea to cover it with a condom. Just because yogurt has live cultures in it does not mean you should leave it in your vagina. Some women say it has a soothing effect if you use it on your vulva, but it's highly unlikely that it will actually "cure" a yeast infection.

 

There are some medications designed for that purpose that have been tested to be safe for your vagina. But talk about setting off an imbalance. Bottom line: My sister, Dr. Block, wisely said when I told her about this, "Don't leave shit in there not designed for that purpose. Besides, how would you ever get it out?" Douching is terrible for you, and anything short of that is going to leave yogurt residue.

 

"Try these tips for potential improvements in 'down southern' hospitality =)"

 

Gross. My vagina is not a hotel, and neither is yours. And why are the words "down" and "southern" both in quotation marks?

 

This is a Singapore-based site, so perhaps there are some cultural issues and some language issues going on throughout. But regardless of culture, pussy pride should reign throughout the lands.

 

There also seem to be some plagiarism issues (or serious over-borrowing, at the very least), as some of this has been lifted almost word-for-word from a Jezebel piece published about a year earlier.

 

Here's the thing: Pussies are not supposed to taste like cupcakes and smell like roses. They are supposed to taste and smell like pussies: sweet, pungent, spicy, delicious, and maybe a little bit like iron before, during, and after your period. But unless there is an underlying health issue, there is nothing wrong with a pussy that tastes, smells, and looks like, well, a pussy.

 

The pussy shaming and self-loathing has to stop. Men perpetrate it, but women do it to themselves too, and lesbians doing it seems extra-problematic. We're supposed to be supporting each other and loving each other and pulling each other up, not dragging each other down.

 

Trust me: Your pussy is perfect. Stop worrying about it. Seriously. If you need something to worry about, how about female genital mutilation, unhygienic toilets, unclean water, a lack of period products to help girls avoid missing school once a month, unequal pay, and anti-LGBT discrimination. Your pussy is doing just fine. Pleasure, rinse, and repeat. That's all you need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You make some good points across international lines. However, we are discussing inside the USA.

I seem to have a point to make, if it is well-supported in general research.

I have presented six solid studies. Here are some more, and a journalist's look at it.

 

blah blah repetitive blah

 

jesus-facepalm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Joey,

 

Looks like I stumbled across this just in time for you. Make the most of it.

 

"Wouldn't you prefer to be that girl who smells and tastes a treat down there?" this incredibly irritating and offensive blog post begins.

 

Here we go again: women being told their vulvas and vaginas aren't good enough in their natural state. They have to be scrubbed and waxed and have food products shoved inside them. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

 

"How to Make Your Vagina Smell and Taste Delicious," the post is titled, because of course you have to make it that way because A) it isn't that way already, and B) you somehow owe it to the world to do that.

 

All of this pussy shaming is exhausting. It leaves women -- even women-loving women -- feeling like there's something wrong with us, that we're not worthy, that our sexuality hangs in the balance of other people's approval of our naturally lacking body parts. Argh.

 

"Wash it!" this blogger begins. "The obvious first step to having fragrant, delicious private bits would be to thoroughly wash down there at least twice a day."

 

Nope. Your vulva and vagina do not need to be scrubbed clean twice a day. It is not dirty. I repeat: Unless you just ran a marathon, sat in the sun for hours, or rolled naked in the mud, your nether regions are not inherently dirty. The vagina creates a very particular, balanced environment for itself. There's no need to mess with it.

 

Language like this adds to the vulvar and vaginal shame that so many women already feel. And, sadly, despite the presence of two vulvas and vaginas, this shaming and self-loathing can still exist in lesbian relationships. Your pussy is perfect. It looks perfect. It smells perfect. And it can cause you to feel perfectly wonderful things. Barring an infection -- yeast, bacterial or otherwise -- all it needs is some lovely, warm water run over it when you shower. Period.

 

Yes, as the blogger explains, pussies like fresh air, and they do not like to be sprayed. But, once again, neither she nor anyone else should be dictating your undergarment or laundry-detergent choices. I don't know what kind of detergent she's using, but mine has never left a Downy-fresh smell on my pussy. (Note: Don't put dryer sheets in your vagina.) And my lacy thongs are cotton or have a cotton lining. So I'm all good, thank you.

 

"Wax it! Sweat cause odors and pubic hair retains sweat. By waxing, the chance of odor caused by sweat is significantly reduced and in my opinion, a waxed vagina is visually more appealing."

 

The only thing I really want to say to this is, quite simply, "Fuck you." First of all, you can't wax a vagina. It has no hair. The vagina is the internal canal.

 

A vulva, on the other hand, can be waxed, shaved, or plucked, or it can be left in its perfectly lovely, perfectly natural, untouched state. Sometimes I wax my pussy. Sometimes I shave it. Sometimes I leave a trail. Sometimes a triangle. Sometimes nothing at all. It's my pussy, so I do whatever I want with it.

 

We have to stop telling women what to do with their pussies. It's your pussy. I recommend treating it nicely and respectfully. I recommend pleasuring her regularly. I recommend only sharing her when you want and with whom you want and how you want. But, honestly, those are only recommendations. It's your body. Your choice. And no one, especially not some random blogger, should be telling any woman how she should groom her pussy. Fuck that.

 

"Wet Wipe it! Using baby wipes after each trip to the toilet can reduce urinary tract/vaginal infections plus they are designed to be soft and gentle on the skin. So keep some baby wipes handy."

 

Once again, no need, at all. If things get a little messy on your backside, sure, use a wipe if you choose. And always wipe from front to back to keep bacteria from being transferred from you backside to your pussy. But you don't need wipes. You don't, and neither does your home's plumbing system.

 

"Eat it!"

 

Well, yes, I certainly recommend eating pussy. But, sadly, that is not what this dear blogger is recommending.

 

"Did you know that vegetarians have been proven to have better tasting secretions than meat eaters?!"

 

I'd love to see that study, if it's a blind, peer-reviewed, scientific one. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

Some argue that eating pineapple and some other sweet fruits can make your pussy taste sweeter, and that some harsher-tasting foods may have the opposite effect. But -- and my apologies if this is too graphic or personal for you -- my girl must tell me a million times a day how much she loves the taste and smell of my pussy, and I am always saying the exact same thing about hers, and we are two seriously meat-loving girls. So I'm calling bullshit on this too.

 

"Treat it! Yeast infection is one cause of foul odor. You will need to treat it before you can start tasting and smelling good down there. A cream like Vagisil, which can be bought over-the-counter at pharmacies, can eliminate odor and itchiness."

 

There's all kind of confusion going on here. Vagisil is not for yeast infections. If you are itchy and/or have a white discharge, see your doc. It may be yeast, and you may need meds. If it is foul- or fishy-smelling, you may have a bacterial infection, and you should see your doc for meds. Simple as that.

 

"Dip it! An old wives remedy for healthy vaginas is to dip a clean tampon into plain, unsweetened yoghurt and then insert it into your vagina for an hour. By fighting the unhealthy ones, the healthy bacteria in yoghurt help eliminate any fishy and unpleasant odor. Do remember to wash your vagina thoroughly after removing the tampon."

 

Holy shit. No, no, and no. Here's the thing: Yogurt is food. That means it's not made for putting in or leaving in your vagina. Even if you use a cucumber as a dildo, which is a perfectly reasonable, it's a good idea to cover it with a condom. Just because yogurt has live cultures in it does not mean you should leave it in your vagina. Some women say it has a soothing effect if you use it on your vulva, but it's highly unlikely that it will actually "cure" a yeast infection.

 

There are some medications designed for that purpose that have been tested to be safe for your vagina. But talk about setting off an imbalance. Bottom line: My sister, Dr. Block, wisely said when I told her about this, "Don't leave shit in there not designed for that purpose. Besides, how would you ever get it out?" Douching is terrible for you, and anything short of that is going to leave yogurt residue.

 

"Try these tips for potential improvements in 'down southern' hospitality =)"

 

Gross. My vagina is not a hotel, and neither is yours. And why are the words "down" and "southern" both in quotation marks?

 

This is a Singapore-based site, so perhaps there are some cultural issues and some language issues going on throughout. But regardless of culture, pussy pride should reign throughout the lands.

 

There also seem to be some plagiarism issues (or serious over-borrowing, at the very least), as some of this has been lifted almost word-for-word from a Jezebel piece published about a year earlier.

 

Here's the thing: Pussies are not supposed to taste like cupcakes and smell like roses. They are supposed to taste and smell like pussies: sweet, pungent, spicy, delicious, and maybe a little bit like iron before, during, and after your period. But unless there is an underlying health issue, there is nothing wrong with a pussy that tastes, smells, and looks like, well, a pussy.

 

The pussy shaming and self-loathing has to stop. Men perpetrate it, but women do it to themselves too, and lesbians doing it seems extra-problematic. We're supposed to be supporting each other and loving each other and pulling each other up, not dragging each other down.

 

Trust me: Your pussy is perfect. Stop worrying about it. Seriously. If you need something to worry about, how about female genital mutilation, unhygienic toilets, unclean water, a lack of period products to help girls avoid missing school once a month, unequal pay, and anti-LGBT discrimination. Your pussy is doing just fine. Pleasure, rinse, and repeat. That's all you need to know.

Mmmmm..... pussy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finger-likkin' good. I thought after Joke-All's little VPC duck-sicking rant, this place needed a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There is an inverse relationship between gun ownership and crime, particularly the violent type. There are lots of data on this. More guns less crime.

 

Wrong wrong wrong!

Gotcha! You are the victim of gun lobby urban myth, false propaganda spread locally by Badgeless Tom Ray.

 

 

If that were true, you would be able to post at least one example of my making that claim.

 

But it's just another lie, so you can't and won't.

 

I see that I was right and you could not support your assertion about me. No surprise.

 

You did post some quotes again, one of which I agree with:

 

17 of the 18 NRC panel members essentially concluded that the existing research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALL - If I may be so bold as to request your indulgence, please, snip your quotes of JoCal's offerings. Thanks - AGITC.

 

It's not about the messenger. Ignoring the messenger is futile, and less than bright.

IMO you owe yourself more than this, Guy. I expect more, actually.

You preach good parenting, AGIP. As a parent, you owe your children more open-mindedness than this, IMO. (270 U.S. citizens will be shot today.)

This is not unlike Tom Ray (His Badgelessness), who has openly announced that he is close-minded to anti-gun info. Mind made up and not listening.

Scary stuff.

 

My conclusions may not mesh with the choirboy outlook, but I spend a lot of time on pro-gunner comment sections, to understand and identify your points of view.

I even save the best writings on TTAG, Bullseye, the Gun Rights Examiner, to try to debate these apologists with facts.

Most are a cut above the SA Gun Club.

 

Recognizing the components of this problem, gun violence, is first base. Somehow, you Gun Club guys are not there yet. Hmmm.

You are making sure that you will not get there, in part by choosing to be ignorant of the scientifically gathered facts. I sincerely regret that I found no way to present the ugly facts while being a cool, nice guy.

Worse than your hearing problem is your blueprint: the SAF organizes the obstruction of the gathering of facts, in the name of freedom and the flag.

Ignorance abounds in your sub-culture, IMO.

 

 

And I smell a denial rat, too. How are better studies, or causal studies, going to help if you are denying ALL present study?

 

Lastly, how can all you blokes show no discretion among the many researchers involved?

Why can't you point to the more or less credible among them?

Why are they denied public funding to sort this major public health problem?

 

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -- Neil DeGrasse Tyson

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every anti-gunner should immediately call Bekins and get out of Kali. 'Cuz there's gonna be blood flowing down the streets I tell ya!......;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/08/daniel-zimmerman/california-10-day-waiting-period-ivalidated/

 

 

Well this one oughta make our little PNW troll's head blow up. Twice..... :lol:

 

The only conversation we should be having about guns is which one to buy next.

 

And how many, and how often....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BF66253EEC794232919224A875EB3172.jpg

 

3C9D2D72AA9B4221861276B897DF0CBA.jpg

 

Ruh roh. That's going to put jojo onto a suicide watch. Someone take his gun away from him, please.

 

Maybe, but someone grabbed the wrong crayon for Iraq though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The charts, graphs & pretty pictures don't explain crucial factors such as percentage of crimes reported & how reported data is handled by the respective country & how much weight it's given when interpreting these type of statistics

 

The casual argument that more guns equals less crime is no stronger than the inverse. You could reasonably argue it's actually a weaker argument

 

I don't know of anyone who is seriously arguing a causal link between more guns = less crime. What we are and have been saying for a long time is that the inverse also has no causal evidence i.e. less guns = less crime (or more guns = more crime). In areas of the world where guns are heavily regulated and even outlawed - there is both low crime (AUS) and off the scale crime (MEX). In areas of the world where guns are prevalent and widespread - there is both low crime (SUI) and high crime (Somalia).

 

Even in the US - the common and widely understood paradigm is that in areas where guns are heavily regulated and limited - crime is typically the highest (Chi, DC, LA, Baltimore, etc) yet in areas of the US where guns are easy to come by and regulations are a lot more lax - gun crime is often very low (UT, ID, WY, VT, etc).

 

The point being that it is simplistic and disingenuous to try to point out causal relationships between something like gun availability vs gun crime. The numbers are all over the map. Its an incredibly complex equation that must take into account population density, culture, demographics, drugs, economic status, etc.

 

Where jocal's and other's arguments breakdown utterly and completely is when they try to make that case (less guns = less crime) in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. All of jokey's studies don't take into account all the incredibly complex set of factors that contribute to crime rates.

 

But no one on the pro-gun side (that I'm aware of) is seriously trying to make a causal link that more guns = less crime. All we are pointing out is that there is ample evidence that more guns =/= (in many cases) more crime and that there is lots of evidence of just the opposite.

 

I agree with you about causal relationships

 

The US has a profound violence problem. For some in the US, violence is seen as a viable response to their problems. There have been many stories in the US media of late where reasonable people would likely have chosen different actions when confronted with the scenarios in the stories

 

To a casual observer, it may seem logical to limit certain 'tools' that are frequently used when dispensing violent acts & there is an argument for this but it's not overly practical for all the reasons argued in various threads already. Equally, I'm not certain that violence can be adequately addressed with the contemporary culture & mindset in the US today, there are elements of earlier societies whose people apparently thrived on a diet of violence & bloodlust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yups. And once again, I'll state unequivocally that yhe root cause(s) of violence in America are;

 

1). Graphic violence in the movies.

 

2). Graphic violence in video games.

 

3). Waaaay to much use of psychotropic drugs for our Little Johnnys.

 

4). One parent homes.

 

5). Poverty.

 

6). Gangsta thug culture that glorifies crime, mayhem and disrespect to authority figures.

 

7). And the dems & libs who continue to foster the feelings of hopelessness & uselessness to their minority voting block.

 

 

These things need fixing before an Executive Order is issued to hire the Magnet Fairy to sweep over America and confiscate 350 million firearms in the hands of our citizenry. ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The charts, graphs & pretty pictures don't explain crucial factors such as percentage of crimes reported & how reported data is handled by the respective country & how much weight it's given when interpreting these type of statistics

 

The casual argument that more guns equals less crime is no stronger than the inverse. You could reasonably argue it's actually a weaker argument

 

I don't know of anyone who is seriously arguing a causal link between more guns = less crime. What we are and have been saying for a long time is that the inverse also has no causal evidence i.e. less guns = less crime (or more guns = more crime). In areas of the world where guns are heavily regulated and even outlawed - there is both low crime (AUS) and off the scale crime (MEX). In areas of the world where guns are prevalent and widespread - there is both low crime (SUI) and high crime (Somalia).

 

Even in the US - the common and widely understood paradigm is that in areas where guns are heavily regulated and limited - crime is typically the highest (Chi, DC, LA, Baltimore, etc) yet in areas of the US where guns are easy to come by and regulations are a lot more lax - gun crime is often very low (UT, ID, WY, VT, etc).

 

The point being that it is simplistic and disingenuous to try to point out causal relationships between something like gun availability vs gun crime. The numbers are all over the map. Its an incredibly complex equation that must take into account population density, culture, demographics, drugs, economic status, etc.

 

Where jocal's and other's arguments breakdown utterly and completely is when they try to make that case (less guns = less crime) in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. All of jokey's studies don't take into account all the incredibly complex set of factors that contribute to crime rates.

 

But no one on the pro-gun side (that I'm aware of) is seriously trying to make a causal link that more guns = less crime. All we are pointing out is that there is ample evidence that more guns =/= (in many cases) more crime and that there is lots of evidence of just the opposite.

 

I agree with you about causal relationships

 

The US has a profound violence problem. For some in the US, violence is seen as a viable response to their problems. There have been many stories in the US media of late where reasonable people would likely have chosen different actions when confronted with the scenarios in the stories

 

To a casual observer, it may seem logical to limit certain 'tools' that are frequently used when dispensing violent acts & there is an argument for this but it's not overly practical for all the reasons argued in various threads already. Equally, I'm not certain that violence can be adequately addressed with the contemporary culture & mindset in the US today, there are elements of earlier societies whose people apparently thrived on a diet of violence & bloodlust

 

Maybe you should start reading at the beginning of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waste of time. Carry on fellas, have fun.

 

If you were smart you'd start investing in used hand guns that are still on the Kali DOJ roster. Trust me on this one.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yups. And once again, I'll state unequivocally that yhe root cause(s) of violence in America are;

 

1). Graphic violence in the movies.

 

2). Graphic violence in video games.

 

3). Waaaay to much use of psychotropic drugs for our Little Johnnys.

 

4). One parent homes.

 

5). Poverty.

 

6). Gangsta thug culture that glorifies crime, mayhem and disrespect to authority figures.

 

7). And the dems & libs who continue to foster the feelings of hopelessness & uselessness to their minority voting block.

 

 

These things need fixing before an Executive Order is issued to hire the Magnet Fairy to sweep over America and confiscate 350 million firearms in the hands of our citizenry. ....

 

Winner!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites