Guest

The debate over assault weapons

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, chinabald said:

I must say that is a convincing study. Not in the direction you think, However One would think that if you really thought this was the Granddaddy of all such studies you would know the lead authors name. I have a couple of concerns about this article you linked 

1. They used suicide as a proxy and extrapolated data from there. They claim to not know how many actual guns there are, but take a wild guess while blaming the NRA  and lets call that sort of a guess “scientific”

2. They acknowledge the decrease in violent crime while guns owned went up Any honest person would admit the same, but science does not connect ipso nunc, ergo facto premises. Empirical evidence relates that high gun ownership relates, scientifically,  to higher crime.  Isn’t this counter to what they are saying the report says? Nope because you know NRA  

3.  The findings prove that gun crime is higher where guns are present as apposed to where guns are not present. That falls under “no shit Sherlock”. My findings show that more Pizza is eaten in a pizza parlor then at a hot dog stand. 

4. The article admits that broader social inequalities play a bigger role then gun ownership, but that’s not what they want their study to represent so we will gloss over and move on. 

5. Lies, damn lies and Statistics. This is peer reviewed work, supported by other non-associated peer reviewed work.

Not very impressive. Your best part was a spelling correction. I remain a Seigel supporter.

Quote

 Where is the proof that increased gun ownership has resulted in more violent crimes?

Even increased RTC increases violent crime. This one is eye-popping. The Stanford crowd. 

http://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, chinabald said:

“Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time,”

this is right from your article 

 

It sure is. Continue on, this is on you. Connect this known fact to citizen heroes, and their gunplay. When pinheads make that connection they need empirical evidence to back it up.

You have Lott and Kleck to support you, and I can take them down on any of their essays...using empirical documentation, from many.

chinabald, I need punctuation police, too, have at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Not very impressive. Your best part was a spelling correction. I remain a Seigel supporter.

Even increased RTC increases violent crime. This one is eye-popping. The Stanford crowd. 

http://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

First of all the study does not show an increase. It alleges a smaller decrease. And it alleges this against a standard of a “synthetic” state designed around a potential. Meanwhile the article states

While that report debunked claims that RTC laws had been shown to reduce crime, the 16 experts on the panel were not able to definitively conclude that carrying concealed weapons had an effect – positive or negative – on violent crime.”

your own source says that they are unable to say what the study says. 16 experts in fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

(Joe) . Empirical evidence relates that high gun ownership relates, scientifically,  to higher crime. 

(jeffie )Except that it doesn't.

Oh yes it does. You gents saw the facts on PA long before the same studies were accepted by the higher courts. You said you didn't care, loudly, then discussed each one. But it was the collection of all that showed the picture.

Quote

Four sources, seven studies showing more guns = more murder.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=165829&page=3#entry4971615

 

Lott and Kleck fell by the wayside in court.They were not ready for crime time, they are no longer quoted. Even Moore vs Madigan exploited the dearth of research, and CATO would flaunt the lack of research regularly in their briefs, after preventing the research,. But we had a few decent gun studies a year, for seven years or so. They added up, especially after Sandy Hook provided motivation. Seigel was 2013, for example.

His research is passe,  bu it was most gracious of the IOM to invite Kleck into the DGU chair for Priorities for Research in 2013. Very classy, and inclusive.  The woman who invited him quit in disgust when no taxes would pay for causal-related gun violence study which you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explained primarily by an aging population and the govt somewhat giving up it’s war  on drugs.  Compared to other first world countries we don’t fair well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chinabald said:

 Meanwhile the article states

While that report debunked claims that RTC laws had been shown to reduce crime, the 16 experts on the panel were not able to definitively conclude that carrying concealed weapons had an effect – positive or negative – on violent crime.”

your own source says that they are unable to say what the study says. 16 experts in fact. 

Tom Ray once pulled this same gag on me, then had to STFU and slink away.  You are cherry picking old shit, from the top of the article, I might add.

You are talking about the NRC pow- wow in 2004. Their report was hundreds of pages long, and I went over it. But your problem lies in one participant named John Donohue. He extended the work and I'm tired of linking it. Three other Donohue reports followed, and were accepted by the same NRA/NAS body. 

Oh look, see the empirical evidence, as submitted:

2012 The first showed an 8% increase over six years in states with new RTC laws.

2014 The second extended the info another ten years,and found a 15% increase in violent crime in 14 new RTC areas. Measurable increases in rape were noted.

2017 The third Donohue study is just a working paper, but the results were again devastating, and synthetic.

Quote

And it alleges this against a standard of a “synthetic” state designed around a potential.

Poli sci and epidemiology both use similar algorithms as the Donohue work. It is standard fare for statistics, they say.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Umm no.....

DLMDDFyUIAYmDFO.jpg

 

A gag from three years ago. You have not developed it. Your bit still lacks empirical support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Tom Ray once pulled this same gag on me, then had to STFU and slink away.  You are cherry picking old shit, from the top of the article, I might add.

You are talking about the NRC pow- wow in 2004. Their report was hundreds of pages long, and I went over it. But your problem lies in one participant named John Donohue. He extended the work and I'm tired of linking it. Three other Donohue reports followed, and were accepted by the same NRA/NAS body. 

Oh look, see the empirical evidence, as submitted:

2012 The first showed an 8% increase over six years in states with new RTC laws.

2014 The second extended the info another ten years,and found a 15% increase in violent crime in 14 new RTC areas. Measurable increases in rape were noted.

2017 The third Donohue study is just a working paper, but the results were again devastating, and synthetic.

Poli sci and epidemiology both use similar algorithms as the Donohue work. It is standard fare for statistics, they say.

 

 

It’s your source article and now you are saying it’s wrong. Classic Jocal post bullshit and then argue away from it. The best you have is so wrong even you think so.

In the past 25 years we have more guns in the US and there are less violent crimes and less gun crimes per 100,000. It’s simple math.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chinabald said:

It’s your source article and now you are saying it’s wrong.

Nope. Not at all. What are you going on about?

Quote

In the past 25 years we have more guns in the US and there are less violent crimes and less gun crimes per 100,000. It’s simple math. 

You are a nonsense guy, without decent science to connect these unrelated facts. You operate on the level of NGS. I thought more highly of you than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

...

Let's conclude. WE KNOW THAT SUICIDE FIGURES RELATE DIRECTLY TO GUN OWNERSHIP. Lmfao.

So what? 

I won't argue guns with Jocal but I don't think suicide should be included in any violence stats. Eventually the US will recognise a basic right to a stress-free end of life. Meanwhile, a gun is a sure and quick fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

So what? 

I won't argue guns with Jocal but I don't think suicide should be included in any violence stats. Eventually the US will recognise a basic right to a stress-free end of life. Meanwhile, a gun is a sure and quick fix.

These are gun i jury fatalities., and the guns are an agent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

These are gun i jury fatalities., and the guns are an agent.

Yep, i get that but so what? This isnt the gun violence that most of us are concerned about. Big city guns are the prob and should be the focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Yep, i get that but so what? This isnt the gun violence that most of us are concerned about. Big city guns are the prob and should be the focus.

Speak for yourself. The medical community is quite concerned about these suicides.  So are average mothers.

What about teen suicides, ffs?  They are an increasing problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Speak for yourself. The medical community is quite concerned about these suicides.  So are average mothers.

What about teen suicides, ffs?  They are an increasing problem. 

I speak for myself and many millions of responsible weapons owners: None of those issues are really about legal, locked guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Speak for yourself. The medical community is quite concerned about these suicides.  So are average mothers.

What about teen suicides, ffs?  They are an increasing problem. 

Big Pharma (part of the medical community) wants more ODs.  First the sell the opiods and then double up with the Narcan.

Perfection in marketing.  Lots of repeat customers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Nope. Not at all. What are you going on about?

You are a nonsense guy, without decent science to connect these unrelated facts. You operate on the level of NGS. I thought more highly of you than this.

Yes or no. Are there more privately owned guns in the USA now then there was in 1993?

yes or no are there less assaults murders and other crimes with guns per 100,000 then there was in 1993? 

Its not science, it’s math. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Yes or no. Are there more privately owned guns in the USA now then there was in 1993?

yes or no are there less assaults murders and other crimes with guns per 100,000 then there was in 1993? 

Its not science, it’s math. 

Yes it is and I explained the math brilliantly in my post above #450. Once they lose testosterone gun nutters are much less likely to shoot people.  Come to think of it obesity might also be a cause.  Fat people have less testosterone.

Still, compared to first world countries our math is hideous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

What about teen suicides, ffs?  They are an increasing problem.

How about you ban everything one might use to kill oneself with, Joe? A nice padded world with no sharp edges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Big Pharma (part of the medical community) wants more ODs.  First the sell the opiods and then double up with the Narcan.

Perfection in marketing.  Lots of repeat customers.

 

Do the math. With fewer guns in homes, these opoid strawmen would try other methods of suicide, and would fail in 90% of those efforts. Each would survive the suicide attempt and would face a wall of systematic, scientific aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bpm57 said:

How about you ban everything one might use to kill oneself with, Joe? A nice padded world with no sharp edges.

Look at highway safety. I could photo a crumpled rail a few blocks away. BOTH ends are crumpled as we speak. Something nasty happened, and a cushion was sitting there because of the past, because people like @.22 Tom are gonna scream if the highway crews don't gain a clue.

Formula one vehicles and Nascar rides are rolling crumple zones set up as much as possible for worst cast scenario. Football needs rule changes, and to be played in suits like the Michelin Man.

So much force and violence. Let's be careful out there instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, chinabald said:

Yes or no. Are there more privately owned guns in the USA now then there was in 1993?

yes or no are there less assaults murders and other crimes with guns per 100,000 then there was in 1993? 

Its not science, it’s math. 

You have provided two facts which I don't dispute, but you can't say one caused the other. However my researchers find robust correlations, plural, between high gun ownership and certain violence. I'm amused, and I recall that at one point Jeffie's big weapon was a site called "spurious correlations."

I wanna review the conversation. You asked for my proof that more guns mean more crime. I provided two guys (Seigel and Donohue), one communicating double digit violent crime increases (RTC developments) to the NAS, without peer criticism.

 

This guy came out of nowhere. I've never seen his name before or after this bit.

Quote

Monuteaux 2015, Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S.

http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(15)00072-0/abstract

Introduction

Although some view the ownership of firearms as a deterrent to crime, the relationship between population-level firearm ownership rates and violent criminal perpetration is unclear. The purpose of this study is to test the association between state-level firearm ownership and violent crime.

Methods

State-level rates of household firearm ownership and annual rates of criminal acts from 2001, 2002, and 2004 were analyzed in 2014. Firearm ownership rates were taken from a national survey and crime data were taken from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports. Rates of criminal behavior were estimated as a function of household gun ownership using negative binomial regression models, controlling for several demographic factors.

 

Results

Higher levels of firearm ownership were associated with higher levels of firearm assault and firearm robbery. There was also a significant association between firearm ownership and firearm homicide, as well as overall homicide.

Conclusions

The findings do not support the hypothesis that higher population firearm ownership rates reduce firearm-associated criminal perpetration. On the contrary, evidence shows that states with higher levels of firearm ownership have an increased risk for violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm. Public health stakeholders should consider the outcomes associated with private firearm ownership.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

This guy came out of nowhere. I've never seen his name before or after this bit.

You're probably at least a bit familiar with one of his co-authors, a Mr. Hemenway.

They've updated their research, by the way.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27842178

 

Quote

 

Findings:

In the aggregate, stronger gun policies were associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociologic factors. Laws that strengthen background checks and permit-to-purchase seemed to decrease firearm homicide rates. Specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates. The evidence for laws restricting guns in public places and leniency in gun carrying was mixed.

 

The bolded part is likely to get them boiled in oil for heresy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

You're probably at least a bit familiar with one of his co-authors, a Mr. Hemenway.

They've updated their research, by the way.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27842178

New stuff to me. Fleegler contributed. I'm  guessing that you will not fare well around such info.

 

11 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

 

The bolded part is likely to get them boiled in oil for heresy.

We can let AW's speak for themselves. On the front pages. They represent ultra-violence, don't they?

If they exude model behavior, however, the public will support them warmly. 

I don't think that time will work in your favor.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

You're probably at least a bit familiar with one of his co-authors, a Mr. Hemenway.

We've had a request for evidence that more guns mean more crime.  Let's hear from Hemenway.

Quote

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, an additional study)

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.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Do the math. With fewer guns in homes, these opoid strawmen would try other methods of suicide, and would fail in 90% of those efforts. Each would survive the suicide attempt and would face a wall of systematic, scientific aid.

Do you think that these "opiod strawmen" are actually trying to kill themselves? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Do you think that these "opiod strawmen" are actually trying to kill themselves? 

Let's take the ones that are. They need help (and most would respond to help, the doctors say). A bullet in the head is not help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You have provided two facts which I don't dispute, but you can't say one caused the other. However my researchers find robust correlations, plural, between high gun ownership and certain violence. I'm amused, and I recall that at one point Jeffie's big weapon was a site called "spurious correlations."

I wanna review the conversation. You asked for my proof that more guns mean more crime. I provided two guys (Seigel and Donohue), one communicating double digit violent crime increases (RTC developments) to the NAS, without peer criticism.

 

This guy came out of nowhere. I've never seen his name before or after this bit.

 

for something you can't dispute you sure give it a try every chance you get.

We don't live in a vacuum, society isn't a lab. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

We can let AW's speak for themselves. On the front pages. They represent ultra-violence, don't they?

Well, "specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates. The evidence for laws restricting guns in public places and leniency in gun carrying was mixed."

I think "assault" weapons represent ultra violence better when trimmed in silver than pink, but banning them doesn't seem to change homicide stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, chinabald said:

for something you can't dispute you sure give it a try every chance you get.

THE FACTS

  • Gun ownership (among the few) went up.
  • Household ownership went down, for four decades in a row, from about 53% to about 32%
  • Crime went way down, for a combination of reasons, but scientists and researchers do  not include gun play in that development of safety.
Quote

We don't live in a vacuum, society isn't a lab. 

Are you a social scientist? In which discipline? Because doctors, lawyers, and Indian chiefs all seem to hate guns. Same for pediatricians and psychologists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Well, "specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates. The evidence for laws restricting guns in public places and leniency in gun carrying was mixed."

I think "assault" weapons represent ultra violence better when trimmed in silver than pink, but banning them doesn't seem to change homicide stats.

You are repeating yourself already, while drooling. And I am happy that you are so happy now.

Do you support the other conclusions of this work? Will you support its conclusion section? Do you support Hemenway's body of work (see post 402) , or just cherrypick it? How much faith do you place in Mr. Hemenway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

THE FACTS

  • Gun ownership (among the few) went up.
  • Household ownership went down, for four decades in a row, from about 53% to about 32%
  • Crime went way down, for a combination of reasons, but scientists and researchers do  not include gun play in that development of safety.

Are you a social scientist? In which discipline? Because doctors, lawyers, and Indian chiefs all seem to hate guns. Same for pediatricians and psychologists.

I'll have to bring that up to the doctors and lawyers at my gun club. I had a beverage with my wife's primary care physician there just the other day. I wonder why she hates guns, yet belongs to a gun club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chinabald said:

I'll have to bring that up to the doctors and lawyers at my gun club. I had a beverage with my wife's primary care physician there just the other day. I wonder why she hates guns, yet belongs to a gun club.

Um, I studied the conclusions of their national bodies. I got to post their shit around here, too.

  • Lawyers have been on a terror about guns for thirty years.
  • Generally, the doctors seem to be hurt, stifled... and determined.
  • Psychiatrists met with the finest gun researchers, and posted a combined, and gentle conclusion
  • Each wants, and requests,  more and better research
  • Women, the NOW, were the coolest to research. They want U.S. masculinity re-defined. No man card bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be nice, let's jump and segue to Gary Slutkin. He has global experience with bigtime epidemics, and for twenty years he has been pointing to a violence thingee in the USA. He is incredibly successful in gang territory, at will, if funded...and he has already proven that.

Daniel Webster is the monster researcher spawned by Hemenway, the Harvard research crowd. Webster says in no uncertain terms that Slutkin is the shit.

On the streets, Slutkin's  Cure Violence program goes to behavior mod. Specifically, whether a guy in our culture is gonna back down from a fight, or not.  It comes from a very inoffensive person who has managed tens of thousands of dead bodies, and six million refugees, with tb and AIDS at the same time.

The bolded. Here we have, once again, a request for a change in the masculine culture of the USA.

WE ARE GONNA GO THERE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Um, I studied the conclusions of their national bodies. I got to post their shit around here, too.

  • Lawyers have been on a terror about guns for thirty years.
  • Generally, the doctors seem to be hurt, stifled... and determined.
  • Psychiatrists met with the finest gun researchers, and posted a combined, and gentle conclusion
  • Each wants, and requests,  more and better research
  • Women, the NOW, were the coolest to research. They want U.S. masculinity re-defined. No man card bullshit.

Study away, can you cite something that proves that ALL lawyers and doctors seem to hate guns. As you earlier stated. 

I have 2 friends who are ER docs. My informal small sample size group seems to be split 50/50 on the topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

To be nice, let's jump and segue to Gary Slutkin. He has global experience with bigtime epidemics, and for twenty years he has been pointing to a violence thingee in the USA. He is incredibly successful in gang territory, at will, if funded...and he has already proven that.

Daniel Webster is the monster researcher spawned by Hemenway, the Harvard research crowd. Webster says in no uncertain terms that Slutkin is the shit.

On the streets, Slutkin's  Cure Violence program goes to behavior mod. Specifically, whether a guy in our culture is gonna back down from a fight, or not.  It comes from a very inoffensive person who has managed tens of thousands of dead bodies, and six million refugees, with tb and AIDS at the same time.

The bolded. Here we have, once again, a request for a change in the masculine culture of the USA.

WE ARE GONNA GO THERE.

This masculinity, this fight or flight, this man card bullshit as you called it. Does it have any favorable outcomes. being “manly” does it benefit society at all? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Mary Jane thread:

16 minutes ago, Happy said:

"......Ordinary people are allowed to protect themselves with guns here."  The problem is crazy people who appear ordinary, ordinary people who reach snapping point, can take their legal guns out and kill people in the street or office.

When there are so many guns in circulation, it's easy and cheap for ordinary criminals, nutcases and just about anybody to get hold of some.

I hope you understand why I had to move this post. If others talk guns in that thread, that's one thing. If I do it, that's very different. For some reason.

Anyway, I agree with you that those things are problems. We recently had another incident with a local individual who absolutely should not have any guns. He wanders his neighborhood with his AR and does weird shit, scaring the neighbors, one of whom cuts my wife's hair. The cops know him well and he knows them and knows just when to quit to avoid being locked up, at least for long. I learned about it because my wife texted me that he was out at the end of our street.

The thing about it is, that guy is a problem. My wife's assault weapon is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

From the Mary Jane thread:

I hope you understand why I had to move this post. If others talk guns in that thread, that's one thing. If I do it, that's very different. For some reason.

Anyway, I agree with you that those things are problems. We recently had another incident with a local individual who absolutely should not have any guns. He wanders his neighborhood with his AR and does weird shit, scaring the neighbors, one of whom cuts my wife's hair. The cops know him well and he knows them and knows just when to quit to avoid being locked up, at least for long. I learned about it because my wife texted me that he was out at the end of our street.

The thing about it is, that guy is a problem. My wife's assault weapon is not.

You and your wife are feeding the bears. Let's see how it sorts out in your hood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, chinabald said:

This masculinity, this fight or flight, this man card bullshit as you called it. Does it have any favorable outcomes. being “manly” does it benefit society at all? 

You went binary. You set this in terms of good vs. bad. This is like dealing with NGS again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

You went binary. You set this in terms of good vs. bad. This is like dealing with NGS again.

Your desired outcome for every gun discussion is binary. 

I noticed you didn’t answer the question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Your desired outcome for every gun discussion is binary. 

@badlatitude had a desired outcome when he bought a fancy AW. That program was a mixed bag, and it's part of a complex person. MY desired outcome, for my whole life, was to own a modest gun (or two) for purposes of fun. Some desires don't sort out in our complicated reality.

My desired outcome is not a ban, it is for folks to make non-violent choices and for us to walk a higher road, right next to the binary.

58 minutes ago, chinabald said:

I noticed you didn’t answer the question. 

The question, if I may paraphrase it, was about any benefit to the American macho posture.

 

Sir, you will all fucking hate me guts if I answer this question. Sir, I'm just as bad as you guys. A sailor suggested  last week that I had no fortitude, and I reacted in a predictably macho way. If you fuck with me further, chinabald,  I will threaten to take you skiing.

Kramer Barn, week eight.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The destruction of Joe's assault weapon appears to have been in vain

Mass Shooting In Seattle
 

Quote

 

Lakewood police say they don’t know what happened before the shooting or who the suspects are. Police say there appear to have been three shooters and about 20 shots were fired. Shots may have come from inside the club and outside the building.

Surveillance footage from a nearby business showed three shooters running from the scene.

 

So three people shot up a club, killing one person and injuring three others. That makes four, so the lesson is the same as always: DO SOMETHING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Correlation != causation.  Dumbass!

Is this your field? Robust correlations fall very close to causal factors.

 

57 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Besides, no one here is suggesting that more guns = less crime.

You are denying the opposite, which is the same thing,

On 10/21/2018 at 8:56 AM, jocal505 said:

. Empirical evidence relates that high gun ownership relates, scientifically,  to higher crime. 

Jeffie: Except that it doesn't.

Your post is unworthy content. Science denial stuff, you need to progress your propaganda someday. You were gone for a week is this the best you can do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

As much as it is yours.  

There's a difference. I studied their evidence, and I followed it to their conclusions. I also read everything I could find from Lott and Kleck. I saved their work, mate.

The evidence found a consistent pattern of conclusion over 25 years, and it showed careful, open work. The methods were examined by others, who were free to openly criticize, and were free to improve the methods or conclusions.

Their math is an open book. Where is yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

The destruction of Joe's assault weapon appears to have been in vain

Mass Shooting In Seattle
 

So three people shot up a club, killing one person and injuring three others. That makes four, so the lesson is the same as always: DO SOMETHING.

Um, the Hudson's Bay Co began dripping anchor off Lakewood in 1833. WE HAD REGULAR GLOBAL SHIPPING, WOOH HOO.

Trade guns were supplied, regularly, after 1833. And conquest arrived by 1855.

This is now an area of military housing. It is quite dangerous. I worked there and was warned about the demographic, basically soldiers, living barely off-base within city limits.. I heard random gunfire all afternoon.

Within full view of a huge and timeless volcano, we have a rash of immature human gunfire. Was the gunfire making things better, or worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2018 at 6:37 AM, jocal505 said:

The bolded. Here we have, once again, a request for a change in the masculine culture of the USA.

WE ARE GONNA GO THERE.

Tom wants to call me Josyelyn. He feels the name fits. Let's go skiing, big guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass Shooting in Chicago

This one isn't all that politically convenient, so doesn't get a thread of its own.
 

Quote

 

Five men were wounded in a single shooting Wednesday evening near the King Drive Green Line station on the South Side.

They were standing on a sidewalk shortly before 9 p.m. in the 6200 block of South King Drive when several gunmen approached on foot and fired shots, according to Chicago police. The shooters then drove away in a white car.

 

Still, that's five, so the lesson is the same as always: DO SOMETHING!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about do nothing and accept the price of freedom, more guns are clearly the answer. I mean why shouldnt a private citizen own meatgrinding military grade hardware? 

main-qimg-f88b92762f447e703763515f435a7359

lets go squirrel hunting

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, toad said:

How about do nothing and accept the price of freedom, more guns are clearly the answer. I mean why shouldnt a private citizen own meatgrinding military grade hardware? 

main-qimg-f88b92762f447e703763515f435a7359

lets go squirrel hunting

 

Oh boy, assault weapon ammo pics.

On 6/2/2018 at 4:29 PM, Mark K said:

Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...

 22_223a.jpg

 

...would be a discussion with either a moron or a victim of mental illness.

Our assault weapons fire the one on the right, which will leave more meat intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Oh boy, assault weapon ammo pics.

Our assault weapons fire the one on the right, which will leave more meat intact.

You have been howling about the Heller conditions, since they endanger the dogballs. Why do you hate Heller?  

Is this one that will become Super Heller? BREAKING. Ninth Circuit Just Made A Second Amendment Ruling That Will Leave You Shaking Your Head

BONUS QUESTION   Did Big Temporary save the day in California, or run out the clock?  :o

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2018 at 6:08 AM, jocal505 said:
On 10/22/2018 at 5:58 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Well, "specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates. The evidence for laws restricting guns in public places and leniency in gun carrying was mixed."

I think "assault" weapons represent ultra violence better when trimmed in silver than pink, but banning them doesn't seem to change homicide stats.

You are repeating yourself already, while drooling. And I am happy that you are so happy now.

Do you support the other conclusions of this work? Will you support its conclusion section? Do you support Hemenway's body of work (see post 402) , or just cherrypick it? How much faith do you place in Mr. Hemenway?

Well, I made this statement cold turkey.  Examining the brief, non-PPV part of the report (Lee Fleegler 2017), we find that Tom clipped the sentence before his little part, and the sentence after. In context, Tom's section reads more like this:

Quote

Firearm Laws and Firearm Homicides: A Systematic Review 

JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Jan 1;177(1):106-119. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7051.

FINDINGS:

In the aggregate, stronger gun policies were associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociologic factors. Laws that strengthen background checks and permit-to-purchase seemed to decrease firearm homicide rates. Specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates. The evidence for laws restricting guns in public places and leniency in gun carrying was mixed.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

  • The strength of firearm legislation in general, and laws related to strengthening background checks and permit-to-purchase in particular, is associated with decreased firearm homicide rates.
  • High-quality research is important to further evaluate the effectiveness of these laws.
  • Legislation is just 1 part of a multipronged approach that will be necessary to decrease firearm homicides in the United States.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27842178

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only certainty? Gun Nutz will use the killing of 11 Jews using the handy dandy AR15 as a reason to call for more gunZ and more Republicunts. And it will work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

The only certainty? Gun Nutz will use the killing of 11 Jews using the handy dandy AR15 as a reason to call for more gunZ and more Republicunts. And it will work.

Image may contain: 4 people, text

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Image may contain: 4 people, text

Posting Tom and Jeff's wank pics? Sneaky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You LIE! 

Name one person here who has called for moar gunz as an answer to these tragedies.  Suchacunt!

Umm, you have. Remember the “armed guards at the schools.” How about arming the folks at the churches and synagogues like El Presidente recommends? 

Voila. More gunz 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learn the code, Jeff: opposing gun bans is "calling for moar gunz."

Mass Shooting In Chicago Suburb
 

Quote

 

One woman was killed and three other people injured in a shooting Sunday outside an Elgin bar.

The incident occurred about 12:25 a.m. in a parking lot in the 500 block of South McLean Boulevard, according to a post on the Elgin Police Department’s Facebook page.

...

Police said the suspect was known to the victims but would not say if anyone is in custody.

 

Just like every mass shooting, the lesson here is that we must DO SOMETHING. If you question any aspect of SOMETHING, you're calling for moar gunz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know what the mindset for moar gunz sounds like, it is a hum in the air on PA.

But we need moar race-baiting, every morning. Let it rip mates. <_<  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass shooting in California
 

Quote

 

Investigators believe the shooting may have started following an altercation inside the club. Several people were apparently involved in the fight and subsequent exchange of gunfire, Officer Ryan Railsback said.

Arriving officers found two victims suffering from gunshot wounds, a Police Department news release stated.

Five more victims of the shooting later arrived at area hospitals on their own to receive medical treatment, police stated.

None of the injures were described as life-threatening, Railsback said.


 

Not convenient enough to merit its own thread, but just like every mass shooting, the lesson here is that we must DO SOMETHING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need another AW ban, because things got much worse after the '94 ban expired. This is what 2014 looked like.

Number of Mass Shootings on the Rise, Most at Schools

 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/number-mass-shootings-rise-most-schools-fbi-report-n211261

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I think we need another AW ban, because things got much worse after the '94 ban expired. This is what 2014 looked like.

Number of Mass Shootings on the Rise, Most at Schools

 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/number-mass-shootings-rise-most-schools-fbi-report-n211261

 

Quote

Though it's hard to say why the number of shootings has increased, officials say they believe many shooters are inspired by past killings and the resulting notoriety.

Look up notoriety, Joe. You've got to do your part and mention at least a couple of mass murderers every day or we'll run out of politically convenient victims to exploit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Look up notoriety, Joe. You've got to do your part and mention at least a couple of mass murderers every day or we'll run out of politically convenient victims to exploit!

You want to hide the negative gun activity, but infamy calls out to the lonely and the confused. The behavior is human nature, and it isn't working in your favor.

We need another AW ban, based on what is happening before our eyes.

Oswald for Boothy.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Look up notoriety, Joe. You've got to do your part and mention at least a couple of mass murderers every day or we'll run out of politically convenient victims to exploit!

We will never run out of politically convenient 15-year-old victims.

qJw76eW.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha Ha, the NRA must be smarting over this one.

BREAKING: FedEx cuts ties with the NRA

Source: Think Progress

The move comes eight months after ThinkProgress reported its support of the gun lobby. 

KIRA LERNER 
OCT 30, 2018, 3:23 PM 


FedEx said on Tuesday that it will stop providing discounts to members of the National Rifle Association, eight months after ThinkProgress reported the that the shipping company was helping the gun lobby entice members. 

The decision comes three days after a gunman entered a Pittsburgh synagogue and shot and killed 11 people and wounded several others. 

FedEx did not change its policies for the NRA after the Parkland shooting in February. After that shooting, more than two dozen companies that previous offered discounts to NRA members cut ties with the organization. The decisions were sparked by public outrage and social media campaigns after 17 students were shot and killed in Florida. 

Both Delta and United Airlines said they’d no longer be offering discounts to members traveling to the NRA’s annual meeting. Various car rental companies, insurers, and financial companies said they’d no longer participate in programs with the gun lobby.

Read more: https://thinkprogress.org/fedex-cuts-tied-with-the-nra-3ef590dc8192/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, badlatitude said:

We will never run out of politically convenient 15-year-old victims.

qJw76eW.jpg

Alarmingly, NPR reported that some school shootings that have been reported appear to have actually happened. A minority of them, but some.

Gotta punish people who own squirrel shooters and don't vote with the TEAM!

DiFiScreenshotTruth.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your innocent squirrel shooter is as dangerous and in some views, indispensable in a prepper wet dream. We all know that's why you want to hold on to it, and why you play a victim. It ain't working Tom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Your innocent squirrel shooter is as dangerous and in some views, indispensable in a prepper wet dream. We all know that's why you want to hold on to it, and why you play a victim. It ain't working Tom. 

Should your customer have the right to own the SCAR assault weapon you sold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Should your customer have the right to own the SCAR assault weapon you sold?

I would bet he could buy it back for a dollar, whenever he wants...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Greever said:

I would bet he could buy it back for a dollar, whenever he wants...

Imaginary guns are nice that way, but don't spoil my fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Should your customer have the right to own the SCAR assault weapon you sold?

If the people of Oregon ban them tomorrow it still won't be my problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dogballs Tom said:

Imaginary guns are nice that way, but don't spoil my fun.

:rolleyes: my bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

If the people of Oregon ban them tomorrow it still won't be my problem.

I just read in another thread that you tried to buy it back? 

Why?

And you supposedly sold it for $500. ? A Scar with world class glass, and all of the bells and whistles? 

Something does not add up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Your innocent squirrel shooter is as dangerous and in some views, indispensable in a prepper wet dream. We all know that's why you want to hold on to it, and why you play a victim. It ain't working Tom. 

If I actually had any "prepper" nightmares I might buy an ammosexual overcompensator like you did.

It's about the only reason I can think of to buy one, other than that compensation thing.

Which is why I haven't.

Some of us still do see a difference between these two rounds.

On 6/2/2018 at 4:29 PM, Mark K said:

Not really. Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...

 22_223a.jpg

 

...would be a discussion with either a moron or a victim of mental illness. Perhaps someone who has been horribly brain-washed, I dare not guess.  I think it best to leave such in the hands of professionals.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Greever said:

I just read in another thread that you tried to buy it back? 

Why?

And you supposedly sold it for $500. ? A Scar with world class glass, and all of the bells and whistles? 

Something does not add up...

 

I sold it for $100. I had about $13,000 in it, more or less. When I decided I didn't have any use for it, I contacted the state of Oregon, and they did not have destruction facilities. The local police department would not guarantee that it would not be used or sold. After selling it, I gave the $100 to a homeless man I encountered on the way out.

We value things differently

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

The local police department would not guarantee that it would not be used or sold.

Most gun dealers issue that kind of guarantee when they buy guns.

It's also binding on their heirs. It's safe forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

If I actually had any "prepper" nightmares I might buy an ammosexual overcompensator like you did.

It's about the only reason I can think of to buy one, other than that compensation thing.

Which is why I haven't.

Some of us still do see a difference between these two rounds.

 

Shoot someone with that little tiny dogballs round and they will meet their maker at exactly the same time as someone shot with that larger round. Who are you kidding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dogballs Tom said:

Most gun dealers issue that kind of guarantee when they buy guns.

It's also binding on their heirs. It's safe forever.

Let's call it the one that got away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:
13 hours ago, badlatitude said:

We will never run out of politically convenient 15-year-old victims.

qJw76eW.jpg

Alarmingly, NPR reported that some school shootings that have been reported appear to have actually happened. A minority of them, but some.

Gotta punish people who own squirrel shooters and don't vote with the TEAM!

 

What a dick.

I  the summer of '75 I befriended a five-man gangsta group in Detroit. Oldest kid was 19. One on dialysis. On a hot summer day, in a work environment, I find three with scars in their upper bodies from multiple bullet wounds .

Don't be a dick while we discuss the bullet wounds in these kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2018 at 1:46 PM, jocal505 said:

Big city guns are the prob and should be the focus.

@Blue Crab  The Chicago-type dog whistle ^^^^. Your concern is noted. Time for you to weigh in, unless you are a poser. 

Big city gunz have been successfully controlled in thirteen different sites by the work of Cure Violence. You must be very excited.

Quote

Highlights

  • 30% reduction in shootings (comparing the 24 months before the implementation of CeaseFire to the 24 months after implementation)
  • In the five hotspot areas, CeaseFire was associated with a statistically significant reduction in both total shootings (victims of all ages) and shootings of individuals between the ages of 10 and 35.
  • Although in some models comparison groups also showed reductions in shootings, these reductions were either not statistically significant or not as large as those in the CeaseFire target areas.

http://cureviolence.org/understand-violence/changing-behavior/

 

What they do is use ex-gangstas with lousy criminal records to convince others to be cool, to avoid "confrontations".     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Jo fucks up yet another quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mad said:

And Jo fucks up yet another quote.

Ride the straw man, buddy, see if it gets you to town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except for simple varmint weapons, guns are for cowards  

As are F-35's, bazookas, Abrams tanks, and etc. 

We now regularly hear gunfire at night (mostly) in our small city, and just walking around had become sort of nervous making. 

You don't hear that, and you don't get that feeling in Canadian or European cities with few or no guns. (Or New Zealand, Oz, Japan, etc.) 

      So who is more free ?  Not us, for sure. 

Veterans For Peace 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poser? Ive got a sawed off shotgun at the ready. I'm maybe 1200 miles from Chicago but I'm ready for gangsta punkasses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Except for simple varmint weapons, guns are for cowards  

As are F-35's, bazookas, Abrams tanks, and etc. 

We now regularly hear gunfire at night (mostly) in our small city, and just walking around had become sort of nervous making. 

You don't hear that, and you don't get that feeling in Canadian or European cities with few or no guns. (Or New Zealand, Oz, Japan, etc.) 

      So who is more free ?  Not us, for sure. 

Veterans For Peace 

We hear gunfire during hunting season. I have run hunters off my family's land but otherwise not a big problem...... just part of local culture.

OTOH there are occasional shootings in the city, there are drugs here. It's still not scary enough to justify packing. I don't want to shoot anybody, anyway, and I seriously thought it was likely I'd have to then I would be more likely to move away.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

OTOH there are occasional shootings in the city, there are drugs here. It's still not scary enough to justify packing. I don't want to shoot anybody, anyway, and I seriously thought it was likely I'd have to then I would be more likely to move away.

-DSK

The question is, which is more free, societies with gunz out the wazoo, or those without?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites