Gun Control - California Style

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 135 discussions (864 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 18 months ago

    This statement I just heard about gun violence in America -

    We are doing it to ourselves.  NO other developed nation in the world has this level of gun violence. And I need to add, but for American conservatives, hundreds of thousands of Americans would still be alive today but aren't because they were cut down by someone, who should not have had one, with a gun.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      "We are doing it to ourselves.  NO other developed nation in the world has this level of gun violence."

      Except that a dozen or more actually do.  Afghanistan, for instance, but I will agree that we have a very special affinity for violence.  Not particularly gun violence (as you well know) but for violence in general.  Death by bludgeon, death by knives, death by hands and feet, death by handguns.  So we attack the least likely weapon to be used; the so called "assault rifle". 

      Only Americans could be so duped, so frightened by lies, so ignorant about what they speak of, as to swallow the propaganda from the left about taking guns will fix the problem of violence.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Go back and read what I wrote - did you blank out the word "DEVELOPED"?

        I will agree that Americans seem to be more prone to violence in general for DEVELOPED nations, but they excel in gun violence.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Guess you will have to include a definition of "DEVELOPED".  Is Brazil "developed"?  Mexico?  Ukraine? 

          Yes, we excel in gun violence.  Along with all other forms, as you and I both know.  I get that you think if we can just get the guns away that violence will die a natural death, but deep down both you and I know that isn't true.  Take the guns and other tools will be used...as we already see being done.

          The really funny thing (if there is anything funny about it) is the uproar and consternation over that fake "assault rifle" - it is the gun least used for murder but the one attacked the most.  Presumably because gun haters have declared it to be a "military weapon" and spread the flat out lie to create such fear about it, but whatever the reason it is hardly what we need to be attacking.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Isn't it amazing that with all the drug related violence in Mexico, it still has a lower rate of gun deaths.  Is Brazil developed? Which part are you talking about?

            And of course you are missing the larger point - even though you may find ONE nation of comparable size that has a slightly higher rate of gun deaths - America still sets atop, by a large margin, of most Western-style nations that are mostly industrialized.

            BTW, the topic is guns, not knives, not drownings, not rocks - guns

            And why are assault rifles attacked the most?  Because they kill and wound an order of magnitude more people per episode. Why? Because that is why they are built - [b]their whole purpose is to kill lots of human beings, they have no other[/b.  They were never built for "hunting" (unless it is for humans).

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              No, the topic is violence and murders.  Without those, any discussion of guns dissolves into "which one I like".

              No, those fake assault rifles are built to make the manufacturer money.  I would have though you realized that.  In addition only a tiny, tiny percentage of buyers of those things will ever kill anyone; it seems obvious that they are not purchased to "kill lots of human beings", or that they have no other purpose - millions of people that actually purchased one and own one disagree with you, the person that did NOT buy one and does NOT own one (am I right there, that you do not own one?).

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                Then you must not have read the opening post on this thread:

                Three weeks and 36 mass shootings in 2023.  That says it all about the lack of gun safety laws and those who oppose keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. - I know you are good at misdirecting, but not this time.

                Also, look at the title of the forum - Gun Control - California Style.  Now do you want to admit this is about GUNS?

                Who cares if it is a tiny, tiny percentage? For the same reason no one should have an operational tank in their back yard, neither should they have assault weapons.  They didn't exist (using the Thomas rule) when the 2nd Amendment was written, so it doesn't apply to them.  Even Scalia was open to banning assault weapons in his Heller opinion.

                "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 128 S.Ct. 1830, 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."[/] - Scalia

                [i]"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
                - Scalia

                "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”" - Scalia

  2. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 17 months ago

    While I am a supporter ot the 2nd Amendment, lives now depend on the repeal of it so long as Alito and Thomas remain on the Supreme Court.

    It is "unconstitutional" to take guns away from people who are a significant threat to other people because of these two idiots.

    The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal law targeting those believed to pose a domestic violence threat could not stand under the Bruen test, which requires that gun laws have a historical analogy to the firearm regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.

    “Through that lens, we conclude that (the law’s) ban on possession of firearms is an ‘outlier’ that our ancestors would never have accepted,” the 5th Circuit said.


    Unfortunately, I have to agree with the Court under the flawed Alito-Thomas logic.  Where does it stop?  Does Alito-Thomas now want to arm domestic terrorists? It would appear so.
    There was no law on the books stopping that in the late 1700s.

    It is another SAD day for America and Americans. 


    https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/02/politics … index.html

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Would you now punish people because we think they might commit crime in the future?  That's what you're wanting to do, after all - punish people by taking their Constitutional rights away because we think they might do something tomorrow.

      Of course, if they have already committed a crime it would be different; we commonly deny felons the right to own a gun, at least until the entire sentence has been served.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        We know certain types of people WILL commit crimes in the future, e.g. domestic abusers, domestic terrorists.  Yet Alito-Thomas and those that think  like them don't care if these people are armed.

        So, either those like Alito-Thomas need to get a brain and protect regular Americans from those who will abuse guns or do away with the whole things altogether. Personally, I prefer the former but your side is forcing us to the latter.

  3. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 17 months ago

    Another example of how absurd the Conservatives on the Supreme Court are.  They recently declared that if something wasn't in the Constitution in 1794 (or with subsequent amendments) then it doesn't exist (referring, of course, to laws on gun safety) and therefore is unconstitutional.

    Well, something else that isn't in the Construction is a prohibition against beating your wife. 

    "The Constitution was written at a time in which women existed under the legal control of their husbands or fathers, could not vote, could rarely own property and were excluded from the Constitution itself. Those who were enslaved in America were deemed legally less than persons and also excluded from the Constitution’s rights and protections.

    Oh, and at the time the Constitution was written, it was legal to beat your wife. It was only in 1871 that two states made it illegal."


    Now, a subsequent amendment explicitly gave women the right to vote, but not a right to privacy over their own body.  So, under the logic of the Conservative ruling against gun safety laws, wouldn't the laws against beating your wife also be unconstitutional?

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/06/opinions … index.html

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I saw the article that you have been referencing in your comments. Original Construction seems ridiculous considering that the world as it existed in 1791, has no bearing upon what it today.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Then change the Constitution.  It's really fairly simple (though difficult); if you want the Constitution changed then change it. 

        Don't simply pretend it says something it does not.

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

          So in the meantime, sclerotic conservative judges continue to attempt to interpret a 18th century intent to a 21st century world.

          The Constitution is to be properlyinterpreted not changed unless you think that it ok to beat your wife?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            If that is the desire of the people of the country then so be it.  I may not live here any more, but that would be my choice.

            Do not "interpret" the Constitution to fit current political or moral leanings.  Change it as necessary, but do not pretend that it says what it does not.

            (Can you show where the Constitution says it's OK to beat your wife?  Of just that it does not specify one way or another?)

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

              There can be no 18th century meaning or equivalent  to current problems, have you ever thought about that? Therein lies your hand grenades vs apples comparison argument.

              Because of inane 18th century mores and concepts, you would submit yourself and others to injustice with your only remedy being to vacate.

              You can leave, but we stay and protest and force through the political system the changes we want, be it woke or otherwise.

              So find that deserted spot to make good your escape and as we say in Hawaii, Aloha which can mean hello or goodby.

              No, there is nothing the Constitution regarding the beating of your wife, so based on original intent or strict constructionism there would be no grounds to which to dispute the practice?

              If Me and mine took your attitude in a country that was rife with racial terrorism against us, we would be forced to leave all that we built and attempted to build behind. Under those circumstances, revolution would be justified. It is just a good thing that wiser men (liberals) were seeing the writing on the wall and diffused the impeding powder keg before it could explode.

              1. GA Anderson profile image89
                GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Your claim of unequal comparisons, e.g. '18th century to today'  seems to say the Constitution is a document with the answers and when the problem changes the answer must change.

                Consider looking at it as a document with instructions for finding the answers, not the answers themselves. In that context, its 'instructions' are as valid today as they were back then.

                Human nature doesn't change. It can be managed with security but the human nature the 18th century addressed is still with us today. The Constitution wasn't written as answers for the problems of human nature in society, it was written as a rule book for dealing with those problems.

                As mentioned, if you don't like the rules you are allowed to change them. (as long as you follow the rules that allow you to change them). Even more basic, if you don't like the rules that allow you to change the rules that allow you to change the rules you don't like you can also change the rules that change the rules that allow you to change them.

                Just gather enough like-minded people and go for it. Easy-peasy. (claiming 'no fair' because you can't get enough folks to go along with you isn't an excuse)

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  I dunno, GA, it appears to me that in the face of inevitable changes since 1791, it is hard to define the Constitution as anymore than a guide. A guide by definition does not lend itself to a strict constructive interpretation.

                  I refer to the Miranda vs Arizona court ruling of 1966 as example. The prevailing opinion was that under the 5th Amendment restricting prosecutors from using statements made by the accused while under duress of police interrogation, evidence had to provided that the accused had been informed of the right to consult and the right against self incrimination.

                  What did the conservative dissent argue? That there was no explicit provision in the Constitution for making such a provision. Of course, there isn't.  But, the principles involved were associated with the 5th Amendment, that protected the innocent from abuse by police or the legal system.

                  So this idea of an ironclad rulebook is exaggerated. Every decision is one interpretation of the Constitution as there can be more than one correct answer.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image89
                    GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    But, but, wait . . .  the conservatives didn't win.

                    Anybody can claim anything, it's supporting that claim the matters. The dissenting justices didn't have enough people, (other justices), to agree with them. The rule did hold. The guide was right.

                    The 'rule' would still be right if the decision went the other way. It would still be telling what couldn't be done, and it would still be a court interpretation of what those 'can'ts' included.

                    Consider how such major court interpretations always stand or fall: by later courts and later judges with different societal norms. It is society's current determinations of norms that change, not the constitutional 'rules' that tell you how to deal with those changes.

                    Your argument is with the courts, not the document.

                    GA

                  2. My Esoteric profile image83
                    My Esotericposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    Conservatives forget (I don't know why) that there is a preamble to the Constitution which lays out the principles upon which this nation was founded.  It was, I believe (from reading a lot about the writing of the Constitution), the intent of the creators for the rule book to lay out the mechanisms to achieve those goals.

                    They said clearly that their intent was to:

                    1. To make a MORE perfect Union (since the first one was such a failure)

                    2, To Establish Justice (with all the ramifications that implies)

                    3. To Insure domestic Tranquility (does this address domestic terrorism?)

                    4. To provide for the common defense (both domestic and foreign)

                    5. Promote the General Welfare (I think this covers things like Social Security, anti-discrimination laws like the Civil Rights Act which Conservatives tried to declare unconstitutional)

                    6.  And secure the Blessings of Liberty.

                    I maintain that the framers very well understood that you cannot achieve those goals with a dead constitution even though conservative Justices don't get it.

              2. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                "You can leave, but we stay and protest and force through the " - But wouldn't most of those be unconstitutional as well?

            2. My Esoteric profile image83
              My Esotericposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              But that is not the desire of the people of the country.  As of 2018, 55% of Americans want the Construction interpreted using today's conditions.  Not surprisingly it is the Republicans who want a dead Constitution - 70% to 30%.

              As to beating your wife, the Constitution is silent on that.  It is also silent on the right for a woman to control her own body but yet the Supreme Court decided federal laws declaring that legal are now unconstitutional.  So why shouldn't laws against beating your wife likewise be unconstitutional at the federal level?

              If fact, it would seem by your interpretation, ANY federal law that addresses something not explicitly in the 1794 version of the Constitution or subsequent amendments should also be ruled unconstitutional.

              Social Security - unconstitutional
              Medicare - unconstitutional
              Law against child labor - unconstitutional.

              Don't you see the problem with your position?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                "So why shouldn't laws against beating your wife likewise be unconstitutional at the federal level?"

                Did you forget to leave out that one tiny word that makes a major difference?  You know that one that makes it all in line with the Constitution? 

                "So why shouldn't federal laws against beating your wife likewise be unconstitutional at the federal level?"

                Or are you one of those that believe the federal government can do anything it wants, regardless of what the constitution says?

                (Yes, I know - the federal government consistently oversteps it's place, taking power that belongs to the states.)

        2. My Esoteric profile image83
          My Esotericposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          You are presuming the writers didn't intend for the Constitution to be reinterpreted as time moves on.  If you read those who created the document, you will quickly find they intended the Constitution to be living, not dead.

          I was going to say that those who opposed the Constitution also didn't think it should change with the times, but then it occurred to me that I can't think of even one who pushed that view.  Maybe you know of some.  Maybe Patrick Henry or George Mason and the like.

          Further, Common Sense says that the original intent was for the Constitution to mutable.  What good is one that won't last even 20 years without going obsolete?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            "Further, Common Sense says that the original intent was for the Constitution to mutable. "

            Change that one word, "mutable" to "changeable" and you have it right.  No, I don't believe that the writers meant for people to simply change the meaning of the words they wrote.  ALL of them were afraid of a government with too much power, which is exactly what the concept produces.  A government that merely changes the meanings of the law to whatever it wishes.

  4. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 17 months ago

    There have been more MASS SHOOTINGS than DAYS IN THE YEAR so far.  God, it is good to let everyone who wants one have a gun (isn't it a shame I am forced to announce that that was sarcasm?). Is this a form of conservative population control? (That was sarcasm as well)

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/us/how-m … index.html

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      And we still make almost no effort to address that cause of the problem, preferring to pretend it is a piece of iron rather than a mindset.  Sad, isn't it, that we give up so many lives in fruitless political posturing rather that trying to fix it?

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

        What you don't seem to understand is that it is virtually impossible to assess the mindset of anyone, the best that can be done is to limit the damage to others by limiting access to weapons that can kill more people more easily over less time.

        1. GA Anderson profile image89
          GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          And then? Are kitchen knives next on the removal list? You nearly need a permit to buy one in Britain now*, so when banning guns doesn't fix things the dangerous knife direction wouldn't be a radical consideration—for some.

          *Yes, that was hyperbole, but there are restrictions to such purchases, so its purpose was to introduce a point.

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Just how adept are you with a knife? Can you kill 60 people in the span of 10 minutes with one?

            Hyperbole for me also, that a rather ugly American tradition and cultural value allows for any level of armament  within this society as encouraged and accepted.

            But it is as futile to discuss anymore than you can expect a planet to stop orbiting its star.

            1. My Esoteric profile image83
              My Esotericposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              It is interesting to note that the majority of NRA members SUPPORT better gun-safety laws. It is their rabid leadership that does not (along with far-right conservatives)

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                "It is interesting to note that the majority of NRA members SUPPORT better gun-safety laws."

                I do believe you are correct.  Does that majority also SUPPORT unending efforts to take guns away?

                1. My Esoteric profile image83
                  My Esotericposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Nope, but then Democrats don't either.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    Right.  It is that group of ET's hiding among us that continually push for removing guns from our society.  Got it.

                    For how many years now has the attempt to get guns out of the hands of our citizens gone on?  40?  50?  More?

                    In line with Democrats not wanting to remove guns, I've seen your hero in the White House call for removal of "assault weapons" (not just "assault rifles" now) several times.  Is he one of the ET's or just a fringe lunatic Democrat, the exception to the rule, proving that Democrats do not wish to take guns away?

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              "allows for any level of armament  within this society as encouraged and accepted."

              You mean like diesel fuel and fertilizer, right?  Or a car.  Or a plane (remember 911?).  Or a tank of propane.  Or a baseball bat (check the stats on the number of murders with a bludgeon vs with a long gun)?  Perhaps a tank of Chlorine.  Or just a match, for that matter - the poor Aussies watched as their mass murder toll ROSE, from matches, after they took away those awful "assault rifles".

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Which one of these - diesel fuel, fertilizer, car, plane, propane, baseball bat, choline, or match were specifically designed to kill People?

                People who use guns to kill themselves or others are using the gun for what it is designed for.  People who use those other things to kill are not using them for what they were designed for.

                That is why guns are different.

          2. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Only guns have the specific purpose of killing people.  They are useless otherwise.  Yes, they can be used for other things, but those are secondary to killing people.

            Since they can't get guns in Britain, that was the next best weapon there.  But the REAL point is that the overall death rate due to guns and knives in Britain is much, much lower than it is in America with guns alone.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              "Only guns have the specific purpose of killing people."

              Now, you know better than that - why would you make such a foolish statement?  To convince people of something that isn't true?  (We've discussed the meaning of the term "lie").

              But the REAL point is that the overall death rate due to guns and knives in Britain is much, much lower than it is in America with guns alone."

              And there are 7 times the guns in France, compared to Britain, but only half the murders (both relative to population, not totals).  And 5 times the guns in Germany with half the murders.  And 5 times the guns in Iceland but a third the murders.  And three times the guns in New Zealand but half the murders.  Sweden has 6 times the guns and half the murders. 

              It seems that the REAL point is having more guns does not mean more murders.  Indeed, the data here points to the opposite - more guns = fewer murders.

              But then we already knew that, so what WAS the REAL point?

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                OK, smarty, why were guns invented if not to kill people?  What other purpose did the inventor have in mind?

                Your stats are pointless.  Put them into comparable rates and try again.

            2. GA Anderson profile image89
              GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              As expected, Wilderness beat me to it. So, yeah, what he said. ;-)

              GA

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          I DO understand that; I've said many times that denying a person gun ownership because of a perceived mental problem is treading on very thing ice.  I have to solution, but then I am one layman out of millions upon millions and out of thousands and thousands of experts.  Surely someone else can come up with something that might help, but without violating the Constitution or very important personal rights.

          But what is also true; what you don't seem to accept (although I'm positive you do understand it) is that taking the preferred weapon will not reduce the death toll.  It is apparent world wide; there is zero reason to think that our people are any different.  Instead of reason, you step into the trap of "Well, we have to do something so we will repeat the same actions again and hope for a different result this time".  We all know what that kind of reasoning is called.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            The premise of your second paragraph is provably false.  Reducing access to guns will reduce the number of deaths by gun AND people do not, by and large, find other ways.  Britain is great proof of that.

  5. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    This is an opinion piece saying we may have reached a "tipping point" to enacting sensible, common sense gun safety laws.  Personally, I doubt it will ever happen until the families of conservatives start becoming casualties in big numbers.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/13/opinions … index.html

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

      I like you are very upset about Congress not addressing gun laws. However ---

      What?   Do you feel none of the victims of mass shootings were conservatives or children of conservatives?  What an odd statement.

      The Oxford shooting comes to mind. This community is a flag-waving conservative community... I live near Oxford. They vote Conservative, and if you head down Main Street even today you will see Trump for 2024.

      You never cease to amaze me.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        "Do you feel none of the victims of mass shootings were conservatives or children of conservatives?  " - IT IS ODD that you write that since I said NO such thing!.  I said "Personally, I doubt it will ever happen until the families of conservatives start becoming casualties in big numbers."

        Of course some conservative families have been impacted, but not in large numbers, especially of those so vocal in opposing sensible gun-safety laws, e.g., NRA leadership, MAGA politicians, etc.

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 15 months agoin reply to this

          Conservatives would figuratively shoot themselves in the head before they ever compromise on this issue. Their clinging to this gun issue would not be modified and is more important to them than a rising death toll even amongst themselves.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          That may not happen (the BIG NUMBERS thing).  Most murders, including mass murders, seem to happen in liberal areas.  Perhaps the opposition to those "sensible" gun laws that always seem to take guns from the population have something to do with it; with so many defenders around mass murders may not wish to spend their lives for nothing.

          Or not; perhaps it is just the liberal philosophy that creates the particularly insanity that infects those people.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

            And what has that got to do with anything??  Maybe it is excessive paranoia by the gun nuts since nobody is trying to take guns (other than weapons of war) away from anybody.

            The sad thing is, these paranoid gun enthusiast would rather see kids keep dying rather than lift a finger to do anything about it because of their unwarranted fear some big bad wolf is going to steal their guns.

            As to the "liberal" philosophy - it is the tenants of that philosophy which drive the effort to keep people safe from guns.  It is the conservative philosophy which makes it easy for people to be killed by guns.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

              What have YOU suggested as a possible solution, something we can try, to the violence in our country...except denying guns to the public?  Anything at all, or does it always default to the one item?

              Or do you simply not care how many children die?  It seems so as all your solutions have been tried and do not work...

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                How about universal background checks - or will that deny guns to too many criminals?

                How about mandatory training - or will that deny guns to too many criminals?

                How about registration - or will that deny guns to too many criminals?

                How about tracking gun violence at the national level that your side has prevented - or will that deny guns to too many criminals?

                How about a national red flag law - or will that deny guns to too many criminals or mentally ill?

                How about an assault weapons ban except for people licensed to own them  - or with that deny weapons of war to a public who does not need them?

                Only one of those has been tried at the national level and it worked

                Several have been tried at the state level and they have proved effective in reducing the number of deaths by gun.

                I suspect if I run my analysis today, my finding will be different regarding access to guns and violent crime.  Now you will have to suspend your on-off switch mentality here, but my previous study showed an ALMOST statistically significant (at the 95% level) correlation between the prevalence of guns and homicides.  I am guessing that given the explosion of guns in society and people dying from guns will be enough to push the results to where it is statistically significant at the 95% level.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                  As I said; every single thing you have to try is about keeping guns away from people.  Presumably in the forlorn hope that without those evil pieces of iron killers will no longer kill.

                  "Several have been tried at the state level and they have proved effective in reducing the number of deaths by gun."

                  While you may find it wonderful to have children die without bullet holes, it is not something I would endorse.  I would prefer they not die at all.  Those last two words I took the liberty of bolding says it all; you don't care if they die, just not by gun.

                  Yes, I know that our analysis showed no statistically significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.  So did my own.  The only difference was that I accepted the result while you did not, and that I rechecked the results more recently while you have not.  Your "guesses", contrary to what your research showed, does not interest me.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image83
                    My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                    So, what you are really saying is that you don't want to keep guns away from criminals and the mentally ill if it might inconvenience a few lawful gunowners.

                    That is the bottom line for you, isn't it.

                    Again - you misstate fact!  I didn't EVER say there was NO (ZERO) (YOUR words not mine) correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun homicides.  MY words says there wasn't a correlation at the 95% confidence level. But goes to my point that your side is somehow incapable of discerning the difference between jaywalking and murder.  They appear to be the same to your side.

                    The FACT is, there is a lot of correlation and you refuse to admit it.  That is sad for the kids and anybody else who dies by gun because your appear to refuse to help reduce the number of deaths.

                    "just not by gun" indeed. I have to congratulate on your expert ability to twist things into something that is not true.

        3. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

          You clearly inferred it. 

          "This is an opinion piece saying we may have reached a "tipping point" to enacting sensible, common sense gun safety laws.  Personally, I doubt it will ever happen until the families of conservatives start becoming casualties in big numbers."

          How in the world do you know  ---  "Of course some conservative families have been impacted, but not in large numbers, especially of those so vocal in opposing sensible gun-safety laws, e.g., NRA leadership, MAGA politicians, etc."

          That statement makes no sense at all. Do you have knowledge of what political parties of those that perished in a mass shooting?

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

            Logic dictates that it isn't those who make sure we can't pass common sense gun safety laws who are suffering.  Unless they are the most cruel people in the world, they would certainly change there tune if it were there kids getting killed because they made sure people who shouldn't have guns were able to get them.

  6. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months ago

    " (with the false assumption it is caused by guns)." Are you serious? How many people have to die before reason wins out?

    1. Other western countries don't have the number of gun deaths we have.
    2. We have more guns in this country than we have people.

    To quote an overused phrase: Do the math.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

      Good points ...

  7. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    Another day and another mass shooting event - life in America.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/15/us/kansa … index.html

  8. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    Another day, two more mass SHOOTING

    "The Alabama shooting happened the same day that shots were fired into a crowd at a park in Louisville, Kentucky. Two people were killed and four others were wounded."

    "The US has suffered at least 162 mass shootings in the first 15 weeks of 2023, according to the Gun Violence Archive. That’s an average of more than 1.5 mass shootings every day so far this year."

    What will it take to get conservatives to do something about it?

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/16/us/dadev … index.html

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      Nope.  What will it take for our entire government structure to do something about the extreme violence in the country.

      So far we have Democrats trying to violate the spirit and language of the 2nd amendment, Republicans digging in their heels against it...and no one asking why we are so violent.  Just like you, Democrats offer nothing at all to understand and then combat the violence of our society, and Republicans don't seem to care either.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        It is the conservatives that stand in the way of any attempt to do just that.

      2. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        By the way, Wilderness, why do you object so much about making it a little difficult for law abiding citizens to get a background check.  Had that been done for a couple of the latest mass shootings, they wouldn't have had weapons of war in their hands.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          That's one of the problems; the silly insistence that if it against the law, criminals won't do it.

          And not a single mass shooter has had a "weapon of war" in their hands.  Not one, despite the claim otherwise.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

            Why do you keep repeating that nonsensical mantra "if it against the law, criminals won't do it."?  It has no actual meaning in the real world and once more reflects an all or nothing mindset.

            Yes, many of them did.  An AR-15 or its variants are, by definition, weapons of war since that is the reason they were created in the first place.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSHu_q6uc54

            https://www.thetrace.org/2017/02/assaul … on-of-war/

            https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/news/p … as-streets

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

            https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle

            https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definit … issue.html

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

              I checked several of your links, but found exactly nothing to indicate that the AR-15 is currently (or ever) used in warfare by a governmental military.  Might be used by a homeowner that can't find actual military weapons, but then so are bottles and rocks.

              Care to provide a link and quote proving that the AR-15 (and other semi-automatic rifles) are used by any military in the world for anything but possibly training purposes?

              Or will you keep spouting the lie from the gun haters crowd?  I am curious, though - you know as well as I do that such rifles are not used to make war.  Why, then, do you keep repeating what you know is a lie?  Do you really hope to scare other people into believing it?  Do you not care that you're repeating a known lie?  Why?

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                Again, you sharpshoot to deflect away from the truth.  The TRUTH is

                "Armalite sold the rifle's design to another firearms manufacturer, Colt, in 1959. Four years later, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture a standard-issue model of the AR-15 — dubbed the M-16 — for soldiers in the Vietnam War."  The M-16 version of the AR-15 is what I carried in Vietnam (along with a useless .38).

                What is the difference between the AR-15 and the M-16?  The M-16 shoots somewhat faster.

                https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2 … nam%20War.

                I do stand correct on one thing I stated. Apparently the original AR-15 was developed for civilian use.  It was later adopted by the military for it to use in war.  So that leaves us with a distinction without a difference.

                Then there is this from one of those links you said didn't say a word about the AR-15 and its variants being used by the military.

                "he ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow infantrymen to carry more ammunition.[10]"[/i

                OR

                [i]Colt marketed the redesigned rifle to various military services around the world and was eventually adopted by the U.S. military in January 1962 and subsequently designated as M16 rifle in December 1963, which went into production and service in 1964.[9]


                AND

                "Colt continued to use the AR-15 trademark for its line of semi-automatic-only rifles marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers, known as Colt AR-15. - Yeah Right, the AR-15 was never used by the military.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                  "What is the difference between the AR-15 and the M-16?  The M-16 shoots somewhat faster."

                  Yes, of course.  "Somewhat" faster, as in fully automatic rather than one bullet per trigger pull.

                  Eso, you are simply trolling here.  You know the difference, you completely understand the difference and you understand that that difference produces a completely different weapon,  You also understand that the civilian AR-15 is NOT a military weapon, used by any military in the world and thus is NOT a weapon of war.

                  But you still failed to produce anythine showing that the civilian rifle is a "weapon of war", used by any military.  You also failed to explain why you are repeating the lie that it is.

                  That's OK though.  I'm through debating or discussing with a troll.  You have a great day in your efforts to spread misinformation.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image83
                    My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                    Of course I presented it.  Everyone can see you just chose not to accept it.

                    And I just simulated pulling a trigger and got off 25 shots in 10 seconds or about 2.5 shots per second.  That falls in nicely with something I read that says you can get 2 - 3 rounds off per second. 

                    Now a M-16, at the high end, can get about 15 rounds of a second.  To me, both easily meet the threshold of a mass killing machine. Both are suitable for use in war which is why the AR-15 was sold worldwide for just that purpose.

                    Face it, you are fighting a losing battle here.  Let's put 10 of your family and friends in a room and have some lunatic come in and open fire with a an AR-15.  In four seconds, they will all probably be dead (which has happened in real life).  Are you going to tell me you would still think the AR-15 was just any other weapon?  I certainly hope not.

                    Since I am not spreading misinformation, I guess I can't have a great day.  But you can certainly have one spreading your disinformation

                    Let me ask, is it "trolling" when I rebut your disinformation?

    2. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

      Just a quick fact to discount your assumption all Republicans are not on board with doing something in regard to gun control.
      https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics … index.html

      "CNN

      Fourteen House Republicans on Friday joined with Democrats to pass a bipartisan bill to address gun violence, the first major federal gun safety legislation in decades. The bill was approved in the House by a tally of 234 to 193 and will now go to President Joe Biden to be signed into law.

      The bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support Thursday evening, with 15 Senate Republicans voting in favor, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

      In contrast, top House GOP leaders opposed the bill and encouraged members to vote against it. But 14 House Republicans still crossed party lines to vote in favor.

      The measure includes millions of dollars for mental health, school safety, crisis intervention programs and incentives for states to include juvenile records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

      It also makes significant changes to the process when someone ages 18 to 21 goes to buy a firearm and closes the so-called boyfriend loophole, a victory for Democrats, who have long fought for that.

      Here are the 14 House Republicans who voted for the bill:

      1. Liz Cheney of Wyoming

      2. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois

      3. Tom Rice of South Carolina

      4. John Katko of New York

      5. Maria Salazar of Florida

      6. Chris Jacobs of New York

      7. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania

      8. Peter Meijer of Michigan

      9. Fred Upton of Michigan

      10. Tony Gonzales of Texas

      11. Steve Chabot of Ohio

      12. Mike Turner of Ohio

      13. David Joyce of Ohio

      14. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio

      Other sources
      https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/r … uster.html

      "Red flag laws. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has introduced the “Extreme Risk Protection Orders and Violence Prevention Act” to encourage states to adopt “red flag laws”. Those allow police agencies, family members and others to petition for a gun to be taken from someone they believe has become dangerous. The idea has been much discussed, including by President Donald Trump this week, but Rubio’s bill has just three cosponsors. Rep. John Katko, R-N.Y., has a “Protecting our Communities and Rights Act” that similarly encourages and allows states to enact more red flag laws. His bill has nine cosponsors."
      https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/c … they-stand

      Senate passes bipartisan gun violence bill, marking breakthrough
      The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is poised to pass the House Friday and be signed by President Biden. It includes the most significant new gun restrictions since the mid 1990s.
      June 23, 2022
      https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/ … eakthrough
      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-contro … ouse-vote/

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        Where did I say ALL Republicans.  Since I didn't, what was the point of your post?

        Let's take your last example.  ONLY TEN, I think Republican Senators went along with that.  ONLY TEN (maybe 11, whose quibbling?)  And, if I am not mistaken - ONLY 14 HOUSE REPUBLICAN VOTED in favor!!!

        Sort of proves my point, doesn't it.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

          "What will it take to get conservatives to do something about it?"

          This context, and sentence creation imply conservatives are not doing anything.

          I could ask when will Democrats do something about it. 

          I proved a point. You impugned   an intire political party. There are many republicans in favor of revamping gun laws.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

            The Democrats are trying.  If it will make you feel better, I will say MOST conservatives are fighting them tooth-and-nail.

            You do realize don't that according to the always truth-telling Trump the other day at the RNC convention, MAGA IS the Republican Party.  So yes, I am sorry to say I am impugning an entire political party.  Why, because, by-an-large, there actions are despicable and 100% against the values America holds dear.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

              The concept of Making America Great Again is against the values America holds dear? That makes no sense.

              Obama as well as Bidwn had WH, and a majority in Congress, they did zero in regard to Gun laws.  I need to ask why  did not  the 111th Congress (2009–2011)
              Democrats controlled the 111th Congress (2009–2011) with majorities in both houses of Congress why did they not take the opportunity to change Gun laws?  I do think Obama did provide helpful EO in regard to guns. But why not try to pass some new laws?

              Biden also with control of the White House and Congress, and Democrats had   2 Years to make big changes. They had the majority to make changes.  https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_us-politi … 01047.html

              Tried of hearing Demacrta cry about issues they could have fixed if they choose to. Just like  Biden and other Dems saying the Republicans/ MAGA Republicans were for defunding the police... That is all on the Democrats. Many Blue states did defund their police.  I mean have a look at the mess they made by doing so.

              I mean do you see any Republican states that defunded their police?  LOL
               
              Thank God for youtube.

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                "The concept of Making America Great Again is against the values America holds dear? That makes no sense." - OF COURSE it makes sense when you realize that from day one, that slogan was a lie.  Trump had no intention of making America great, in fact his four years in office made America worse, lots worse.  When MAGA says those words, they simply don't mean it as their actions prove..   

                It is unfortunate that you ignore the fact that the Democrats TRIED under Obama, in fact they tried very hard. But, as I am sure you are aware, the REPUBLICANS stopped their efforts cold.

                Admit it, this is on your side, not the Democrats.

                By writing "hey had the majority to make changes. " TELLS me you don't understand how Congress works.  Let me help. It takes 60 votes to get things like gun control through the Senate.  Your Republicans blocked any  effort EVERY time.

                Why didn't the MAGA legislators support Biden's call for increased funding for police???  The Republicans (which according to Trump IS MAGA) said Biden's proposals were Dead On Arrival.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                  Gotta go with you on this one.  If you can just change the meaning, or better yet the words, of what Trump says then you can blame millions of people for anything you want to. 

                  Well done!

            2. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

              INO, The Democrats are hell-bent on tearing down every value Americans hold dear.

              1. profile image59
                JMickelsposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                Which values would those be?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                  Mine...

                  1. profile image59
                    JMickelsposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                    Many say that America is falling into toxic individualism. Hyperindividualism. It  rejects social responsibility and cooperation, two fundamental pillars of a functioning society.

              2. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                Sorry, you have it backwards because you have zero evidence of what you say is true.  I have tons of evidence that it is MAGA that has already been partially successful in "tearing down every value America holds dear.

                1. profile image59
                  JMickelsposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                  The "right" is the enemy of freedom.  No one is pushing authoritarianism harder than conservatives.
                  ONE  Trump appointed conservative zealot judge banning an FDA approved drug of 23 years?  Attempting to supercede states that still allow women the freedom of bodily autonomy.  69 Republicans ask appeals court to allow ban on abortion pill to go forward.  This is freedom? No this is control. This is authoritarianism .

                  1. My Esoteric profile image83
                    My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                    You nailed it.

                2. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                  And that would be your personal view. We have a very different view of what the concept of MAGA entails or what I personally like about some of its ideologies.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image83
                    My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                    What do you like about MAGA's war on LGBTQ+?

                    What do you like about MAGA's support for Trump's insurrection?

                    My personal view is informed by the evidence.  What is yours based on?

  9. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months ago

    Bottom line: If you want to reduce the number of gun deaths in America: vote Democrat and keep voting Democrat until there is a majority in both houses of congress, state legislatures, and the Supreme Court. That is the only way things will ever change - and stay changed.

    Just read these posts. The pattern is obvious.

    (And remember this: the successful assault weapons ban enacted by a Democrat president was allowed to expire by not only a Republican president but one who did not win the popular vote.)

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

      I need to ask why  did not  the 111th Congress (2009–2011)
      Democrats controlled the 111th Congress (2009–2011) with majorities in both houses of Congress why did they not take the opportunity to change Gun laws?  I do think Obama did provide helpful EO in regard to guns. But why not try to pass some new laws?

      Biden also with control of the White House and Congress, and Democrats had   2 Years to make big changes. They had the majority to make changes.  https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_us-politi … 01047.html

      So why do you feel the bottom line to reducing gun deaths is to turn to Democrats?

      I see your point in regard to the Supreme Court could find fault in a gun law bill. But did they even try?

      They clearly have their chances, but dropped the ball.

  10. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months ago

    Not to mention that you don't know a person is "law abiding" until you do a background check.

    1. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      That too!

    2. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

      Well said.

    3. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      What difference does it make if the non law abiding person is going to get a gun anyway?

  11. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    I guess since I am posting this report from CNN and Biden is the President, this must be all three of our faults -

    Trigger-happy homeowner shoots teen.  (At least it wasn't another mass shooting - yet)

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/17/us/kansa … index.html

  12. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    This report looks at the national mental health cost from allowing all these mass shootings to happen without trying to reduce their number.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/17/health/m … index.html

  13. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    BTW, just to set the record straight.  I am not for a TOTAL ban on weapons that than kill lots of people in seconds.  I do believe certain people can own these weapons IF, AND ONLY IF they go through an extensive background check, buy from dealers authorized to sell this type of killing machine, register them, and accept strict liability.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      You will have to define what these weapons are, something better than "kill lots of people in seconds".  It should include just how many seconds you intend - is it 3 or 3 million and what "lots" means - 3 or 3,000?

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        More sharpshooting.

  14. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    sad Another day, another SEVEN mass shootings. Only in America.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/us/mass- … index.html

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

      It is so sad to see how these mass shootings as well as increased crime in the past few years. Make another reason to question this administration.

      I am shocked at how unsafe the country has become under Biden. Time to start asking why, and how can we decrease this outburst of killing.

      So ECO, why has crime become so out of control since Biden became president?

      I mean the mass shootings are out of control.

      Could this have played into the rise in crime? " Biden's border disaster fuels the crime wave in American ..."
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … an-cities/

      1. profile image59
        JMickelsposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        "I am shocked at how unsafe the country has become under Biden."
        What actions has he taken to make it more unsafe?

        1. My Esoteric profile image83
          My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          I don't know of any. 

          1. He is pushing Congress for an assault weapons ban. The conservatives are stopping that

          2. He got the sort-of bipartisan gun safety act passed over the objections of most conservatives in Congress

          3. He has signed two or three executive orders to try to help.

          What have the conservatives done?  Not a damn thing except get in the way of sensible gun safety measures.

          No, this isn't on Biden, it is on conservatives as a whole.

          1. profile image58
            Researchaccountposted 15 months agoin reply to this

            Agreed. Yet the right keeps pushing these unsubstantiated  claims or statements. And then they don't even try to back them up.

  15. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months ago

    Every day.

    It's every day now.

    And the same old tired refrain that "it's not the guns".

    It's the guns. They are everywhere. There are more of them than we have people.

    But the song never changes.

    So it's every day now.

    Every day . . .

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      How many guns have you seen jump up and shoot someone?  How many psychiatrists have you found that tell you owning a gun turns you into a murderer?

  16. Jodah profile image90
    Jodahposted 15 months ago

    So so sad.

  17. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    Hasn't Biden done a great job in reducing crime in America?

    In 2020 he made this note comparing Obama to Trump (yes, it was Fact Checked)

    "Joe Biden told voters that President Donald Trump doesn’t have his facts straight when it comes to public safety, despite Trump’s attempts to cast himself as a law-and-order candidate and Biden as the symbol of chaos.

    "If Donald Trump wants to ask the question: Who will keep you safer as president? Let’s answer that question. First, some simple facts," Biden said in Pittsburgh on Aug. 31.

    "When I was vice president, violent crime fell 15% in this country. We did it without chaos and disorder. And yes, we did it with Democratic mayors in most of the major cities in this country. The murder rate now is up 26% across the nation this year under Donald Trump. Do you feel really safer under Donald Trump?""


    But, the thing is, you can't say much authoritatively about 2021 and 2022, the data simply isn't in yet. So any claims people make that crime is rising under Biden are simply blowing smoke.  The fact is - they don't know for sure  (That, of course, won't stop then from passing on fake news). 

    Yes, I know that applies to my opening statement, but if they can make things up about Biden, so can I. (But then I follow mine with facts.)

  18. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    More trigger happy so-called "law abiding" citizens shoot teenagers because of a mistake that even I have made.  I wonder when one of these idiots from permissive states will shoot me?

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/us/texas … index.html

    And before one of you apologists says maybe he was in fear of his life, read this excerpt:

    "“I see the guy get out of the passenger door, and I rolled my window down, and I was trying to apologize to him,” Heather Roth said, fighting tears. “And then halfway, my window was down, and he just threw his hands up, and then he pulled out a gun and he just started shooting at all of us.”"

    Well maybe you will say he was now in fear of his life because the girl was rolling down her window.

  19. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months ago

    Two young people shot in one day for no reason other than someone had a gun and decided he had the right to use it. One of them died and one faces a long recovery after being shot a second time while he was on the ground.

    Defend that.

  20. profile image58
    Researchaccountposted 15 months ago

    When is the NRA's promise along with Republicans that a society armed to the teeth will make us safer?  We've got cheerleaders being shot for accidentally getting in the wrong car in a parking lot, a young girl shot because she pulled into the wrong driveway and a promising young teen shot while ringing the wrong doorbell.  Seems to be that the "good guy with a gun" is inadvertently killing innocent people.  Danger lurking everywhere? Hmmm? Who is giving us this idea? Thinking....thinking....

  21. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months ago

    Oh, AMEN!!!

  22. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    Another trigger-happy, law-abiding citizen (a rare black one this time) shoots at father and daughter as they try to recover a basketball.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/us/neigh … index.html

  23. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    Part of the reason the Kentucky bank shooter said he did it was to show how easy it is for the mentally ill to get guns in that state.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/us/louis … index.html

  24. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months ago

    Google the article "Guns in America: For every criminal killed in self-defense, 34 innocent people die". By Christopher Ingraham, published by the Washington Post on June 15th 2015.

  25. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    Here is what happens to law-abiding gun owners who act stupidly - dead.

    New Mexico police go the the wrong house for a domestic disturbance.  They knock on the door and announce themselves.  a while later the male homeowner opens the door with a pistol in his hand.  The police kill him.  The wife then engages the police but comes out alive.

    The unique American gun culture today.

    https://www.fox4news.com/news/farmingto … rong-house

    (I didn't read anything Fox had to say sense its veracity and spin are always questionable.  I just watched the video.)

  26. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months ago

    My Esoteric: Thanks for differentiating about FOX. No one should cite them as a source ever again. They were questionable before. Now, they have been revealed for their lies.

  27. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    Another law-abiding citizen opens fire on InstaCart drivers.  Turns out, in Florida, you can now murder someone if they are on your property.  The short story is:

    It is night. Driver tries to deliver to wrong address. Owner comes out and asks who they are.  They identify themselves. He gets in his truck and pulls up behind them and then gets out with a gun.  They try to flee.  He shoots at them hitting their car.  They get away.  Sherriff says they can't press charges because they were on his land. 

    SOMETHING IS WRONG IN FLORIDA and in America!!!!

    https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/flori … g-address/

    (Side note - after all of this gratuitous killing by law-abiding citizens, women and Blacks are arming themselves in great numbers in self-defense. Some parents are now moving oversees to protect their kids.  Almost every one, if not all, of these shootings reported here are by law-abiding citizens.)

  28. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    Another day, another mass shooting or two.

    https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/flori … g-address/

  29. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 15 months ago

    Just ran my first test comparison between Total Guns per Capita by State and Death By Firearm Rate.  The visual correlation is strong.  Basically, it says the obvious - increasing gun per capita rate leads to increased death by firearm rate. The trendline is clearly UP, not Sidewise and NOT Down

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      That's a no-brainer.  Now do it again using homicide rates instead of homicide by gun.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        But that isn't the question is it?  The question of concern is do increased rates of gun ownership lead to increased rates of homicide by gun.

        And thank you for finally admitting that increased gun ownership rates leads to increased gun homicide rates - something you have been denying forever.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          No - the question is if increased gun ownership results in more homicides.

          You may be fine with bodies without bullet homes; I am not.  If the death toll with increased gun ownership remains constant or falls then why are you wanting to take guns away?  So bodies won't have bullet holes or just to exert control without results?

          Please do not lie about my statements.  I have never once said that increased gun ownership does not lead to increased GUN homicide rates.  Not a single time.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 15 months agoin reply to this

            Then why do you keep arguing the point?

            As to how to run a statistical analysis, I will rely on my training and education.

            I am not interested in bodies without bullet holes because that doesn't answer the question about the impact of a higher rate of gun ownership.  All your method does is make the problem opaque when it doesn't need to be.

            The equation we are looking for is Y = aX + bA + cB + dC + .... where Y is the rate of gun homicides and X = rate of gun ownership and A, B, C ... are possible variables that might impact the environment around the issue such as population density, party in control of the state legislature, strength of gun safety laws, etc.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

              That's what I said; you are uninterested in bodies without bullet holes.  By refusing to consider that killers may kill with or without a gun that is the stand you are taking; your assumption that taking guns from killers will reduce homicides gives it away.  You don't know that to be true (outside of your "common sense" being used to reinforce a predetermined conclusion) and won't check to see if you're right.

              And if you aren't making that assumption you should be, for there is no other reason to take guns.  If reducing them does not reduce the body count, why take away people's Constitutional right, or even tamper with what they must do to exercise that right?

  30. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    New research supports the nothing that lax gun laws leads to more gun violence.

    "Listen to the southern right talk about violence in America and you’d think New York City was as dangerous as Bakhmut on Ukraine’s eastern front.

    In reality, the region the Big Apple comprises most of is far and away the safest part of the U.S. mainland when it comes to gun violence, while the regions Florida and Texas belong to have per capita firearm death rates (homicides and suicides) three to four times higher than New York’s. On a regional basis it’s the southern swath of the country — in cities and rural areas alike — where the rate of deadly gun violence is most acute, regions where Republicans have dominated state governments for decades."


    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … e-00092413

  31. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Another day, another mass shooting.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/29/us/cleve … index.html

    I am sure I missed a bunch over the last several days.

    One anecdote I read yesterday.  A lady who shot her abusive husband and is in jail for it (I don't quite understand why) and who was a gun rights supporter said that had a gun not been in the house "he wouldn't be dead and I wouldn't be here".

    1. DrMark1961 profile image95
      DrMark1961posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Just going by the physical differences between men and women, she might be in the morgue instead of in jail if he really was abusive and she did not have a gun to defend herself.

      Do you think that is a much better solution? The small person should have no ability to defend herself against a person a foot taller and outweighing her by 100 pounds?

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        I just related what she said. Since she knows the circumstances of her case and you don't, I would go with what she related.

        What if the abuse was an occasional slap to the face?  Does that justify killing?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Will you be covering this weekend's murders in Chicago?

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            You mean from the guns snuck over from gun-happy Indiana?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              Watched a news report (NBC as I recall) about a new gadget that changes a Glock handgun into fully automatic.  They showed several, in use, including a 3D printed one.  Pretty scary - the clip of 15 rounds was empty in less that 2 seconds.

              How would you handle that?  As it is easily printed, what would you do?  Ban all handguns, or at a minimum, those that people purchase (semi-automatic ones)?  Keep in mind that these things are highly illegal, yet the sheriff they interviewed indicated they are becoming quite common.

              If we aren't going to attack the source (the mindset that says it's time to murder a bunch of people), what is your solution?

        2. DrMark1961 profile image95
          DrMark1961posted 14 months agoin reply to this

          No, I do not know, and neither does she know where she would be if there was not a gun present. Do you prefer to avoid the question?

          Maybe a slap does not merit a gun, but then again do you know how often having an equalizer around might prevent the guy from slapping in the first place? How come the anti-gun crowd never tries to correlate the decrease in domestic violence to the increased availability of guns?

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            "How come the anti-gun crowd never tries to correlate the decrease in domestic violence to the increased availability of guns?"

            Is there documented evidence of such a correlation?

            1. DrMark1961 profile image95
              DrMark1961posted 14 months agoin reply to this

              No accurate statistics are available to prove a negative. No statistics are kept on how often crime is not committed, but there is a reason that all security personnel walk around with guns. They are demonstrating that they are there to stop crime, and thus prevent it.

              Those children killed in Tennessee recently are a good example. When they found the killers journal she said that she had two targets, but in one of them the personnel were armed so she chose the school to hit first.

          2. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I am glad you able to read her mind, not many people can do that.

            Not very often, I suspect.  It certainly didn't stop her husband, did it.  Nor has it stopped all the abusive husbands the wife finally shot. Show me your statistics to back up your claim that having guns around stop anything.

            What makes you think I am "anti-gun"?  You must read many of my posts.

            1. DrMark1961 profile image95
              DrMark1961posted 14 months agoin reply to this

              I never said that, but am not at all surprised that a fake statement is made to support this weak comment.

              I am not sure if you are being disingenuous or just ignorant but there are no statistics available on how often a gun is used to prevent a crime. When a crime is commited with the victim and the police report those numbers, when a crime is prevented it is not reported. How about you show me your statistics that guns do not prevent crime?

    2. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Here is more on the family massacre where an 8 yo died.  It seems this law-abiding citizen was shooting his riffle in his yard.  The family came out to ask him to stop as a baby was trying to sleep.  Instead of stopping, he killed them.

      That reminds me of a similar incident in my rural neighborhood.  It seems a man and a woman at house not far from mine decided it was a good idea to shoot their guns and rifles into the night.  That put three bullet holes through a nearby house, one just feet away from where a little girl was sleeping.

      They fired some more when the police were at the house that was hit, so the sheriff had to take cover along with the homeowner.  They did arrest both, initially on misdemeanor charges but were upgraded to felonies and put on probation. Pretty light sentence for shooting up someone's house.

      We had to send the police out to the same gun-totten law-abiding citizen (no, he did not have a record nor do the woman that shot up the places with him) because he pulled a gun on my grandson one night because he got too close to his house.  He shot hiss gun then as well.  Did the police do anything? Of course not. It is OK to shoot your gun anywhere you want in Florida.

      https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/29/us/cleve … index.html

  32. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Another law-abiding man with a gun shooting whoever he wants.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/29/us/houst … index.html

  33. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Update on the Texas Family Massacre. The shooter Francisco Oropesa, a Mexican national in America legally for quite some time and had been drinking that night.  His only brush with the law was a 2009 DWI but was otherwise a "law-abiding" citizen with an AR-15.

    He was not asked to stop shooting  in his yard, but to move to the other side of the yard.  (Police had been called to his residency several times previously for similar activity but with no consequences.)  Police were called five times for this incident but by the time they got there, four people were dead and a 9 yo boy (previously reported as 8 and I might have said girl) died later.

    The mother, after she was shot, told her husband to jump through a window so that their son would still have a father.  He did. I imagine is guilt for doing so is massive even though it was necessary. There were a total of 15 people in the house at the time..

    I have to believe that if the shooter had any other type of weapon other than a semi-automatic, he would have been overpowered and lives save

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/01/us/cleve … index.html

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      "Update on the Texas Family Massacre. The shooter Francisco Oropesa, a Mexican national in America legally for quite some time and had been drinking that night.  His only brush with the law was a 2009 DWI but was otherwise a "law-abiding" citizen with an AR-15."

      Heads up This is misinformation... ICE claims this man was an illegal immigrant, and had been reported multiple times.
      https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-fugiti … ed-5-times
      https://www.click2houston.com/news/loca … to-county/
      https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/susp … d-5-times/

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        I don't trust any of your sources, they lie a lot as does Cruz.

        He may very well be illegal but doesn't that make things worse because Texas law apparently lets illegal immigrants acquire guns.

        And, I don't care if he is illegal or not. Why didn't you point to the fact that all the other mass shootings are by American citizens, most of them law-abiding.

        Why did Abbott have to point all, according to him, victims were illegals?  Does that make their deaths less horrific somehow?

        https://www.newsweek.com/greg-abbott-cr … ng-1797596

        1. My Esoteric profile image83
          My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Finally got confirmation from CNN.  Turns out his CURRENT legal status is UNKNOWN, but odds are he is still illegal.

          But for those of you who claim you don't form an opinion until someone is tried a convicted, or in this case deported again, I guess your assumption is that he is legal this time.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Ever watched, or heard, someone good with a lever action rifle popping them off?

      Of course, with 15 people in the house it is also a good bet a shotgun could take out two or three at a time, whether semi-automatic or not.

  34. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Yet another MASS SHOOTING. This time in what I believe is the most deadly state in the nation as measured by gun related deaths, Mississippi,

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/30/us/missi … index.html

  35. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Some states are saving lives with there gun laws while other states (mostly Red) are increasing the death toll with there lack of gun-safety regulations

    The correlation is very clear now - the weaker the gun regulations, the more people die by gun.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/26/politics … index.html

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I noted no stats in the article you offered in regard to "death tolls are increasing" In red states. And if true, I am not sure how you attribute it to gun ownership. I assume this is your view?

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Death toll due to guns.  There is a difference.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Yes there is.  Why then do you continue to leave out the "gun" part?  Is it to give a false impression about expected lives saved?  What else could it be?

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      The claim of saving lives is worthless without looking at people murdered, which you have yet to do.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image89
        Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

        I agree

      2. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Keep dodging.  The fact is, loose gun laws lead to more deaths by gun, regardless of the reason.  Are you suggesting one gun death is different from another?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          And tight gun laws lead to...fewer guns and the same pile of bodies.  Quit dodging the issue and do some research.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            You quit making ridiculous (and False) statements like "And tight gun laws lead to...fewer guns and the same pile of bodies.  "

            By the way, one or two more explanatory variables and the level of confidence will surpass the standard 70% multiple R-squared and p<=.05 criteria. that relates the rate of gun ownership to death by gun rate.

            The two variables that have already passed muster are guns per capita and a ranking of gun laws.  With just those, I am at 68%.

            Next will be homicides.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              How would you know the statement is false?  According to you, you have never checked.  Everything you have done simply assumes that killers will not kill without a gun to do it with, yet comparing gun ownership rates to homicide rates shows no correlation at all.  Fewer guns does not indicate fewer murders, yet you assume it does, without ever checking.

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                1. Common sense.
                2, Reading
                3. My own research.

                "Everything you have done simply assumes that killers will not kill without a gun to do it with," - SHOW ME where I did that or kindly retract this False statement.

                " yet comparing gun ownership rates to homicide rates shows no correlation at all." - SHOW ME where I did that or kindly retract this False statement.

                "Fewer guns does not indicate fewer murders, yet you assume it does, without ever checking." - PROVE these False and counterintuitive statements or kindly retract them.

                TRUTH MATTERS

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Yep, common sense.  The most uncommon thing around.
                  And reading!  Where 99% of the authors also refuse to address that simple question.
                  Finally your own research, wherein you only talk of a small subset of all murders.

                  That remains your assumption; anyone that simply assumes that reducing the number of guns means fewer homicides, has to be making the same grievous error.

                  You did not; had you been honest and made that comparison you would have, though.

                  With no correlation there can be no indication.  A pretty simple concept, however counterintuitive it may be to you, but your intuition has failed you miserably here.  Should you wish proof, it is on my carousel where I did make the effort your steadfastly refuse to do.  And then did it again with more current data sets...and with the same lack of correlation.

  36. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Several more days go by in America and still more mass shootings - the latest one in Atlanta, GA. 

    May 3 - Atlanta, GA F
    May 2 - Stone Mountain, GA F
    May 2 - Lake Wales, FL C-
    Apr 30 - Lafayette, LA F
    Apr 30 - Henrietta, OK F
    Apr 30 - Birmingham, AL F
    Apr 30 - Paducah, KY F
    Apr 30 - Oklahoma City, OK F
    Apr 30 - Las Vegas, NV C+
    Apr 30 - Mojave, CA A
    Apr 30 - Athens, GA F
    Apr 30 - Bryant, TX F
    Apr 30 - Bay Saint Louis, MS F
    Apr 30 - Lawrence, MA A-
    Apr 29 - Columbia, SC F
    Apr 29 - Auburn, WA B+
    Apr 28 - Philadelphia, PA B-
    Apr 28 - Cleveland, TX F

    Body Count - 31 DEAD, 56 WOUNDED - 6 DAYS.

    What do most of those states have in common? Piss-poor gun safety laws!!

    https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/atlant … n-shooting

  37. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Mass shootings have become a thing in America now, often happening multiple times in a day for almost every day of the year.  Most conservatives won't lift a finger to help claiming it doesn't exist or its not their problem, just like they do with institutional racism.

    This is now the new normal for Americans. Here is an analysis about that.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics … index.html

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      " Most conservatives won't lift a finger to help claiming it doesn't exist or it's not their problem, just like they do with institutional racism."

      I assume this is your view. I think your claim is biased and needs some evidence.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Biased?  In a way - the thrust seems to be that if Conservatives do not follow the lead of liberals in enacting unconstitutional and useless laws depriving people of their rights then they are claiming the problem does not exist.

      2. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, it is my view - based on decades of observing conservatives arm America while death by gun keeps rising.

        Well, let's see - evidence.  When is the last time you saw conservatives jump on the gun-safety bandwagon.  You haven't, you have seen them run away from it.

        When is the last time you have seen conservatives make ANY proposal to lower death by gun in America? You haven't.

        What you have seen are conservatives doing everything in their power to make sure it is easier and easier for anybody to get a gun.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Conservatives don't jump on bandwagons.  Unlike liberals they carefully consider the wagon, determine if it is a reasonable conveyance, and then climb on carefully while making sure the wagon doesn't run away without proper guidance.

          Only liberals jump without consideration, simply because it is pretty or makes them feel good to be seen on it.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I will concede that about bandwagons.  If fact, in my book on conservatism, i noted that one of the useful features of that philosophy is not rushing to implement new ideas.  Of course, one of the downsides, is that conservatives often are to slow to adapt/adopt good ideas or are  resistant to any change whatsoever.  Sometimes want even  to drag society back to what they think is a better time.

            But no, most liberals DO NOT jump without consideration, especially because it makes them "feel good". That is simple conservative myth and hyperbole.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              Of course liberals jump without consideration.  That's why we have such a massive problem at the border.  It's why we have "sanctuary cities", with mayors and "leaders" helping illegals avoid the law.  It's why our welfare system is so broken.  And it's why we are living with massive inflation - because liberals gave away trillions while shutting down production.

              Thank God someone takes a hard look at all the "good ideas" of liberals before signing on to them.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              Of course liberals jump without consideration!  That's why we have such a massive problem at the border.  It's why we have "sanctuary cities" with local "leaders" aiding illegals to avoid the law.  It's the primary reason we have massive inflation.  It's the reason our welfare system is broken so badly.

              Thank God we have someone taking a hard look at all these "good ideas" from liberals.

  38. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    I swear, each time I read something about MAGA, it gets worse than the last time.  Here are some posts from the NC Republican governor front-runner, Mark Robinson. It seems typical of MAGA now-a-days.

    Speaking of the children massacred at Marjory Stoneman High School in Florida.

    "In posts after the shooting, Robinson called the students “spoiled, angry, know it all CHILDREN,” “spoiled little bastards,” and “media prosti-tots.”"

    AND

    "He also began attacking the Parkland survivors after they launched the “March for Our Lives” movement that called for new gun control measures, comparing the students to communists."

    That is what he says in public - Can you imagine what this sick*** says in private?

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics … index.html

  39. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    My, my.  Another day in America and another mass shooting - once again in Texas which is awash in guns.

    https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/allen- … index.html

    There was also a shootout at an after-prom party in - you guessed it - Texas (Houston)

    1. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      As one would expect, it was an AR-15-type assault rifle that killed at least eight and wounded seven.  The shooter has not been identified, but I bet he is white and law-abiding and he bought his killing machine legally.  Amazing 15 people had there lives destroyed in seconds.  The cop on the seen had no time to respond before the carnage happened.

      https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/allen- … index.html

      One Texas State Senator rightly feels "'Special place in hell' for people who block gun control measures, state senator says "

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Well, the shooter wasn't Caucasian, but Hispanic.  Don't know if he has a criminal record yet but probably not since he was a security guard with lots of training - so probably law abiding.

        Now we are learning he is probably a right-wing extremist.

        "Authorities in Texas are investigating whether the Allen, Texas, outlet mall shooter was motivated by right-wing extremism, a senior law enforcement source familiar with the investigation tells CNN."

        https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/allen- … index.html

  40. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    This is a gun this time, but something much rarer - killing by car in Brownsville, you guessed it, TX.

    Migrants sitting at a bus stop were taken out by a SUV.  7 dead, 10 injured.  Wan to bet it was on purpose and by someone fired up by all the right-wing hate rhetoric against migrants.

    https://abc7ny.com/brownsville-tx-texas … /13221111/

  41. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    I tried several variations regressing Death By Gun Rate with Gun Ownership Rate + other explanatory variables.

    With 2021 data it came down to just this:

    DBGR = .838 *( (39.769 + 76.5761 * RAND^2.2 - 1) / 2.2) + 1) ^ 1.194.

    Where:

    DBGR = Death by Gun Rate
    RAND = Is a recent RAND study of what percent of adults say they live in homes with guns by state.

    The Multiple R-Squared is a healthy .75 and the p-value for the independent variable is very close to zero (meaning it is highly significant).  This show more correlation than the one i did years ago.

    The reason the formula looks so strange is the regression is a linear model and the date is non-linear.  So, you use a transform to "straighten" out the state.  I used the Box-Cox Transform.  Once done and have a result for a given RAND rate, you reverse what you did to get back to the original values.

    Simple, right?

    Now that I remember what I did a long time ago, on to homicides.

    The flood of guns into American homes made it a lot easier to that More Guns = More Death By Guns.

  42. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    I just got off our Bradford County Democratic steering group meeting where we discussed the new dangers in canvasing in a  state that let's anybody have a gun.  Isn't that sad that canvassers have to learn to not stand in front of the door after they knock because "bullets don't go around corners"..

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      It is.  So we continue to attack the tool rather than the mindset that makes such a thing necessary.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Where did I attack the tool? Besides, that is just deflection.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Deflection from what?  Attacking the tool?  lol

          1. DrMark1961 profile image95
            DrMark1961posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Sorry this has nothing to do with this thread but I remember you commenting on fusion. Most things are way beyond me as I am not a physicist but I watched this last night and thought you would like to see it, if you have not already of course!
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDXXWQxK38

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              Thanks!  That is really interesting, and promising as well.  Appreciate it.

            2. My Esoteric profile image83
              My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              That was absolutely fascinating.  Thank you.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image95
                DrMark1961posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                I hope that guy is right and it starts producing energy next year. It wont solve all our problems but just imagine if we could shut down the coal plants.

                1. My Esoteric profile image83
                  My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  I think it will do more than that.  For one, it would replace all of our fission reactors as well.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    And breach the dams and get rid of the bird killers we're scattering everywhere. 

                    If you watched it all, did you catch that it is a direct producer of electricity - no other generator and no water/steam required?

                2. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for sharing this, Doc. I am waiting to see a successful practical application as this has been the technological breakthrough that has always been "around the corner" for the past 50 years. I am not a physicist but from what I could understand, Helion's approach has promise.

                  It has the potential of changing the world as we know it....

              2. GA Anderson profile image89
                GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                It was fascinating. As I thought of John Galt's energy machine, I caught this contrarian video in the side bar:

                The problems with Helion Energy - a response to Real Engineering

                GA

          2. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, deflection from the fear these people expressed by getting shot by a law-abiding man with a gun just because they knocked on his door.

  43. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Factoids -

    The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that the woman will be killed.

    In states that require background checks on all handgun sales, 46 percent fewer women are shot to death by their intimate partners.

    These were from a Hub I published in 2013. I can't imagine how much worse it is in 2023.

  44. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Another law-abiding white man shoots 14-year old girl in the back of the head as she was running away after playing hide-and-seek partly on his property.

    I thought he saw something in his yard, went in and got his gun and shot at the kids as they were running away.  Sadly, this is becoming common.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ma … -rcna83523

  45. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Back to Guns.

    I was doing more work on updating my Will Reasonable Gun Control Laws Save Lives" series.

    In Part 3, Gun Rights: Part 3: Gun Regulation: Will Reasonable Gun Control Save Lives? I start out with a table that shows, at the national level, 1) the number of gun suicides, 2) the number of gun homicides, and 3) the number deaths by guns for other reasons. Included are the rates per 100,000 and the percent of total.  I just updated for 2021, adding population and guns in circulation, for better comparisons.  I was flabbergasted by the result!!

    In the intervening 14 years, the US population increased 10% (all percentages are approximations) and yet the number of guns in circulation increased 48%! (this was estimated using the growth in the number of guns manufactured for the US market
    )

    But it gets worse!!!

    The number of suicides by guns increased by 52% while the number of gun homicides increased an eye-popping 73%

    If we just consider rate of death, it doesn't get much better even though the population increased 10%.  The rate of gun suicides increased 38% while the rate of gun homicides increased an amazing 60%!

    Wilderness likes to try to compare to all homicides.  In this case, that is legitimate.  Not sure he will like the answer though. For 2021, according to CDC data, the rate of all homicides is 7.8 per 100,000 population.  But, by gun alone, it is 6.3 per 100,000.  That means there are only 1.5 per 100,000 homicides by means other than gun.  That is why I only consider gun homicides.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Yep.  7.8/100,000 vs 6.3/100,000.  The question is will that 7.8 number go down if gun ownership goes down.  You assume it will; all data indicates it will not. 

      Which is why I tell you to look at total homicides when you want to predict what taking guns away will do.  And you consistently refuse to do so, sure in your unproven (and even untested) assumption that without a gun killers will not kill.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Homicides by other means is too insignificant to impact the results.

        Why do you keep fabricating things like "without a gun, killers will not kill"?  I certainly didn't say such a thing?

        What I WILL say is "without a gun, homicides will increase, but not by a whole lot."

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          "Homicides by other means is too insignificant to impact the results."

          And we know this (after guns are removed) because...?  Because your gut tells you so?

          "Why do you keep fabricating things like "without a gun, killers will not kill"?  I certainly didn't say such a thing?"

          When you assume that removal of guns will result in fewer homicides that is the obvious, and only, thing that will cause it.  "Without guns killers won't kill" - your assumption, not mine, for I checked and it isn't true no matter how often you insinuate it is.

          "What I WILL say is "without a gun, homicides will increase, but not by a whole lot."

          If homicide rates increase without guns, why are you wanting to take guns away?  So more people will be murdered?  You aren't making sense here, and you have no data to support your statement with anyway.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Didn't you understand the data I gave you? Let me lay it out for you:

            1.  Overall homicides, regardless of cause - 7.8 deaths per 100,000

            2.  Homicides from guns - 6.3 deaths per 100,000

            3.  Homicides from causes OTHER than guns -1.5 deaths per 100,000

            Now, if people stopped using guns to kill other people, would the remainder increase from 1.5? Probably, but not very much.

            This was born out with an analysis of suicides by state.  In states where guns were less available because of good gun laws, the rate of suicides as a whole was lower meaning most people who wanted to kill themselves  didn't, when a gun was not available.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              "Now, if people stopped using guns to kill other people, would the remainder increase from 1.5? Probably, but not very much."

              And your reason for saying that is...because your gut tells you it is so and you refuse to actually research it so the gut wins and everyone else must agree with your gut.  And no, suicides is a completely different game than murders - don't even try to equate the two or use one to predict the other.

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                I gave you my reasons.  Besides, common sense and good logic arrive at the same conclusion, I don't need my "gut" on this easy conclusion.

                You have used the term "gut" several times, btw I prefer the term "intuition".  That makes me think that in terms of Meyers-Briggs Personality Types, you are either an ISTJ or ESTJ.  If you don't know, that is Introvert (or Extravert), Sensing, Thinking, Judging. They account for 11.3% or 8.6% of the 16 personality types, respectively - the 2nd and 3rd most common.

                You might recognize yourself in the following:

                ISTJs value loyalty in themselves and others and emphasize traditions. While they have a reputation for being blunt, they are also known for being nice, loyal, and responsible.

                or

                ESTJs are often described as logical, take-charge kinds of people.1 They are assertive and concerned with making sure things run smoothly and according to the rules.

                ESTJs are also committed to traditions, standards, and laws. They have strong beliefs and possess sensible judgment—and they expect that others will uphold these same principles as well.


                I, on the other hand, am an INTP - Introvert, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving type. We account for about 3.2%.

                This does a pretty good job of describing me;

                What is someone with an INTP personality type like? Here are a few key characteristics:
                INTPs are quiet, reserved, and thoughtful. As introverts, they prefer to socialize with a small group of close friends with whom they share common interests and connections.
                An INTP enjoys thinking about theoretical concepts and tends to value intellect over emotion. They are logical and base decisions on objective information rather than subjective feelings.
                When analyzing data and making decisions, an INTP is highly logical and objective.
                INTPs tend to be flexible and good at thinking "outside of the box."
                People with the INTP personality type think about the big picture rather than focusing on every tiny detail.
                INTPs like to keep their options open and feel limited by structure and planning.


                https://www.verywellmind.com/intp-intro … ng-2795989

                Famous ISTJs: George Washington, Angela Merkle, Condoleezza Rice, Jeff Bezos.

                Famous ESTJs: Margaret Thatcher, Henry Ford, Hillary Clinton (lol), Alec Baldwin.

                Famous INTPs:  Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Bill Gates, Marie Curie.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Gut.  Intuition.  Common sense.  Even "good logic" when tainted beyond use by the first three. 

                  All mean the same; that rather than search out truth and reality you simply make up an answer that pleases you and declare it right and true because your intuition or your common sense tells you it is without need for facts.

                  "They are logical and base decisions on objective information rather than subjective feelings."

                  You cannot be an INTP or you would be interested in objective information rather that your "intuition" or "common sense".  You have made it exceedingly clear that that is not so; that all you need is that intuition to determine reality, that objective information is neither wanted nor needed.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image83
                    My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    I have take the survey many times and ended up hard-core INTP each time.  The only thing that wasn't firewalled was the Thinking - Feeling aspect.  There I scored slightly more Thinking than Feeling.

                    I am guess your issue is living in reality is too uncomfortable for you so you live in Trump's.

                    "that rather than search out truth and reality you simply make up an answer that pleases you and declare it right and true" - THAT IS actually your MO, not mine. I actually do search for the facts and truths to back up my conclusions.  I do not find you do the same.

    2. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      BTW - the introduction of millions of new guns into American society also disproportionately increased the number of Accidental/Legal/Preventable deaths by gun.  While the population increased only 10%, the deaths in this category increased 20%,  What could possibly be the cause?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        You're right - disproportionate.  While the number of guns went up 48% (your figure) the number of accidental/legal/preventable deaths by gun went up only 20%.  One would have expected to see those deaths double, but instead it was less than half that.

        The cause?  Perhaps because the vast majority of gun owners are conscientious, law abiding people.  You know; those people you wish did not have one of those fearsome "weapons of war" thingies.

  46. tsmog profile image85
    tsmogposted 14 months ago

    If curious a Pew Research study, "What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S., published Apr 26, 2023 offers some pertinent information with some focus of the rise since the pandemic. Worth a skim to view the graphics that maybe guides to one of their points of interest.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads … n-the-u-s/

    1. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I have looked at it.  It is interesting, but doesn't provide the detail I need to do my analysis.

      They are certainly correct that the Rate of gun deaths is approaching, or has surpassed those of the 1970s, but they leave out context (at least in the part I read).  In the intervening years from 1995 until 2013, the rate of gun deaths, especially homicides, dropped dramatically after the passage of the 1994 and 1995 gun reform bills.  That drop was no coincidence.

      As for mass shootings it seems they ranged from zero to 3 a year (1993 had 4 an 1999 had 5) from 1982 to 2005 (the average was 1.6 mass shooting per year).  I think what drove the assault weapon ban in 1995 was the large number of people killed in recent years from assault-style weapons.

      From 2006, shortly after the end of the assault weapons ban, until 2016 (the year before the Las Vegas massacre), the average rose dramatically to 4.3 mass shootings per year over that 11 year span.  Since then, for the next 6 years, the average is an eye-popping 10.7 mass shootings per year!

      I didn't bother to add in 2023 because this year simply blows everything out of the water with 215 mass shootings and we aren't even half way through the year!!!)

      But, according to conservatives, there is no gun problem in America.  - BS!


      https://time.com/4965022/deadliest-mass … s-history/

  47. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Another day, another mass shooting.  This time in AZ where getting guns is as easy as buying bread.  That is the 33rd mass shooting in May and it is only half over!!

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/14/us/2-dea … index.html

  48. tsmog profile image85
    tsmogposted 14 months ago

    Food for thought from GunFacts.info titled Guns in Other Countries. It opens with;

    Myth: Countries with strict gun control have less crime

    "Fact: In America, we can demonstrate that private ownership of guns reduces crime, but from country to country there is no correlation between gun availability and the violent crime rate.

    Or, to use detailed data, we can contrast the per capita homicide rate with the per capita gun ownership rate between different industrialized countries (see graph below). Contrasting the data shows zero correlation between the availability of guns and the overall homicide rate.

    http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-inf … countries/

    1. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I started reading your link and saw a major problem right off the bat.  Unless they define "crime" more specifically later, it is a no brainer that the prevalence of guns does not correlate with the general category of crime.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        You are absolutely right that different definitions produce different results.  It is why I did not include "mass murders" in my own work; the definitions vary too much country to country.

        But "homicide"?  That's almost universal, although there are varying degrees, and it is legal to commit homicide in some instances.  The end result is that it is close enough to universal to work with.

        And the first section of the link TSMOG gave is almost all about homicides.  The remainder, about crime, can be set aside without affecting the primary thrust.  Wonder why it is in direct opposition to your work?  Is it possible that something in the US culture, in our people, is different that other countries?

        1. My Esoteric profile image83
          My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Because you are comparing apples to oranges, America vs Europe - they aren't even in the same ballpark when it comes to guns.  For example, in America, 75% of all homicides are by gun and 25% by every other possible means.  In Europe, because of the lack of guns, the favorite way to kill others is by knife.  In fact, 40% of all homicides are from stabbing and only 20% by gun.

          Because you have two entirely different populations, relative to manner of death, it is extremely hard to do comparative analysis other than at the gross level. For example, the relative rate of homicides in America is 2, 3, 4, 5 times higher than Europe and then wonder why.  Could it be that America has 2, 3, 4, 5 times as many guns per 100 then in Europe?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            It is possible that the reason is more guns.  It is also possible that it is because we watch too much violent TV or violent sports.  It is possible that it is because we are still a young country and many still live in rural areas.  It is possible that we have a higher percentage of people living in what we call "poverty".  It is possible that we are teaching those people that they are entitled to whatever they want and they are angry it isn't true.  Heck, it is even possible that it chemicals in the environment or the food we eat that makes us insane to the point of murdering people we don't even know.  There are a thousand possibilities.

            Why then do you attack a constitutionally guaranteed right as the only solution that will work?  And attack the gun that shows the least use in murdering people?  If you're going to simply go after random differences, looking for something that might work, why not choose one that doesn't limit our guaranteed freedoms?

            Before we go taking rights and freedoms from people, wouldn't it be a good idea to figure out just what is the difference producing the violence rather than simply assume it is the number of guns? 

            (Along those lines, I'd be interested in comparing the percentage of households with a gun vs homicide rates, rather than the number of guns per capita.  A person can only shoot one at a time, after all; wouldn't it be better to know the percentage of people with access?  I just haven't seen any data along those lines to use.)

            1. My Esoteric profile image83
              My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, those factors you started with may influence the rate of gun deaths (an explanatory variable).  I hadn't thought of that and will now have to find metrics by state that measure how much violence people watch.  I don't by the violent sports idea, however.

              "Along those lines ..." - THAT is what I am actually doing using a new study from RAND that measures percentage of households with guns.

              If a person can only shoot one at a time, why do so many mass shooters bring multiple guns?

              I also tried a measure of economic status.  I couldn't get it to enter the equation.

              We know for a fact that banning assault weapons reduces mass shootings.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                I don't actually buy any of them, but then I didn't buy a nonexistent correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates either.  The point is that there are a great many possibilities, hundreds or even thousands, all of which may well be counter-intuitive...until the whole story is known and understood.  A very deep psychological study, an honest one, is what we need but never get.  That's the problem with intuition, common sense, etc.; when the whole story is discovered there is an "Aha!" moment and it all comes clear with a different "intuitive" or "common sense" conclusion.  And we most definitely do NOT have the whole story of why Americans are so violent.

                They carry multiple guns, I assume, so they don't have to re-load.  Or for the "macho" factor.  Or in case they drop one or it jams.  Again, what a madman does is beyond my understanding, and no sane person goes out to murder innocent, unknown people - they are crazy whether the mental health field declares them so or not.  (Sorry - I'm not very PC)

                And yet there is zero doubt that economic status plays a part - there are far more murders in inner city slums than the high rent district.  I do not truly understand why that is (that psychology thing again) but I'm absolutely convinced it is true, and it's not just because the high rent district has better security.  A drive by shooting can happen anywhere, from the slum streets to the freeway to Beverly Hills.

                Of course it did.  What it did NOT do is prevent mass killings; the Australian experience (where they went beyond the fake definition we've made up and took all semi-automatic rifles) made that very clear.

                Another thought occurs to me as to why we're violent.  I don't know of any hard working, well off shooters that have gone out to simply kill anyone in their path.  Is it possible that we have made it too easy to get along, leaving people to sit home and brood about the evils of society, why they don't have everything they want?  Is all that time that could be spent working hard instead spent building a mental case against everyone else?  It doesn't correlate with European violence, where government takes more care of them and people do not kill as much, but is it possible here?  I doubt it, but it's a thought, and that's what we desperately need - thoughts, discussion, study, etc. about WHY we are so violent.

                1. My Esoteric profile image83
                  My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  "And yet there is zero doubt that economic status plays a part - there are far more murders in inner city slums than the high rent district." - UNFORTUNATELY, you are again comparing apples to oranges.  We aren't comparing the two, we are trying to determine the factors that seem to influence homicides. And since we are talking about America, that means gun homicides since 3 out of 4 homicides are by gun.

                  It would make sense to me that states that have a lot of low income people in it ought to have a higher homicide rate.  That is one of my preconceived notions.  Unfortunately, the data I have looked at doesn't seem to bear that out in a significant way.  If you have seen other data, I would like to have it to incorporate into my analyses.

                  Also, doesn't your theory fly in the face of the data?  I gave you the ten deadliest cities per capita.  New York, Chicago, and DC, cities conservatives point to as hotbeds of gun homicides because of all their slums, don't make the cut.  What explanation do you have for that?

    2. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I had to stop reading because they presented only statements, many of which may be true when talking about "crime" but not gun-related crime.  They don't talk about the methodology they used are whether they considered any other explanatory variables other than the rate of gun ownership.

      Then they make dubious statements like Fact: Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population). 18

      I checked it out at https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/ … y-country/ and found not only does Britain have a lower crime rating than the US, but it is lower than Germany, France, Spain, and Italy of the European nations.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        They also say things like:
        "Fact: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates."

        "Fact: Switzerland has relatively lenient gun control for Europe 5, and has the third-lowest homicide rate of the top nine major European countries, and the same per capita rate as England and Wales, where restrictions are much tighter."

        "Fact: “We don’t have as many guns [in Brazil] as the United States, but we use them more.” 8 Brazil has mandatory licensing, registration, and maximum personal ownership quotas. It now bans any new sales to private citizens. Their homicide rate is almost three (3) times higher than the U.S."

        "Fact: In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. "

        "Fact: In 1919, before it had any gun control, the U.K. had a homicide rate that was 8% of the U.S. rate. By 1986, and after enacting significant gun control, the rate was 9% – practically unchanged."

        "Fact: Homicides were falling before the Australian firearm ban. In the seven years before and after the Australian ban, the rate of decline was identical (down to four decimal places)."

  49. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Another day, a few more shootings.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/16/us/keene … index.html

    That is a 12-yo shooting and killing a Sonic worker.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/16/us/farmi … index.html

    This is a mass murder with an assault-type weapon.

  50. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Gun loving Gregg Abbott and his MAGA gov't has made Texas the Mass Shooting Capital of America.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/us/texas … index.html

    I don't why, other than living in the past, that gun-lovers keep pointing to Chicago and New York of examples where tough gun laws don't work - that is simply a myth.

    All but one of the top ten cities in homicides come from states with very lax gun safety laws.

    1. Memphis, TN
    2. New Orleans, LA
    3. Shreveport, LA
    4. Flint, MI
    5. Baton Rouge, LA
    6. St. Louis, MO
    7. Little Rock, AR
    8. Milwaukee, WI
    9. Bakersfield, CA
    10. Greensboro, NC

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/718 … s-in-2015/

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      You're harping on the difference between Europe and the US - what about the difference between homicide rates in say, cities above a half million population and the rest of the country? 

      Is it possible there is something in cities that promote extreme violence?

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Actually, no.  I had the same thought but when I tried various combinations of city size, I could get the p-value below .05.  That included adding a dummy variable for exactly that, the state has cities larger than 500,000.

        To me, that result is a bit counter-intuitive, so I will give it another go in my new analysis.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          See, that's a problem for me.  If you don't get the results you want, change things around until you do.

          That's not how you find answers to the real world; that's how you support a pre-chosen argument.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Then obviously you don't understand how the analytical process works.  When you get an answer that doesn't make sense, I guess you would say oh well, that's life.  I, on the other hand, investigate why it doesn't make sense.  Maybe I will find out why it came out the way it did, or I find a problem with how it was set up in the first place. 

            That is one of the differences between E/ISTJs and INTPs.  We are driven to find the right answer and to investigate what seems odd.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              No, when you get an answer you don't understand (because you don't have all the facts) then you look for what makes it make sense.  You do NOT look for whatever changes it into what you want to hear.

              THAT'S how the analytical process works - it is never used to produce a conclusion you want.  It is used to find an answer that fits the real world.  You say you investigate why it doesn't make sense, but what you really mean is you "investigate" until you find out how to MAKE if fit what your intuition, or common sense, tells you must be true...because you don't have all the facts yet.

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                "No, when you get an answer you don't understand (because you don't have all the facts) then you look for what makes it make sense. " - ISN'T THAT what I just said.

                Your other statements are fabrications.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  You did indeed say something similar.  You just don't walk the walk.  Instead you revert to looking for something else to prove that more guns = more deaths.  The desired conclusion is all important, and nothing else will take it's place, whether true or not.

                  Why cannot you accept the results of your own investigations and research?  Why is it so important that guns be blamed?  You have gone to great lengths to prove that is true...only to finally indicate that it cannot be proven so you will have to try harder to do so.  Why?  Why not accept facts when found?

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)