Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

Wow, This guys, "stranger" completely blown my mind. I'm sure his COMPLETLY SOURCELESS statistics are, much, much more reliable the the one from the ONU. And he explain how all this is a conspiracy, too.

Ho no, I've read in another blog that the Lizard poeple are invading us! THAT MUSTBE TRUE, TOO.

No , really are you kidding me?
"But you will not find a pot head in a million that will admit it. Or a pot head in a million that would not sell his soul for one more joint. "
"237 Years Ago Today, There Was A Party In Beantown
Posted on December 16, 2010 by Stranger

On November 29, 1773 signs appeared around Boston announcing the arrival of three shiploads of heavily taxed tea from England. When the Governor refused to send the tea back to England, in defiance of local patriots who refused to pay a tax unless their own representatives voted on ita band of patriots undressed as Indans destroyed the tea by throwing it Boston harbor.

So let’s hoist a hot one to the patriots of yore, who ventured forth, and, clad mainly in goosebumps, threw terribly taxed tea into the main. And started that whole business called the Revolutionary War.

Stranger
"

"The New York Times, the provincial bird cage liner more familiarly known to those of us on the political center and right as Pravda West," rolf

A tea patryer blog? That's the best source you can come with?

A Million death since 1960, as many as 750 000 could have been avoided with a good gun control policy.

[Aqizzar]

Cops don't shoot everyone with guns.  They only shoot at those who are shooting at people they determine to be non-hostile (or aiming toward them) and are also authorized to shoot to protect others.  If they show up on the scene and you are actively talking to the person and not shooting they are not going to shoot you.  Also, if they do show up they are trained to actively start discussion with you, not just start firing.  I don't know where you get your ideas.

I'm going to make two wild assumptions about your perspective on this issue.  Stop me on either one.
1) You're white.
2) You've never seen someone who's holding a gun being arrested.

[Andir]

You've yet to give me a source for a situation where civilians carrying weapons turned into a full blown street shootout... so we'll call it even.

Any link I send you you will come up with an excuse why it doesn't work for you.  It's a never ending battle with someone who is close minded.  The reason our crime is so high has little to do with the presence of guns.  If you ignore that, I can see where the ignorance comes from.  Removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, however, has shown to increase crime.  Explain that.

I'm going to make two wild assumptions about your perspective on this issue.  Stop me on either one.
1) You're white.
2) You've never seen someone who's holding a gun being arrested.

Not sure what my race has to do with anything unless we are going to continue to perpetuate the stereotypes like good little race blinded people ... and I've never seen anyone holding a gun be arrested because they are usually asked to lay said weapon on the ground or the weapon is placed on the trunk of the police car.  I have seen people detained because they had a weapon nearby a crime, in which case the weapon was unloaded and in police possession.  There's a whole process you have to go through to get back said gun as well.  In fact, Ohio just recently passes law to make that process easier.  Previously, some police had destroyed weapons confiscated from legal carry but that action has been slapped by the lawmakers.  I was lucky in that regard.  Last week, one of my neighbors had both of their cars "mysteriously" catch fire.  I called 911 and met the police officer outside to tell him what I saw.  I gave him notice that I was carrying (by law) and he told me to just keep it hidden instead of being an ass and asking me to hand it over.

(Also, the only people who have ever asked me my race have been non-whites... so can I make my own assumptions.)

[DJ]

Soldiers are trained in combat, they have a command hierarchy, and they're wearing goddamn UNIFORMS. If friendly fire happens to them this frequently, how can a massive civilian shootout turn into anything but a chaotic bloodbath?

As for the race thing, if somebody sees a white guy and a black guy shooting at each other, guess who they'll assume is the bad guy?

[Phmcw]

We are not close from even : I said that eventually, if concealed weapon permit is to get more frequent, that will happen. That's a prediction, not a fact.

On the other hand, the things I present as fact are backed by the onu, the fbi, or another reliable organization. You come with a blog on the Internet (and which blog ! ).

Any link I send you you will come up with an excuse why it doesn't work for you.

Any reliable source : no fox news, no blog. Rather something like onu statistics, police statistic, ... but those are not likely to back your claim, because you're flat out wrong.

[Urist is dead tome]

1) You're white.

People, don't get into crap about race.

Judge not the character of a man by the color of his skin but by the content of his heart. Martin Luther King Jr. said that. Or something along those lines.

[Andir]

Soldiers are trained in combat, they have a command hierarchy, and they're wearing goddamn UNIFORMS. If friendly fire happens to them this frequently, how can a massive civilian shootout turn into anything but a chaotic bloodbath?

As for the race thing, if somebody sees a white guy and a black guy shooting at each other, guess who they'll assume is the bad guy?

You assume that a massive civilian shootout will occur.  I have yet to see any evidence of this either happening or whether this will happen.  Until that point, your viewpoint is pure conjecture.

I don't assume who the bad guy is.  Thus the point of my post stating that proper training should be given to anyone that wants to carry.

We are not close from even : I said that eventually, if concealed weapon permit is to get more frequent, that will happen. That's a prediction, not a fact.

On the other hand, the things I present as fact are backed by the onu, the fbi, or another reliable organization. You come with a blog on the Internet (and which blog ! ).

Any link I send you you will come up with an excuse why it doesn't work for you.

Any reliable source : no fox news, no blog. Rather something like onu statistics, police statistic, ... but those are not likely to back your claim, because you're flat out wrong.

I'm interested what claim you state I'm wrong on...

I stated that States with heavy gun control laws have higher crime rates.  You can find that statistic in many different places (even the FBI) but here's one that lists crime rates by state:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state (OMG, that says dataBLOG at the top!  It must be irrelevant.)

DC tops that list and they are the most controlled district in the US (outright ban on all guns.)  You can see a huge block of crime in the DC area, yet places with relaxed gun laws like Vermont have the lowest rates.  The "poor south" (Alabama, Louisiana, etc.) have high rates of crime as well but I don't know if you can attribute them to gun ownership.  Crime is high across the board (gun or no gun related.)

I'm still trying to figure out why you think that gun possession in itself, with no other influences, makes crime go up when the numbers show the opposite:
http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/violent-crime-offenses-rate-100k-divided-households-loaded-firearm#table-tab

View the table, states with higher percentage of houses with loaded weapons show lower violent crime stats.

Numbers also show a link between crime and unemployment: http://www.cepr.org/press/DP2129.htm  Maybe we should ban unemployment.

[Leafsnail]

Isn't that just cause and effect, though?  I mean, the reason they have tight gun control laws is probably because they had a very high gun crime rate before.

Numbers also show a link between crime and unemployment: http://www.cepr.org/press/DP2129.htm  Maybe we should ban unemployment.

You joke, but working to get people out of poverty would actually be a pretty good way to reduce crime.

[ed boy]

Isn't that just cause and effect, though?  I mean, the reason they have tight gun control laws is probably because they had a very high gun crime rate before.

No. That's jumping to conclusions. Correlation does not mean causation.

[Leafsnail]

So why is it ok to assume the opposite?

[Andir]

Isn't that just cause and effect, though?  I mean, the reason they have tight gun control laws is probably because they had a very high gun crime rate before.

Not usually.  Having tight gun control laws has usually been a scapegoat response.  Rather than fixing the problems on why people are committing crime, the blame has pretty much been blamed on the gun because it's used in a majority of that crime.  It would be like banning Microsoft operating systems to reduce spam.

Numbers also show a link between crime and unemployment: http://www.cepr.org/press/DP2129.htm  Maybe we should ban unemployment.

You joke, but working to get people out of poverty would actually be a pretty good way to reduce crime.

I joke, but I do believe that improving the job rate would decrease much of this problem.  (Gun or no gun possession laws.)  Giving a person the means to live is going to be (IMHO) more effective at reducing crime than banning guns.  How one goes about that though... is debatable.  You have to make the work attractive.  More attractive than tax free theft.  (Yes, I think taxing people for 1/3 of their income off the top has a major effect on this, especially when that money is being spent relatively unrepresented.  "I don't see where that money is going.  It's definitely not going to this neighborhood...")

[DJ]

If the shootout doesn't happen, the guns aren't stopping crime, innit?

Look, guys, you don't need a justification to own a gun. You like having a gun, and that's fine, as long as you're responsible with it you're not harming anyone so what gives someone the right to stop you from getting one?

[Phmcw]

Andir, it's not to upset you, but the only thing your table show is that the three states the less violent are                                       

• Maine   118.00   ÷   1.80   
• New Hampshire   137.30   ÷   2.80   
• Vermont          124.30   ÷   3.20

Three states with comparatively few firearm by household.

Not bear with me for a second and see this : Violent Crime per State Population : http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/violent-crime-state-population
Surprise, surprise, the state with strong gun control laws fare way better here.
How come? It may just be that they had to use gun control laws because they were bigger. It may also be that it's because you really should pay attention at what you do with statistics : you divide violent crime by gun ownership. So you prove that the ratio is lower than one. You don't even disprove a correlation.
Here I divide violent firearm death by density of population, and surely, I find the same result. 

And now http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/household-gun-death-firearm#table-tab
You make the sum and you have what you want. At the end of the list : state with few weapon and few criminality. At the top state with lots of guns and lots of weapon. But, while there is some state with few gun and lots of guns related death, there is no state with lot of guns and few death. Any states with 10% of firearm by household have 10+ /100000 death by firearm.

Thanks, it's a fine aps.

Also unemployment is obviously linked with criminality. Even more so than gun possession, of course.
Fight unemployment, reduce social inequalities, and there will be few need for gun control.

[Andir]

If the shootout doesn't happen, the guns aren't stopping crime, innit?

Look, guys, you don't need a justification to own a gun. You like having a gun, and that's fine, as long as you're responsible with it you're not harming anyone so what gives someone the right to stop you from getting one?

You don't have to shoot a gun to stop a threat.  Sometimes the threat of force is simply enough to make the assailant think twice.

And I agree with you.  I have no problem with guns, people owning guns, or the use of guns for self defense.  They are simply tools in my eyes and I do support some regulation (as in, I think you should be required to take training and present a purchase license to say you took this training) but I do not support the wholesale banning of guns as proposed by some people as a solution to crime.

[Phmcw]

...I have no problem with guns, people owning guns, or the use of guns except for self defense. hey are simply tools in my eyes and I do support some regulation (as in, I think you should be required to take training and present a purchase license to say you took this training, as well as a thorough background check) but I do not support the wholesale banning of guns as proposed by some people as a solution to crime.

Funny of these little modification are all the difference between our propositions.