Jump to content

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


Happy Jack

Recommended Posts

Jocal, Clarke is not from Arizona, you still can't back up what you said about me, and you're still just a liar.

 

Still just a liar? I hope not. So allow me to correct another detail which I stated incorrectly.

Evidently Tom has never made statements along the lines of "More guns produce less crime". His position is that lots of guns neither increase, nor decrease crime.

I got this detail wrong: sorry for the mistake, Mr. Ray.

If I have misquoted anyone else, feel free to point it out. But please, folks (with or without any distracting name-calling), simply state your actual position to help me keep it straight.

It was unintentional. Again, sorry, Tom.

***************************

 

Posted 25 August 2014 - 03:28 AM

Tom Ray, on 24 Aug 2014 - 02:14, said:

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:

Quote

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

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159770#entry4660096>

 

Edit. The various studies you refer to, supporting the fact that more gun damage occurs in localities of more CCP and gun possession, apply to countries, states, and U.S. homes. I found eleven studies from a broad variety of sources. Your reply is classic cherry-picking, and followed a "liar" ad hominem.

 

It is pertinent, IMO, that will you not discuss this body of research.

I'm not through.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 253
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have pointed out that in America, rural areas which have the highest rates of firearm ownership have the lowest crime rates and that the highest rates of violent crime in the US are in places where guns are already outlawed, places like Chicago and D.C. being the most striking examples. I also pointed out that "ownership of firearms among white Americans is among the highest in the world, and the homicide rate among the same population is below Belgium. If you look at the black population of America, the legal ownership of guns is the lowest but their homicide rate is 57x that of their white counterparts, and Hispanics are 23x that of their white counterparts." It is very clear that guns are not the problem.

 

 

Hi jocal - do me a huge favor if you don't mind. Please respond to the bolded part and explain to me IN YOUR OWN WORDS (not another cunt n paste) why those numbers are the way the are, if in fact guns are the problem.

I'm going with poverty as the prime factor as Mike posted in #84 above, combined with all the other trappings poverty tends to bring. If those numbers are correct (57 & 23 times) does that also correlate with incarceration rates?

But that is not the question I asked joe. I didn't ask him about root causes. I asked him to explain the data. He has consistently and steadfastly maintained that the MERE proliferation of guns is what causes the high crime and murder rates. And that if only people didn't have guns available - then our society would be all hunkey dorey. I'm simply asking him to square that view with those stats above that seem to contradict that notion. I'm not holding my breath.....

The problem of gun and CCP supply is well-supported by eleven studies posted on this thread. Studies from a variety of sources. I'm going to streamline them, with links, and re-submit them on the "9 Year Old Shoots Uzi Instructor" thread. See you there.

 

Jeff, you won't listen to Bloomberg or Brady, and I more or less understand that.

It's quite a reach to trash the CDC's professional input, but I'll squint my eyes and even go along with that. Sometimes.

For my part, any contributions of the CATO institute, and flaws in the works of Lott and Kleck, make their presentations unacceptable to me (but for specific reasons I can articulate and source).

OTOH I hold a deep reverence for the Joyce Foundation and VPC for facing off intelligently against the gun lobby. Yes, YMMV. Etc.

 

But this is not to say all research is "junk science": that bit defines dumbassery. Are you participating in that school of thought?

Your problem here is that I can find, and have presented, multiple researchers who fit into neither polarized category.

.

Feel free to cherry-pick away, but you'll find I refuse to be drawn into the weeds with you, Jeffie. Been there. It wastes my time.

You may find that I stay, as much as possible, with presenting (and hopefully gaining from) the main body of credible research.

 

I think you are dead meat here. My instinct is telling me there is a good reason that the gun lobby tries to block research, and even the sharing of acquired gun violence data.

If studies made gunslingers look good, the NRA would be presenting credible studies. Where are they, Jeff?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jocal, Clarke is not from Arizona, you still can't back up what you said about me, and you're still just a liar.

 

Still just a liar? I hope not. So allow me to correct another detail which I stated incorrectly.

Evidently Tom has never made statements along the lines of "More guns produce less crime". His position is that lots of guns neither increase, nor decrease crime.

I got this detail wrong: sorry for the mistake, Mr. Ray.

If I have misquoted anyone else, feel free to point it out. But please, folks (with or without any distracting name-calling), simply state your actual position to help me keep it straight.

It was unintentional. Again, sorry, Tom.

***************************

>

Posted 25 August 2014 - 03:28 AM

Tom Ray, on 24 Aug 2014 - 02:14, said:

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:

Quote

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

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159770#entry4660096>

 

Edit. The various studies you refer to, supporting the fact that more gun damage occurs in localities of more CCP and gun possession, apply to countries, states, and U.S. homes. I found eleven studies from a broad variety of sources. Your reply is classic cherry-picking, and followed a "liar" ad hominem.

 

It is pertinent, IMO, that will you not discuss this body of research.

I'm not through.

 

 

Thanks for the retraction. Let's talk about Maryland and Idaho next.

 

brady-vs-census.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I have pointed out that in America, rural areas which have the highest rates of firearm ownership have the lowest crime rates and that the highest rates of violent crime in the US are in places where guns are already outlawed, places like Chicago and D.C. being the most striking examples. I also pointed out that "ownership of firearms among white Americans is among the highest in the world, and the homicide rate among the same population is below Belgium. If you look at the black population of America, the legal ownership of guns is the lowest but their homicide rate is 57x that of their white counterparts, and Hispanics are 23x that of their white counterparts." It is very clear that guns are not the problem.

 

 

 

Hi jocal - do me a huge favor if you don't mind. Please respond to the bolded part and explain to me IN YOUR OWN WORDS (not another cunt n paste) why those numbers are the way the are, if in fact guns are the problem.

 

Hi Jeff, I have no feeling or knowledge whatsoever for what is happening in Belgium, but have a first-hand experience for what has happened in the inner cities of the U.S.

So I have no observations worth typing.

 

Anomalies occur, and you and Tom often point out several similar observations within our states. They are interesting. Even by cherry-picking, however it is pretty difficult to make the case that guns are bringing peace to the USA.

 

And far less evidence for the contrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You still didn't explain the 57x (blacks) and 23x (Hispanics) numbers. Try again.

 

 

It doesn't seem here that you addressed the careful points to I made to you. See Post 102, and try again yourself.

You need to limit the fools errands you typically assign me, big guy.

 

That said, I look forward to discussing the black folks' situation. It's a subject dear to me, and I have a lifetime of friendships with darkly complected associates to guide me.

 

First, address my reply to you, then let's see your actual 57X cite or a link, and hey you might add your overview and your take on those numbers.

I'm not going to scuba dive in a toilet to find it.

I'm not even sure the point you are making...but I don't live on this forum.

Instead, I look for better info on both sides of the issue elsewhere (and it shows).

 

Later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You still didn't explain the 57x (blacks) and 23x (Hispanics) numbers. Try again.

 

 

It doesn't seem here that you addressed the careful points to I made to you. See Post 102, and try again yourself.

You need to limit the fools errands you typically assign me, big guy.

 

That said, I look forward to discussing the black folks' situation. It's a subject dear to me, and I have a lifetime of friendships with darkly complected associates to guide me.

 

First, address my reply to you, then let's see your actual 57X cite or a link, and hey you might add your overview and your take on those numbers.

I'm not going to scuba dive in a toilet to find it.

I'm not even sure the point you are making...but I don't live on this forum.

Instead, I look for better info on both sides of the issue elsewhere (and it shows).

 

Later.

 

 

You'd rather drown us in bullshit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And far less evidence for the contrary.

 

HJ: you are claiming there is far less evidence that guns are bringing violence to the USA?

 

Au contraire. I entered eleven studies in your thread, from a wide range of sources, which contradict you.

Did you look? Did you absorb the studies' conclusions, even if in disagreement?

Don't say they aren't on page 1, mate.

 

I may need to repeat myself. Stay tuned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I have pointed out that in America, rural areas which have the highest rates of firearm ownership have the lowest crime rates and that the highest rates of violent crime in the US are in places where guns are already outlawed, places like Chicago and D.C. being the most striking examples. I also pointed out that "ownership of firearms among white Americans is among the highest in the world, and the homicide rate among the same population is below Belgium. If you look at the black population of America, the legal ownership of guns is the lowest but their homicide rate is 57x that of their white counterparts, and Hispanics are 23x that of their white counterparts." It is very clear that guns are not the problem.

 

 

 

Hi jocal - do me a huge favor if you don't mind. Please respond to the bolded part and explain to me IN YOUR OWN WORDS (not another cunt n paste) why those numbers are the way the are, if in fact guns are the problem.

 

Hi Jeff, I have no feeling or knowledge whatsoever for what is happening in Belgium, but have a first-hand experience for what has happened in the inner cities of the U.S.

So I have no observations worth typing.

 

Anomalies occur, and you and Tom often point out several similar observations within our states. They are interesting. Even by cherry-picking, however it is pretty difficult to make the case that guns are bringing peace to the USA.

 

And far less evidence for the contrary.

 

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates Applied Economics Letters Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the retraction. Let's talk about Maryland and Idaho next.

 

You gave me a headache, but I enjoyed looking into this. The mind-numbing is such that I would like you to expand your thoughts--I tripled the info to your Idaho vs. Maryland comparison ideas.

 

I see, note, and accept the point you are making. What may be your unstated conclusions are noted below.

You may be questioning Brady's standards of evaluation as well, I'm not sure.

However, this is no checkmate. I wouldn't expect one side or the other to claim absolute consistency across 50 states.

 

If you see anything further here, toss it into the mix.

I respectfully request that I choose the next topic of discussion, and actual focus too, but please continue with this one.

 

The aspirin should be on you. Did you ever find your badge, Tom?

 

Maryland

7th best on Brady list

9th of 10 for census highest violent crime

4th of 10 for census highest murder rate

Tied for 7th lowest in gun ownership

Concl: few guns, but high rates of violent crime and murder

Below:

Source: Center for American Progress report

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Fatal Injury Data,” available at

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html

  1. Firearm deaths #21 of 50 states, Maryland 6,328 , 11.32/100,000 (10.33 national average) 10%higher than NA
  2. Homicides #5 of 50 Maryland 306, 5.3/100,000 (3.59 national average) 47% higher
  3. Suicides # 43 of 50 Maryland 222 suicides, 3.85/100,000 (6.28 national average) 61% of NA
  4. Femicide # 23 of 50 Maryland 342 1.18 national average 1.21 per 100,000 women
  5. Age 17 or under firearm deaths #13 Maryland 343 2.5/100k National average: 1.95 per 100,000 children 28% higher than NA
  1. Law enforcement deaths by firearm 28 Maryland 8 0.14/100K National average: 0.02 per 100,000 people
  1. Aggravated assaults by firearm #22 Maryland 2,382 41.18/100K National average: 51.13 per 100,000 people 80% of NA
  2. Crime-gun export rate, #33 Maryland 681 11./199K National average: 14.1 per 100,000 79% of NA
  3. Percentage of crime guns with a short “time-to-crime,” 2009 37 Maryland 18.0% National average: 22.6% 80% of NA
  4. Overall state rankings of gun-violence outcomes #28 Maryland 25.9

Idaho

Second worst on Brady list

9th of 10 for lowest violent crime

Tied for 5th for lowest murder rate

In a three-way tie for 6th highest gun ownership

Concl: relatively low crime and murder factors, but high rate of gun ownership

Center for American Progress report

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html

  1. Firearm deaths#19 of 50 Idaho 1,810 12.51/100,000 (10.33 national average) 21% higher than NA
  1. Firearms homicides, 2010 #44 of 50, Idaho 12 homicides, 0.77/thousand (3.59 national average) 21% of NA
  1. Suicides # 4 of 50 Idaho 182 suicides, 11.61/1000,000 (6.28 national average) 84% higher than NA
  1. Femicide #33 of 50 Idaho 54women killed 0.75/100,000 National average: 1.21 per 100,000 women 61% of NA
  2. Age 17 or under firearm deaths #15 Idaho 93 2.32/100K National average: 1.95 per 100,000 children 19% higher than NA
  1. Law enforcement deaths by firearm #43 Idaho 1 0.07/100K National average: 0.02 per 100,000 people
  1. Aggravated assaults by firearm #34 Idaho 350 23.43/100K National average: 51.13 per 100,000 people about half the national average
  2. Crime-gun export rate, 2009 #18 Idaho 298 19.3 National average: 14.1 per 100,000 37% higher than NA
  3. Percentage of crime guns with a short “time-to-crime,” 2009 #29 Idaho 19.8% National average: 22.6% 88% of NA
  4. Overall state rankings of gun-violence outcomes #26 Idaho 25.6

Fig. 3 p37 Chart, once again, shows Maryland's gun laws as significantly stricter, without significantly better gun violence correlation, than Idaho.

Back to the thread topic: Fig. 2 p 35 (which will not copy or download at my pay grade) makes strong support that the 10 states with strongest and weakest guns laws, across 9 out of 10 key measures of gun violence, uniformly fit the idea that the average gun violence rates of states with weak gun laws are above the national average, while those states with strong guns laws fall below.

Overall, the strongest vs weakest state gun law results are summed up as "weak laws, bad outcomes."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I have pointed out that in America, rural areas which have the highest rates of firearm ownership have the lowest crime rates and that the highest rates of violent crime in the US are in places where guns are already outlawed, places like Chicago and D.C. being the most striking examples. I also pointed out that "ownership of firearms among white Americans is among the highest in the world, and the homicide rate among the same population is below Belgium. If you look at the black population of America, the legal ownership of guns is the lowest but their homicide rate is 57x that of their white counterparts, and Hispanics are 23x that of their white counterparts." It is very clear that guns are not the problem.

 

 

 

Hi jocal - do me a huge favor if you don't mind. Please respond to the bolded part and explain to me IN YOUR OWN WORDS (not another cunt n paste) why those numbers are the way the are, if in fact guns are the problem.

 

Hi Jeff, I have no feeling or knowledge whatsoever for what is happening in Belgium, but have a first-hand experience for what has happened in the inner cities of the U.S.

So I have no observations worth typing.

 

Anomalies occur, and you and Tom often point out several similar observations within our states. They are interesting. Even by cherry-picking, however it is pretty difficult to make the case that guns are bringing peace to the USA.

 

And far less evidence for the contrary.

 

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates Applied Economics Letters Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).

 

NGS, this link won't work, directly or by transfer.

(The fact that they dare to mention Lott and Mustard is not a good sign, either, but you know that.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And far less evidence for the contrary.

 

HJ: you are claiming there is far less evidence that guns are bringing violence to the USA?

 

Au contraire. I entered eleven studies in your thread, from a wide range of sources, which contradict you.

Did you look? Did you absorb the studies' conclusions, even if in disagreement?

Don't say they aren't on page 1, mate.

 

I may need to repeat myself. Stay tuned.

 

Repeating a falsehood does not change that it is a falsehood.

 

All violent crime in the US has fallen in the last two decades and is near a low point right now. There may be any number of causes. So unless you can show there were more guns in America twenty years ago I don't care how many so called studies you present. More guns have not been accompanied by more crime or more violence. Q.E.D.

 

Moreover I showed convincing evidence collected by the United Nations that european countries with far more restrictive gun laws and far fewer guns actually have much higher violent crime rates than the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And far less evidence for the contrary.

 

HJ: you are claiming there is far less evidence that guns are bringing violence to the USA?

 

Au contraire. I entered eleven studies in your thread, from a wide range of sources, which contradict you.

Did you look? Did you absorb the studies' conclusions, even if in disagreement?

Don't say they aren't on page 1, mate.

 

I may need to repeat myself. Stay tuned.

 

Repeating a falsehood does not change that it is a falsehood.

 

All violent crime in the US has fallen in the last two decades and is near a low point right now. There may be any number of causes. So unless you can show there were more guns in America twenty years ago I don't care how many so called studies you present. More guns have not been accompanied by more crime or more violence. Q.E.D.

 

Moreover I showed convincing evidence collected by the United Nations that european countries with far more restrictive gun laws and far fewer guns actually have much higher violent crime rates than the US.

 

You are dealing with a rabid, fanatical ideologue, HJ. Don't waste your digital ink.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NGS, the text itself went through on a search.

 

This is the study prominently featured on Google Search which is proclaimed to "demolish" every gun safety concept ever proposed.

The author is Marc Gius, and he has left a trail of interesting writing.

If you want to read it (the Gius report "demolishing" all gun control concepts), you’ve got to pay, but even the abstract gives away the game. Gun control advocates will be the first to tell you that weak state laws can render strong local laws useless, and nonexistent federal laws do the same to decent state laws. Banning guns at the local or state level is a lot like trying to ban water from the middle of a bathtub. The National Firearms Act demonstrates how effective strong federal laws can be at eliminating crimes with certain classes of weapon.

 

Gius is also the author of several other studies, including “The Effects of Interracial Marriage on Individual-Level Earnings,” in which he concludes that “persons in interracial marriages earn as much or more than persons in white marriages. The only interracial marriages that do worse than white marriages are those marriages that include an African-American male.”

 

One clue that Gius might not be such a straight shooter, ideologically speaking, is evident in his “The Impact of Ultrasound Laws on the Demand for Abortions by Young Women,” which naturally concludes that forced ultrasound laws “reduce the odds of a woman having an abortion quite substantially.”

In his conclusion, though, Gius slips up a little further [emphasis mine]:

The primary motivation for the present study was to determine if the anecdotal evidence on ultrasound laws was true: did giving women the opportunity to view their unborn fetus reduce the probability that they would have an abortion? Most pro-life groups believe that is the case. Most pro-choice groups also believe it to be true, although they believe that these laws are unconstitutional. Results of the present study suggest, however, that both groups are correct; ultrasound requirement laws reduce the odds of a woman having an abortion quite substantially.

All women, of course, already share the opportunity for voluntary ultrasound views. Nothing new here, except a proposed breach of constitutional principles by Mr. Marc Gius.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Maybe I can't prove guns lower crime but I can prove they did not increase it as was predicted.

Aha. Yes, that works. Freely available guns have apparently not made the general crime rate skyrocket ...

 

... but then neither has freely available cannabis either, and that was the prediction from some other folks.

The claim that gun crime would skyrocket was made by opponents to Florida CC and SYG laws.

 

That claim has been proven false by facts.

 

Your feeble attempt to force proof of a negative is noted.

You're confused, I didn't try to "force prove a negative". I agreed with Jack.

 

Reading Is Fundamental, Saorsa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you are talking about colorado then you might want to read some of the Criminal Justice data now coming out.

 

11juikk.png

Jack ... quick question before we get into a new subthread ... do you agree with this Kevin Sabet article, have you done your own research on it, or are you just posting this as sort of a devil's advocacy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you are talking about colorado then you might want to read some of the Criminal Justice data now coming out.

 

11juikk.png

Jack ... quick question before we get into a new subthread ... do you agree with this Kevin Sabet article, have you done your own research on it, or are you just posting this as sort of a devil's advocacy?

 

I've done some research. It is far too early into this to draw concrete conclusions. I will say this however. It is Naive to the point of stupidity to think drug gangs, and drug kingpins are going to abandon crime and get real jobs just because we legalize every vice in the book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

If you are talking about colorado then you might want to read some of the Criminal Justice data now coming out.

 

11juikk.png

Jack ... quick question before we get into a new subthread ... do you agree with this Kevin Sabet article, have you done your own research on it, or are you just posting this as sort of a devil's advocacy?

I've done some research. It is far too early into this to draw concrete conclusions. I will say this however. It is Naive to the point of stupidity to think drug gangs, and drug kingpins are going to abandon crime and get real jobs just because we legalize every vice in the book.

Do you agree with the article you posted up there? Or are you neutral on it? I don't want to debate it if you aren't attached to Kevin "Carrie Nation" Sabet's position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

If you are talking about colorado then you might want to read some of the Criminal Justice data now coming out.

 

11juikk.png

Jack ... quick question before we get into a new subthread ... do you agree with this Kevin Sabet article, have you done your own research on it, or are you just posting this as sort of a devil's advocacy?

I've done some research. It is far too early into this to draw concrete conclusions. I will say this however. It is Naive to the point of stupidity to think drug gangs, and drug kingpins are going to abandon crime and get real jobs just because we legalize every vice in the book.

Do you agree with the article you posted up there? Or are you neutral on it? I don't want to debate it if you aren't attached to Kevin "Carrie Nation" Sabet's position.

 

I don't want to debate it with you. It will take time to see if the effect on Colorado was good or bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why do you all bother? It's not like anyone has changed their mind on this over the years of bickering with the same, tired arguments.

I sense a subtle shift in this argument. The gun in every nightstand crowd seems a bit less strident these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

why do you all bother? It's not like anyone has changed their mind on this over the years of bickering with the same, tired arguments.

I sense a subtle shift in this argument. The gun in every nightstand crowd seems a bit less strident these days.

 

Or perhaps the "gun in every melter" crowd is getting MORE strident......

Link to post
Share on other sites

why do you all bother? It's not like anyone has changed their mind on this over the years of bickering with the same, tired arguments.

 

Why? I can tolerate misinformation. But disinformation inevitably pisses me off enough to point it out.

 

 

why do you all bother? It's not like anyone has changed their mind on this over the years of bickering with the same, tired arguments.

I sense a subtle shift in this argument. The gun in every nightstand crowd seems a bit less strident these days.

 

Wait, is he asking about guns or legal herb?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't want to debate it with you. It will take time to see if the effect on Colorado was good or bad.

 

Wait. That's not the point. Either you stand by the article you posted here or you don't.

 

What do you mean stand by?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't want to debate it with you. It will take time to see if the effect on Colorado was good or bad.

 

Wait. That's not the point. Either you stand by the article you posted here or you don't.

 

What do you mean stand by?

 

Suddenly you're Doris Day? You know what it means to stand by something that you post. Either you support his contention or you don't.

 

 

 

 

Let's not drag this out. Maybe try this, rather than giving your blind trust to some political pundit who seems to make a good living on the 2014 version of Reefer Madness ...

 

Look at the UCR report he references, here: http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/statistics/2014/UCR_Citywide_Reported%20_Offenses_2014.pdf

 

And if you like, the NRIBS here: http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/statistics/2014/Citywide_Reported_Offenses_2014.pdf

 

Look at the comparison between trivial crimes like simple assault and serious crimes like aggravated assault, murder and rape.

 

Now consider that Colorado was already one of the fastest growing states in the country before the legalization, at nearly five percent growth rate, and after legalization it seems to be even higher. (Hint, it's like the Wild West here, boomtown). Before legalization the state-wide population was about 5 million, now we've gained about 300,000 people as far as I can tell most of those are on the Front Range. The rental market here is insane. Use that basic estimate with the UCR data to calculate the crime rate, and see how full of baloney is this guy for the violent classes of crime, remembering that the increased taxes from recreation weed sales are gradually are now also allowing increased enforcement, and suddenly legal weed sales has funded new enforcement of illegal weed sales.

 

Yeah, I guess we'll see years from now and if that's your argument, but why lend your own credence to guys like that? Your opinion that we need to wait a while is valid. This Sabet's opinion is not valid, in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I don't want to debate it with you. It will take time to see if the effect on Colorado was good or bad.

 

Wait. That's not the point. Either you stand by the article you posted here or you don't.

 

What do you mean stand by?

 

Suddenly you're Doris Day? You know what it means to stand by something that you post. Either you support his contention or you don't.

 

 

 

 

Let's not drag this out. Maybe try this, rather than giving your blind trust to some political pundit who seems to make a good living on the 2014 version of Reefer Madness ...

 

Look at the UCR report he references, here: http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/statistics/2014/UCR_Citywide_Reported%20_Offenses_2014.pdf

 

And if you like, the NRIBS here: http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/statistics/2014/Citywide_Reported_Offenses_2014.pdf

 

Look at the comparison between trivial crimes like simple assault and serious crimes like aggravated assault, murder and rape.

 

Now consider that Colorado was already one of the fastest growing states in the country before the legalization, at nearly five percent growth rate, and after legalization it seems to be even higher. (Hint, it's like the Wild West here, boomtown). Before legalization the state-wide population was about 5 million, now we've gained about 300,000 people as far as I can tell most of those are on the Front Range. The rental market here is insane. Use that basic estimate with the UCR data to calculate the crime rate, and see how full of baloney is this guy for the violent classes of crime, remembering that the increased taxes from recreation weed sales are gradually are now also allowing increased enforcement, and suddenly legal weed sales has funded new enforcement of illegal weed sales.

 

Yeah, I guess we'll see years from now and if that's your argument, but why lend your own credence to guys like that? Your opinion that we need to wait a while is valid. This Sabet's opinion is not valid, in my opinion.

 

I think you made his point for him. What I took from the article is that you can manipulate the data to prove either point.

 

None of us here have the resources to validate scientific papers or articles we quote from. If you read the opening post, I said the first data i came up with just did not sound right so I dug deeper and found a flaw. Unlike most I actual try to verify the data I post. That does not mean I stand by it in the sense I certify it to be true. None of us can do that. When we post we are saying in effect this is what this source is saying.

 

I do not mindlessly believe everything I post or that anyone else posts. They are all data points and from them I form my own opinion. Many of my posts and other's are superseded by later information. If the standard is post nothing that has not been proven and do not speculate until everything is perfectly known then the forum would not have much content.

 

So remember this, when I quote something, I am not certifying it. I never post anything I know to factually wrong. I do not stand with or fall because of the quotes I post. They stand or fall on their own. I use due diligence when posting to research and verify to the best of my ability that the source and data are reasonable.

 

But back to the article in question I have highlighted the data points that show rising crime. As you can see the data is a mixed bag and the agenda driven on all sides can can cherry pick this data to support their positions.

 

259vno8.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have. But you're too fuking stupid to believe them.

 

Btw, turn in your revolver this morning? 'Cuz if so then maybe more than two members here will actually start reading your shit and taking you seriously. ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

why do you all bother? It's not like anyone has changed their mind on this over the years of bickering with the same, tired arguments.

I sense a subtle shift in this argument. The gun in every nightstand crowd seems a bit less strident these days.

 

I agree. Positions I am taking, and the same facts I am posting, were shouted down and met a cacophony of white noise in 2012.

Things change. Sometimes.

 

I count five others who are now posting thoughtful input to examine this situation.

In 2012, I just had Bull Gator, and a well-informed New Zealander who devastated these boards on his own thread for three months.

He was a real handful, then he was gone.

 

I miss him and BG, and don't mind saying it.

 

pairofilksjpg.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But, why hasn't Florida erupted into the OK Corral with shootouts and sketchy self defense killings going through the roof?

 

What happened to the predictions of runaway violence that was supposed to accompany these laws.

 

Why? Maybe because the whole country is about the safest it's been in the early 1980s.http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

 

The reasons are complicated, and some experts say they can't explain it. But gun arsenals in 40% of our houses may not explain it.

 

Because the pattern "transcends cities and US regions, we can safely say crime is down," says James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston. "We are indeed a safer nation than 20 years ago."

 

He and others give four main reasons for the decline:

--Increased incarceration, including longer sentences, that keeps more criminals off the streets.

--Improved law enforcement strategies, including advances in computer analysis and innovative technology.

--The waning of the crack cocaine epidemic that soared from 1984 to 1990, which made cocaine cheaply available in cities across the US.

--The graying of America characterized by the fastest-growing segment of the US population – baby boomers – passing the age of 50.

http://www.csmonitor.com/...

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have. But you're too fuking stupid to believe them.

 

Btw, turn in your revolver this morning? 'Cuz if so then maybe more than two members here will actually start reading your shit and taking you seriously. ....

 

Meh.

 

Mr. Booze, if you know the difference between a revolver and a rifle, you need to stop saying I have a revolver.

We have sorted this several times. If you sustain such a non-factual statement it evolves from a random, mistaken detail to a sustained lie, no?

BTW my parents taught me not to say the word "liar," (especially when it was true).

Feel free to find a post where I have stated I have owned any revolver this side of 1963, when my .38 went away, and hey, try not to be so boring.

backtoschoolsale_zpsf52700d9.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

why do you all bother? It's not like anyone has changed their mind on this over the years of bickering with the same, tired arguments.

 

IMO you have helped this mix, buster. Why did you bother?

Flash, this thing is going to evolve one way, or the other, over time.

 

 

We have a right to not live in a violent society. We have the right to say we don't live in one, despite the broken-record media that is telling us we do.

We have the right to say people who think we need to go through life ready to shoot one another are imbalanced.

We have the right to say we don't need guns and don't want them.

Short of some gun-driven reversal of civilization itself (LOL), I am confident in a positive result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

why do you all bother? It's not like anyone has changed their mind on this over the years of bickering with the same, tired arguments.

IMO you have helped this mix, buster. Why did you bother?

Flash, this thing is going to evolve one way, or the other, over time.

 

We have a right to not live in a violent society. We have the right to say we don't live in one, despite the broken-record media that is telling us we do.

We have the right to say people who think we need to go through life ready to shoot one another are imbalanced.

We have the right to say we don't need guns and don't want them.

Short of some gun-driven reversal of civilization itself (LOL), I am confident in a positive result.

 

So your wife really does send Christmas cards to the guy who raped her?....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

why do you all bother? It's not like anyone has changed their mind on this over the years of bickering with the same, tired arguments.

 

IMO you have helped this mix, buster. Why did you bother?

Flash, this thing is going to evolve one way, or the other, over time.

 

 

We have a right to not live in a violent society. We have the right to say we don't live in one, despite the broken-record media that is telling us we do.

We have the right to say people who think we need to go through life ready to shoot one another are imbalanced.

We have the right to say we don't need guns and don't want them.

Short of some gun-driven reversal of civilization itself (LOL), I am confident in a positive result.

 

You do not have the right to violate other people's civil rights. Period.

We have the 2A in part to protect us from people like you.

 

Leave other people alone.

Keep your hands to yourself.

Go away. Molon labe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you turn in your 'gun' today?......

 

No, and I want to answer your question from a few weeks ago about why I kept it.

And I'm going to be my usual candid self, and accept the consequences. Much thought has gone into this.

 

Number one is a romantic attraction to guns.

I was born a serious gun nut, and some things don't change. I'm sure you can understand that.

 

 

In spite of my personal attraction to guns, once I matured to an adult and my cognitive mind kicked in, I saw lots of gun damage fr4om American males.

JFK's death was painful (I was 12), you may not have been there. MLK, for me, even more so. I was 17 and had followed his work closely. Then RFK's shooting seemed to broadcast a bloody future to most who were living at the time.

 

Fast forward. That bloody future has become the present, Boothy.

 

I was too busy passionately racing sailboats (somewhat successfully for a jogger) to react to Ruby Ridge, Waco, or the Oklahoma City messes. But each was a BIG red flag for me. I put it on the shelf.

 

About that time, a work buddy, a gun enthusiast whom I liked and trusted, took me aside for no reason and explained that in the gun culture, they were very big on the idea that a gun was neither good nor bad on its own, that good-or-bad depended solely on the motivation of the shooter. I accepted it without debate, but had a bad, bad, very bad feeling about the extensions such logic. Why? Because that philosophy overlooked lousy human decisions (made by good people), anger, alcohol, male power issues, road rage, and depression.

 

I was still pretty neutral, and even hopeful about the future of guns within society, when the valuable opportunity came along to converse with the SA Gun Club (sorry for the vocabulary, random). I became appalled at the intransigence and absolute lack of social responsibility in place. I found a vacuous, infantile cultural blueprint which was very dark, even foreboding. Actually, your (Boothy's) own loud, public dismissal of 17,000 suicides per year was simply revolting, and was a dealbreaker. (Sorry.)

 

Guns don't kill people, eh? I'm not so sure. The ideas below, and the thrust of this study from Notre Dame, speak as well as any words I could choose.

And I hope you'll give it some thought, Rick.

 

I like my gun, but the idea of shooting it has been queered by gun extremists. I don't wish for guns to be outlawed. I wish for them to be unneeded and unwanted and unused.

 

See you around.

 

 

Do perceptions change when packing a gun?

Study: Carrying a gun can make you more paranoid March, 2012

That’s what researchers at University of Notre Dame have concluded after conducting a study to determine whether the simple act of wielding a gun alters the way people see the world. Previous studies have already suggested that visual perception can be highly subjective, depending on your attributes. For instance, it’s been shown that people with broader shoulders tend to perceive doorways to be narrower, and softball players with higher batting averages perceive the ball to be bigger. However, can just picking up a gun suddenly make the world appear more violent?

To find out, the researchers subjected volunteers to a series of five experiments in which they were shown multiple images of people on a computer screen and determined whether the person was holding a gun or a neutral object such as a soda can or cell phone. Subjects did this while holding either a toy gun or a neutral object such as a foam ball.

The researchers varied the situation in each experiment — such as having the people in the images sometimes wear ski masks, changing the race of the person in the image or changing the reaction subjects were to have when they judged the person in the image to hold a gun. Regardless of the situation, the study showed that responding with a gun created a bias in which observers reported a gun being present more often than they did responding with a ball. Thus, by virtue of affording the subject the opportunity to use a gun, he or she was more likely to classify objects in a scene as a gun and, as a result, to engage in threat-induced behavior, such as raising a firearm to shoot.

“Beliefs, expectations and emotions can all influence an observer’s ability to detect and to categorize objects as guns,” said James Brockmole, a professor of Psychology and a co-author of the study . “Now we know that a person’s ability to act in certain ways can bias their recognition of objects as well, and in dramatic ways. It seems that people have a hard time separating their thoughts about what they perceive and their thoughts about how they can or should act.”

The researchers showed that the ability to act is a key factor in the effects by showing that while simply letting observers see a nearby gun didn't influence their behavior, holding and using the gun did.

“One reason we supposed that wielding a firearm might influence object categorization stems from previous research in this area, which argues that people perceive the spatial properties of their surrounding environment in terms of their ability to perform an intended action,” Brockmole said.

The study is detailed in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

Learn about high-tech weapons:

The latest military tech:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

why do you all bother? It's not like anyone has changed their mind on this over the years of bickering with the same, tired arguments.

 

IMO you have helped this mix, buster. Why did you bother?

Flash, this thing is going to evolve one way, or the other, over time.

 

 

We have a right to not live in a violent society. We have the right to say we don't live in one, despite the broken-record media that is telling us we do.

We have the right to say people who think we need to go through life ready to shoot one another are imbalanced.

We have the right to say we don't need guns and don't want them.

Short of some gun-driven reversal of civilization itself (LOL), I am confident in a positive result.

 

You do not have the right to violate other people's civil rights. Period.

We have the 2A in part to protect us from people like you.

 

Leave other people alone.

Keep your hands to yourself.

Go away. Just how does that fit in with my freedom of assembly? Molon labe.

It's not that simple. A rabid minority of dangerous gunowners have no right to inflict their sick weapons fetish on a peaceful society.

Guns are tearing up our society, in several ways.

 

It happens that some pretty impressive gun control was in place in colonial times, NGS. You are twisting both history, and the second amendment.

 

Your "molon labe", I fear, is a sad and transparent refrain...IMO it's for losers with guns. YMMV.

 

Gun Control in the Days of the Founding Fathers

[…]Colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the “right to keep and bear arms,” whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home.

Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City, the three largest cities in America during that period, all restricted the firing of guns within city limits to at least some degree.http://www.census.go...s0027/tab02.txt

Boston in 1746 had a law prohibiting the “discharge” of “any Gun or Pistol charged with Shot or Ball in the Town” on penalty of 40 shillings, a law that was later revived in 1778.

Philadelphia prohibited, on penalty of 5 shillings (or two days in jail if the fine were not paid), firing a gun or setting off fireworks in Philadelphia without a “governor’s special license.”

And New York City banned, on penalty of a 20-shilling fine, the firing of guns (even in houses) for the three days surrounding New Year’s Day.

Rhode Island Session Laws (prohibiting, on penalty of 5 shillings for a first offense and more for subsequent offenses, the firing of “any Gun or Pistol … in the Streets of any of the Towns of this Government, or in any Tavern of the same, after dark, on any Night whatsoever”).

Furthermore, several towns and cities (including Philadelphia, New York, and Boston) regulated, for fire-safety reasons, the storage of gunpowder, a necessary component of an operational firearm. See Cornell & DeDino, A Well Regulated Right, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 487, 510–512 (2004). Boston’s law in particular impacted the use of firearms in the home very much as the District’s law does today.

Boston’s gunpowder law imposed a $10 fine upon “any Person” who “shall take into any Dwelling-House, Stable, Barn, Out-house, Ware-house, Store, Shop, or other Building, within the Town of Boston, any … Fire-Arm, loaded with, or having Gun-Powder.”

Even assuming, as the majority does, see ante, at 59–60, that this law included an implicit self-defense exception, it would nevertheless have prevented a homeowner from keeping in his home a gun that he could immediately pick up and use against an intruder. Rather, the homeowner would have had to get the gunpowder and load it into the gun, an operation that would have taken a fair amount of time to perform.

Moreover, the law would, as a practical matter, have prohibited the carrying of loaded firearms anywhere in the city, unless the carrier had no plans to enter any building or was willing to unload or discard his weapons before going inside. And Massachusetts residents must have believed this kind of law compatible with the provision in the Massachusetts Constitution that granted “the people … a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence”—a provision that the majority says was interpreted as “secur[ing] an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes.”

The New York City law, which required that gunpowder in the home be stored in certain sorts of containers, and laws in certain Pennsylvania towns, which required that gunpowder be stored on the highest story of the home, could well have presented similar obstacles to in-home use of firearms.

Although it is unclear whether these laws, like the Boston law, would have prohibited the storage of gunpowder inside a firearm, they would at the very least have made it difficult to reload the gun to fire a second shot unless the homeowner happened to be in the portion of the house where the extra gunpowder was required to be kept.

And Pennsylvania, like Massachusetts, had at the time one of the self-defense-guaranteeing state constitutional provisions on which the majority relies. See ante, at 28 (citing Pa. Declaration of Rights, Art. XIII (1776), in 5 Thorpe 3083).

The majority criticizes my citation of these colonial laws. See ante, at 59–62. But, as much as it tries, it cannot ignore their existence. I suppose it is possible that, as the majority suggests, see ante, at 59–61, they all in practice contained self-defense exceptions. But none of them expressly provided one, and the majority’s assumption that such exceptions existed relies largely on the preambles to these acts—an interpretive methodology that it elsewhere roundly derides.

Breyer, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER

Link to post
Share on other sites

So your wife really does send Christmas cards to the guy who raped her?....

 

 

Okay, be like that. And consider this as a hello from my lovely wife.

 

somisunderstoodsniff_zps5d7cc19d.jpg

 

IearnedBoothyabuckortwo_zps121a594f.jpg

 

 

Sheeplookingforgunbroker.jpg

 

Boothystutuinaction_zps16e23cb9.png

 

 

 

EMHubrisMachine_zps8598ec6e.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I don't want to debate it with you. It will take time to see if the effect on Colorado was good or bad.

 

Wait. That's not the point. Either you stand by the article you posted here or you don't.

 

What do you mean stand by?

 

Suddenly you're Doris Day? You know what it means to stand by something that you post. Either you support his contention or you don't.

 

 

 

 

Let's not drag this out. Maybe try this, rather than giving your blind trust to some political pundit who seems to make a good living on the 2014 version of Reefer Madness ...

 

Look at the UCR report he references, here: http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/statistics/2014/UCR_Citywide_Reported%20_Offenses_2014.pdf

 

And if you like, the NRIBS here: http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/statistics/2014/Citywide_Reported_Offenses_2014.pdf

 

Look at the comparison between trivial crimes like simple assault and serious crimes like aggravated assault, murder and rape.

 

Now consider that Colorado was already one of the fastest growing states in the country before the legalization, at nearly five percent growth rate, and after legalization it seems to be even higher. (Hint, it's like the Wild West here, boomtown). Before legalization the state-wide population was about 5 million, now we've gained about 300,000 people as far as I can tell most of those are on the Front Range. The rental market here is insane. Use that basic estimate with the UCR data to calculate the crime rate, and see how full of baloney is this guy for the violent classes of crime, remembering that the increased taxes from recreation weed sales are gradually are now also allowing increased enforcement, and suddenly legal weed sales has funded new enforcement of illegal weed sales.

 

Yeah, I guess we'll see years from now and if that's your argument, but why lend your own credence to guys like that? Your opinion that we need to wait a while is valid. This Sabet's opinion is not valid, in my opinion.

 

I think you made his point for him. What I took from the article is that you can manipulate the data to prove either point.

 

None of us here have the resources to validate scientific papers or articles we quote from. If you read the opening post, I said the first data i came up with just did not sound right so I dug deeper and found a flaw. Unlike most I actual try to verify the data I post. That does not mean I stand by it in the sense I certify it to be true. None of us can do that. When we post we are saying in effect this is what this source is saying.

 

I do not mindlessly believe everything I post or that anyone else posts. They are all data points and from them I form my own opinion. Many of my posts and other's are superseded by later information. If the standard is post nothing that has not been proven and do not speculate until everything is perfectly known then the forum would not have much content.

 

So remember this, when I quote something, I am not certifying it. I never post anything I know to factually wrong. I do not stand with or fall because of the quotes I post. They stand or fall on their own. I use due diligence when posting to research and verify to the best of my ability that the source and data are reasonable.

 

But back to the article in question I have highlighted the data points that show rising crime. As you can see the data is a mixed bag and the agenda driven on all sides can can cherry pick this data to support their positions.

 

259vno8.jpg

 

It's just not a useful data set.

 

Policing is a human activity. This is just a one-year data set and it's like trying to see which direction is the honeybee's hive based on a five minute snapshot of the bee flirting around some flowers. With much reduced need to spend resources on cannabis, the cops are now free (really required) to spend resources on public intoxication, cocaine, meth. And of course the arrests from this year's 4/20 celebrations went way up, There was a shooting at last year's 4/20 stuff, and this year the cops were arresting like mad.

 

His point was not that statistic lie, but rather that legal cannabis is a very corrosive, damaging thing in our country. If he wants to make that point, that's his business, but when his opinions are examined in the sunlight they may not necessarily agree with his hypothesis. Or they might. It seems that you and I are open to either possibility, but he is deeply invested in the idea of reefer madness, that's his livelihood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicks-with-guns-620x551.jpg

 

 

Your gun slapfight aside, when did it become the in thing to take photos of holding bare-ass babies? They shit and piss like friggen racehorses. I'll bet that a solid 1/4 of these photos leave those stylish moms with a shirtfull of piss and crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We have a right to not live in a violent society.

 

That't the first rational thing you've said in months. Unfortunately, you're pointing your fingers and directing your energy at the wrong problem. The "SA gun" club is not the problem.

 

edit - wow, I hadn't scrolled through the rest of the thread yet when I posted the above. Disregard the "rational" part..... whenever jocal resorts to his photoshop fuckery - we know the train is about to come off the rails in a violent and spectacular yet predictable fashion. I'll pop some corn after I get done racing later today and watch the ensuing fireball.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We have a right to not live in a violent society.

 

That't the first rational thing you've said in months. ...

 

I thought it was the least rational. How would such a right be enforced? And against whom? Has such a society ever existed? The most basic questions about his hypothetical non-violent society and some kind of rights associated with that fantasy society are, well, fantasy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikewof:

"It's just not a useful data set.

 

Policing is a human activity. This is just a one-year data set and it's like trying to see which direction is the honeybee's hive based on a five minute snapshot of the bee flirting around some flowers..."

 

Maybe apply such logic when looking at a few decades of temperature and climate while extrapolating over eons of time then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

We have a right to not live in a violent society.

 

That't the first rational thing you've said in months. ...

 

I thought it was the least rational. How would such a right be enforced? And against whom? Has such a society ever existed? The most basic questions about his hypothetical non-violent society and some kind of rights associated with that fantasy society are, well, fantasy.

 

We have laws, police, a justice system, a standing Army and a 2A for that reason. Because we have the right to be free of violence against our persons and property. We have the right to be left the hell alone.

 

There is a reason it was called a peace maker.

 

1956prime2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Chicks-with-guns-620x551.jpg

 

 

Your gun slapfight aside, when did it become the in thing to take photos of holding bare-ass babies? They shit and piss like friggen racehorses. I'll bet that a solid 1/4 of these photos leave those stylish moms with a shirtfull of piss and crap.

 

Life is messy. Why we have diapers and soap and firearms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikewof:

"It's just not a useful data set.

 

Policing is a human activity. This is just a one-year data set and it's like trying to see which direction is the honeybee's hive based on a five minute snapshot of the bee flirting around some flowers..."

 

Maybe apply such logic when looking at a few decades of temperature and climate while extrapolating over eons of time then?

What, specifically, is my opinion about global warming theories that you think your post above applies?

 

I suspect you've confused me with someone else again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Mikewof:

"It's just not a useful data set.

 

Policing is a human activity. This is just a one-year data set and it's like trying to see which direction is the honeybee's hive based on a five minute snapshot of the bee flirting around some flowers..."

 

Maybe apply such logic when looking at a few decades of temperature and climate while extrapolating over eons of time then?

What, specifically, is my opinion about global warming theories that you think your post above applies?

 

I suspect you've confused me with someone else again.

It was not directed at your specific stance, but as a general comment on drawing conclusions from data, and seeing what one wants to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Mikewof:

"It's just not a useful data set.

 

Policing is a human activity. This is just a one-year data set and it's like trying to see which direction is the honeybee's hive based on a five minute snapshot of the bee flirting around some flowers..."

 

Maybe apply such logic when looking at a few decades of temperature and climate while extrapolating over eons of time then?

What, specifically, is my opinion about global warming theories that you think your post above applies?

 

I suspect you've confused me with someone else again.

It was not directed at your specific stance, but as a general comment on drawing conclusions from data, and seeing what one wants to see.

Okay. I assume your comment applies to both sides of the GW debate then, or are you a one-sider with that comment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mikewof:

"It's just not a useful data set.

 

Policing is a human activity. This is just a one-year data set and it's like trying to see which direction is the honeybee's hive based on a five minute snapshot of the bee flirting around some flowers..."

 

Maybe apply such logic when looking at a few decades of temperature and climate while extrapolating over eons of time then?

What, specifically, is my opinion about global warming theories that you think your post above applies?

 

I suspect you've confused me with someone else again.

It was not directed at your specific stance, but as a general comment on drawing conclusions from data, and seeing what one wants to see.
Okay. I assume your comment applies to both sides of the GW debate then, or are you a one-sider with that comment?

There is no side to the comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just not a useful data set. (it was your data set mike)

 

Policing is a human activity. This is just a one-year data set and it's like trying to see which direction is the honeybee's hive based on a five minute snapshot of the bee flirting around some flowers. With much reduced need to spend resources on cannabis, the cops are now free (really required) to spend resources on public intoxication, cocaine, meth. And of course the arrests from this year's 4/20 celebrations went way up, There was a shooting at last year's 4/20 stuff, and this year the cops were arresting like mad.

 

His point was not that statistic lie, but rather that legal cannabis is a very corrosive, damaging thing in our country. If he wants to make that point, that's his business, but when his opinions are examined in the sunlight they may not necessarily agree with his hypothesis. Or they might. It seems that you and I are open to either possibility, but he is deeply invested in the idea of reefer madness, that's his livelihood.

 

Personally I think drugs and alcohol do more harm than good and isn't that the same argument you use against guns? Prohibition taught us that some cures are worse than the disease and that may be the case with cannabis. As I said; time will tell if Colorado made the right choice.

 

Just out of curiosity when do you think the push to legalise hashish and then cocaine, crack, ecstasy, amphetamines etc will begin.

 

Vancouver gives heroin addicts free heroin. Should this be the model for all drugs? Good or bad for the country?

 

35hpgl0.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

It's just not a useful data set. (it was your data set mike)

 

Policing is a human activity. This is just a one-year data set and it's like trying to see which direction is the honeybee's hive based on a five minute snapshot of the bee flirting around some flowers. With much reduced need to spend resources on cannabis, the cops are now free (really required) to spend resources on public intoxication, cocaine, meth. And of course the arrests from this year's 4/20 celebrations went way up, There was a shooting at last year's 4/20 stuff, and this year the cops were arresting like mad.

 

His point was not that statistic lie, but rather that legal cannabis is a very corrosive, damaging thing in our country. If he wants to make that point, that's his business, but when his opinions are examined in the sunlight they may not necessarily agree with his hypothesis. Or they might. It seems that you and I are open to either possibility, but he is deeply invested in the idea of reefer madness, that's his livelihood.

Personally I think drugs and alcohol do more harm than good and isn't that the same argument you use against guns? Prohibition taught us that some cures are worse than the disease and that may be the case with cannabis. As I said; time will tell if Colorado made the right choice.

 

Just out of curiosity when do you think the push to legalise hashish and then cocaine, crack, ecstasy, amphetamines etc will begin.

 

Vancouver gives heroin addicts free heroin. Should this be the model for all drugs? Good or bad for the country?

 

35hpgl0.jpg

No Jack, it was YOUR data set, you referenced the reefer madness guy who used THAT data set!

 

You wrote that I have an argument "against guns" ... are you confusing me with someone else?

 

As for drugs and alcohol, regardless what you write about being more harmful than good, I'll rarely support laws that dictate what well informed adults can do with their lives as long as they don't endanger others or children. So to your question government heroin ... maybe, IF the societal cost of keeping junkies well controlled is lower then the societal cost of letting junkies run loose and cause problems for everyone. We already do that with psychopaths and government Haloperidol, so government heroin/morphine seems not such a stretch.

 

Will cocaine be legalized? It already is a legal, medically beneficial drug. Will is ever go OTC? I doubt it, unlike hemp, it doesn't have the community and benefits of going OTC. Meth? Probably never, too few benefits. Hash? Maybe, unlikely, the cost/tax benefits of cannabis will drown it out.

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.

 

1873.jpg

 

Great choice. Same for the Peacemaker pic posted elsewhere. Each is a real beauty.

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.

 

1873.jpg

Great choice. Same for the Peacemaker pic posted elsewhere. Each is a real beauty.

You msy look. Just no touchy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Colt's Peacemaker and Winchester's Model '94 are favorite firearms for me, but I don't get this bit (above).

 

If you are a "responsible" gun owner, certain conversations about guns in society need to be very much in play today (2014 A.D.).

Manly men with guns, if they are grounded in a sustainable position, can afford to discuss this subject intelligently.

 

The second amendment gambit is itself VERY emotion-based. So when you guys flick straight to that it shows a lack of content (it seems be used to mask a lack of social awareness).

If you insist on dragging in the 2nd A angle, since sensible gun control was implemented in Colonial times, we might start the discussion with that.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159858&page=3>

Secondly, the founding fathers did not intend the second amendment to devastate our society. They were plenty wise enough to respond to such a problem, NGS.

 

If the second amendment has viable, healthy results outside the rabid gun community, please present them.

If the results (100,000 gunshot victims per year, say) are extremely negative, you may be just the sort of person to effectively adjust the tragic problems generated by pro-gun enthusiasts.

 

A lack of conversation in this situation shows a weak position, and a lack of courage IMO.

 

TomRayshotinthefoot_zpsc35528ef.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, why would you classify this as a 'firearm tragedy'? That's like saying it was a knife tragedy, or a pill tragedy, or a rope tragedy.

 

Really, just knock it the fuk off......

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

... sensible gun control was implemented in Colonial times, we might start the discussion with that.

 

Gun control in the US originated to prevent blacks from owning firearms. When the democrat party launched the KKK, a principle objective was to enforce this prohibition even though post-reconstruction this fundamental civil liberty applied to all free men.

 

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/mags/dark-secret-of-jim-crow.html

 

Gun control has never been about controlling guns. It's always been about controlling people which is why it is a liberal cause celeb. And this is also why we will NEVER surrender our gun rights to you or anyone of your ilk. The second amendment is primary.

 

via Townhall.com

 

 

  • In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

  • In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

  • Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

 

  • China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

 

  • Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

  • Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

  • Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

  • Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, why would you classify this as a 'firearm tragedy'? That's like saying it was a knife tragedy, or a pill tragedy, or a rope tragedy.

Really, just knock it the fuk off......

It obviously upsets you if certain phrases are used & you always take the bait

 

Use whichever phrase you find pleasing....it still doesn't diminish the fact people the world over find solutions to their problems with firearms. More so in the US

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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

 

... sensible gun control was implemented in Colonial times, we might start the discussion with that.

Gun control in the US originated to prevent blacks from owning firearms. When the democrat party launched the KKK, a principle objective was to enforce this prohibition even though post-reconstruction this fundamental civil liberty applied to all free men.

 

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/mags/dark-secret-of-jim-crow.html

 

Gun control has never been about controlling guns. It's always been about controlling people which is why it is a liberal cause celeb. And this is also why we will NEVER surrender our gun rights to you or anyone of your ilk. The second amendment is primary.

 

via Townhall.com

 

 

  • In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

  • In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

  • Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

  • China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

  • Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

  • Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

  • Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

  • Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million.

Are you saying the US isn't practicing genocide because you're able to defend yourself due to the 2a?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get back to us when there's less carbon monoxide & bridge tragedies......

Suspect I'll need to consume more drugs for that post to make sense. Are you disputing that some people see firearms as a solution to their problems?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'm not. Its just that I really don't give a shit how people dispose of themselves. None of my business, not my concern......

 

Gotcha. No drugs required

 

As an aside, do you think that the violence problem the US suffers with is exacerbated because most people have the attitude "none of my business, not my concern"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No I'm not. Its just that I really don't give a shit how people dispose of themselves. None of my business, not my concern......

 

Gotcha. No drugs required

 

As an aside, do you think that the violence problem the US suffers with is exacerbated because most people have the attitude "none of my business, not my concern"?

Violence problem compared to where?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No I'm not. Its just that I really don't give a shit how people dispose of themselves. None of my business, not my concern......

 

Gotcha. No drugs required

 

As an aside, do you think that the violence problem the US suffers with is exacerbated because most people have the attitude "none of my business, not my concern"?

Violence problem compared to where?

 

I'm not drawing any comparisons, simply using the widely debated & accepted belief right here on SA/PA

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Btw, why would you classify this as a 'firearm tragedy'? That's like saying it was a knife tragedy, or a pill tragedy, or a rope tragedy.

 

Really, just knock it the fuk off......

Because, pulling the trigger is so easy. You know that. Takes guts to hang, slash wrists, pills are often regurgitated or ineffective. No guts or just really wanna make it final? Get a gun.

 

So do police and soldiers down under have no guts, or are they just psychopaths who want to "make it final"?

 

To PBO's point, of course people use guns to solve problems, and they can be pretty serious problems. The most serious, in fact. I'm willing to bet that your cops and soldiers do it too. The difference is, in our country, the natural right of self defense does not require a badge or uniform. We all have it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Btw, why would you classify this as a 'firearm tragedy'? That's like saying it was a knife tragedy, or a pill tragedy, or a rope tragedy.

 

Really, just knock it the fuk off......

Because, pulling the trigger is so easy. You know that. Takes guts to hang, slash wrists, pills are often regurgitated or ineffective. No guts or just really wanna make it final? Get a gun.

 

So do police and soldiers down under have no guts, or are they just psychopaths who want to "make it final"?

 

To PBO's point, of course people use guns to solve problems, and they can be pretty serious problems. The most serious, in fact. I'm willing to bet that your cops and soldiers do it too. The difference is, in our country, the natural right of self defense does not require a badge or uniform. We all have it.

 

I was referring to suicide, but now that you mention it, a lot of police shootings are cowardly and unwarranted. Here the Victorian police seem to have attracted a reputation for shooting mentally ill of otherwise unarmed folk. But yeah, it's easy to pull the trigger, anyone can do it.

 

And about your rights. You also have a right to be scared of everyone and everything. Even your own government. Seems to be well exercised.

 

Seems like it would be a good idea to disarm your soldiers and cops. Why are they so afraid of everything? It's not like the citizenry can wield slingshots freely or anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There was yet another firearm tragedy in NSW yesterday. Article

 

To me this highlights the core problem with firearms violence - people use them it as the solution to problems

 

FTFY, but, the bolded part is the crux of the issue.

 

people use them it as the solution to problems

Yep.

 

On November 7, 1938 Hitler arranged a shooting -- which he blamed on the Jews. Five days later Hitler used the shooting as justification to take way the Jews guns, and six days later the Holocaust started.

 

screenhunter_114-aug-23-10-36.gif?w=640

 

gun_control_experts.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this has all been rather boring. The simple facts are Jocal and PBO are odd and the US is actually less violent than the limey, froggy snobs who hold their nose in the air at us.

Can you then explain why the US has a homicide rate 4 times higher? and that 60% are by firearm. What about violent crimes committed by firearm? Surely these are relevant if you're considering how firearms impact violent crimes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun Control Hall of Fame

By Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

 

 

 

hitler.gif

 

Adolph Hitler was the National SOCIALIST Leader and Reich Chancellor of Nazi Germany. During his horrific 12 year rule he was responsible for unleashing the bloodiest war to ever scourge mankind. Like all good socialists, Hitler consolidated and sustained his power by killing anyone who opposed him. In addition he commanded his minions to carry out the most widespread racial genocide ever perpetrated. By applying the practices of the industrial assembly line, some 6 million Jews and 8 million other "subhumans" were gassed and cremated in extermination camps which were constructed for no other purpose. In addition, uncounted millions of Jews, Gypsies, Russian POW's, Jehovah's witnesses, "terrorists", "criminals", "partisans", Christians, slavs, and others were shot, hanged, beaten to death, starved to death, worked to death, marched to death and perished in disease epidemics. The death toll attributed to his regime can never be truly known but most experts guess about 20 million killed for their racial identity or personal beliefs. This is in addition to the 50 million who perished as a direct result of military operations in the European war.

mao.gif

 

Communist Party Chairman and founder of the People's Republic of China. Mao Tse-Tung has the distinction of being listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the greatest mass murderer in human history. Because Red China was, and is, such a closed society, estimates of the numbers of those put death in order to bring the benefits of socialism to the masses vary considerably. Most figures are consistently between 40 million and 80 million. While mass killings of "enemies of the state" were apparently not as widespread as they were during the earlier years of his despotic rule, they do include the great slaughter of the "Cultural Revolution" which may have numbered a half million "counter-revolutionaries".

polpot.jpg

 

This extremely rare photograph of Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot was taken at a jungle camp in Cambodia in 1993. After America deserted its allies in the Vietnam war, the domino effect swept socialism to power in Cambodia. Pol Pot quickly distinguished himself among his socialist brethren by wiping from the face of the earth fully one-third of Cambodia's population. Proclaimed the "Absolute Leader", he set the calendar to "Year Zero", outlawed mail, money and marriage, depopulated all cities and towns to the countryside and slaughtered over 2 million people in just 3 years. Had his socialist rule not been ended by a Vietnamese land grab in 1976, he might have ended up killing all the Cambodian people; an outcome which would doubtlessly please United Nations population control experts.

stalin.gif

 

Joseph Stalin has well earned his place in history as one of the most bloodthirsty socialist tyrants who ever lived. Stalin simply picked up were Lenin left off, exterminating not only those who opposed his plans, but also those THOUGHT capable of opposition. Mass executions, artificially created famines, slave labor and death camps, forced migrations of whole racial and ethnic groups are among the expedients devised to slaughter between 40 million and 100 million human beings. Such totals do not include the 20 million who were killed during WWII. Victor Suvorov, a Red Army officer, wrote a book called "Inside the Soviet Army". In it, he cites demographic studies which show that the then extant USSR should have had 100 million more people than it did. Where did they all go? With socialism in power during that time, it isn't hard to figure out.

 

 

 

"Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc.Source: The National Educator, January 1994, Pg.3

 

"History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall." Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939

"And we should -- then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them." Bill Clinton, President, sworn defender of the U.S. Constitution

 

"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all* handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal." Pete Shields, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc. "A Reporter At Large: Handguns", The New Yorker_, July 26, 1976, 57-58] (Note: Pete Shields was the founder of HCI and its first Chairman.)

 

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ...And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities." President Bill Clinton, 3-22-94, MTV's "Enough is Enough"

 

"You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect." Edwin Meese III, Attorney General in the Reagan Administration

 

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." Bill Clinton, USA Today, 11 March 1993, pg. 2a

"Gun Registration is not enough." Attorney General Janet Reno, 10 Dec 1993

 

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." Attorney General Janet Reno

"What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned." Senator Howard Metzanbaum (D-OH)

 

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935, in address to the Reichstag

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well this has all been rather boring. The simple facts are Jocal and PBO are odd and the US is actually less violent than the limey, froggy snobs who hold their nose in the air at us.

Can you then explain why the US has a homicide rate 4 times higher? and that 60% are by firearm. What about violent crimes committed by firearm? Surely these are relevant if you're considering how firearms impact violent crimes?

Our high rate is largely driven by extremely high rates in inner city areas, many of which have very strict gun control laws. Out in the sticks where the gun (and - horrors - slingshot) ownership rate is high, the crime rate is not. It's a big country and trying to analyze our problems by looking at national rates can miss a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites