Gun Control - California Style
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."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.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.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.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).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?).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
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.htmlWould 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.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.
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.htmlI 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.
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.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?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?)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.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)
GAI 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.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.
GAI would argue that "always stand or fall: by later courts and later judges with different societal norms." isn't quite as correct as it sounds.
Until this Court, precedence counted. Only those most egregious decisions (e.g. Dredd Scott) have been overturned. Previous Justices found it very hard to overturn previous rulings. The Conservatives on this Court appear not to give a damn about precedence - only their ideology.Why? Because they eliminated a rule (can't call it a low) wherein the right to privacy is transmuted into the right to murder?
You do understand that a large percentage of our population views abortion as just that; murder. Are YOU alright with a woman's right to murder children...or did the removal of that faux "privacy" issue hit the mark?What part isn't correct? Your explanation is an example of the correctness of the statement. It was a later court and later judges that overturned a precedent. Whether they were right to do so may be debatable but that it was a later court isn't.
The difference between the judges is also as stated: later judges with different societal norms. Your Dred Scott thought also fits this description.
GAThe implication of "always stands and falls" is that they are roughly equal, when, in fact, the latter is rare (until recently)
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.
"You can leave, but we stay and protest and force through the " - But wouldn't most of those be unconstitutional as well?
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?"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.)
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?"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.
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.htmlAnd 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?
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.
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.
GAJust 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.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)
"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?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?Well, you sure know how to apply a broad brush when it ever it suits you, perhaps if you were as open about those topics of which you disagree, we just might make progress.
I bet I can find one Conservative who says he wants to bring back slavery. Now I can say ALL Conservatives want to bring back slavery. I think that is the same logic, LOL.
*shrug* which party has formulated and presented the gun laws over the last few decades? My impression, without checking, is that Republicans have done so a vanishingly low percentage of the time.
Am I wrong? Have Republicans sponsored 51% of the gun control/confiscation bills over the years? If not Republicans then who? Do you suggest that independents are sponsoring the majority of those bills?
Or is it Democrats?Are you equating "formulated and presented" gun laws with doing away with guns? To me, that is an absurd comparison.
To me, I equate such activities as supporting the 2nd Amendment by making it safer for law-abiding people to own guns. These laws would not only protect their lives, it also reduces the pressure to do away with the 2nd Amendment all together because of things like more mass killing than there are days in the year (at the current rate).Of course it is absurd to you! That nearly all of them are about removing guns from one person or another, or removing this gun or that one from society, is irrelevant to you, even as an honest eye looks at them and says "Yes, banning assault rifles, or not allowing an 18 year old to purchase a gun is about limiting gun ownership".
You can even make diversions ("These laws would not only protect their lives") that, even if they were true, have nothing to do with the statement that the laws are about removing guns. You can even talk about the amount of violence in our country (with the false assumption it is caused by guns)...but that, too, has nothing to do with the truth of the statement that the laws are about taking guns away. The implication you're trying to give is that because you claim it saves lives or that we are a violent society, then taking guns away is not taking guns away. Not even the silly claim that it reduces pressure to do away with our Constitutional rights has anything to do with the truth that the laws are about limiting gun ownership in our country.
Even you, with blinders on tight, can discern the problem with that statement, right? If not, ask your hero Biden if he means to ban assault weapons, and then think about if that means no assault rifles for the people.
Conservative Math - One Democrat out of One Million want's to do away with guns means ALL Democrats do. Do I have your position correctly?>
No, I mean a majority of Democrats do, and the rest will toe the party line when told to.
"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".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.
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."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?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.
As expected, Wilderness beat me to it. So, yeah, what he said. ;-)
GA
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.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.
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.htmlI 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."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.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.
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.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.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...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.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.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."That is the bottom line for you, isn't it."
Exactly as much as YOUR bottom line is that it's OK if kids are murdered as long as there are no bullet holes.
But it is interesting that you think passing a law will force criminals to obey it including ones insane enough to kill indiscriminately. Everything you posted is about keeping criminals away from guns but somehow you forget that millions of people own guns violating local laws. Forget, or simply ignore.
No, I found no significant correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates in the countries I looked at. About 30, all as close as I could get to the US, and mostly European. A few others - Australia, and Japan for instance, but all "first world" countries, at least as I see them.
I twisted nothing; it was YOUR statement that I quoted. Try re-doing your research and consider ALL deaths, not only those with a gun. After all, take the guns away and the corpses will not have a bullet hole; that is a foregone conclusion. Even when you discover, to your horror, that you cannot get the guns from criminals the number of bullet ridden kids will still fall simply from fewer guns.
How about that? Redo your research but forget about only looking at bullet ridden corpses; look at ALL of them. Those cut with knives, those poisoned, those bludgeoned, those killed with hands and feet, those intentionally run over, etc. You will find no correlation, because killers without a gun still kill.
I do have to say, though, that you lose me completely when you choose to join the idiots trying to claim that those fearsome "assault weapons" are "weapons of war". You know they aren't so why are you spouting that garbage? Do you really hope to win anyone over with that particular lie? It HAS been debunked thousands of times by anyone willing to actually look rather than simply swallow the swill from the gun haters."Exactly as much as YOUR bottom line is that it's OK if kids are murdered as long as there are no bullet holes." - YOU know that is BS as much as I do.
"But it is interesting that you think passing a law will force criminals to obey it including ones insane enough to kill indiscriminately. " - AGAIN you make things up - show me where I ever said or even implied that. What I think you are demonstrating again is your proclivity to all or nothing scenarios.
Everything I have posted is about keeping guns out of the hands of those most likely to hurt someone (or themselves) with it.
Only those who want to keep weapons built for war in the hands of average citizens think they are not such. The rest of us (and families of the victims ripped apart by them) know the truth.
Your idea of a study totally misses the point, although I bet you know that already. The point of such a study is to determine if there is a correlation between the rate of gun ownership and (there are many possibilities but will use) homicide rates from all causes.
Why not knives? Because knives aren't unique. Sure they can are are used to kill or injure people, but they are also used to cut steaks. Guns, on the other hand, have only three purposes: 1) to kill something,2) to target shoot only, and/or 3) to collect. How many people do you know who only collect guns and don't use them to kill something? How many people do you know to only use there guns for target practice and not to kill something as well. Common sense says those numbers would be insignificant. Bottom line is a person owns a gun so that they can kill something with it (fortunately, it is innocent animals - no, I am not a fan of gratuitous hunting, either, but don't want to outlaw it)
So, how do you set up such a study? I will use the model I used last time which is based off of work I did for the Air Force. In that study, using a new database I oversaw the development of (AF Total Ownership Cost - you can google it AFTOC - Belford) where we were tasked to see if there was a correlation between spares funding levels and mission capable rates of our aircraft. There was, and I personally briefed my part of the study up to the Gen Michael Ryan, AF Chief of Staff. Others took it from there and ultimately briefed the White House which resulted in Clinton providing the first spares budget increase sense the end of the Cold War.
What you do is pick the dependent (homicide rate) and independent (gun ownership rate) variables you want to study. Then you identify any other possible explanatory variables that might influence the correlation.
Next, you gather data at the state level in order to run a multiple regression model. You study the data and then transform any non-linear data into linear data. After that you start running a series of models to see what is significant. If an explanatory variable is found not to be significant, it is thrown out and you do it again.
You keep repeating this process until you have a set of variables that are significant at the 95% level. Then you check to see if gun ownership rate is one of them.
Is that the way you did your study?"Everything I have posted is about keeping guns out of the hands of those most likely to hurt someone (or themselves) with it."
No, everything you posted is about making it ever more difficult for the law abiding citizen to own a gun...while pretending that criminals will follow the law as well. Untrue on the face of it; the large majority of shootings is with an illegal gun.
No, that was not my method (the study and update are on my timeline). Instead I gathered data worldwide on gun ownership rates from most countries, along with homicide rates from the same countries. I then picked countries as close as possible to the US in wealth, government, society, culture, etc. To be honest, some rather "iffy" ones were used simple to increase the sample size.
The data was then shown in graph style for better an easier time of assimilating it (to me, anyway; I like graphs). It was very clearly obvious that no mathematical equation could ever fit that graph; there is no correlation. If there were an equation could be found.
The problem with looking at gun deaths is that it carries the implicit assumption that without guns killers will not kill. If instead all homicides are used that assumption is not only not present, but is shown to be false as well.How many explanatory variables did you use? Given your stated methodology, I doubt you wouldn't get anything more that a scatter diagram.
One of the reasons why is that America's gun culture and permissiveness is unique among developed countries in the world. Besides, you are answering the right question.
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?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.
" (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.Another day and another mass shooting event - life in America.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/15/us/kansa … index.htmlAnother 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.htmlNope. 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.It is the conservatives that stand in the way of any attempt to do just that.
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.
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.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.htmlI 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?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."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.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?Because you don't rebut it. You merely repeat, over and over, that the AR15 is a "weapon of war"...while neglecting to support your statement.
Oh hell, I know better, but your '10 in a room' support for your claim snatched me up before I could stop it.
Surely you have seen this over the years of gun control debates:
Would you use the same "10 in a room" scenario to emphasize the bottom gun in the image is also a weapon of war?
GAYep, I have seen that and I can't account for rule making other than lobbying pressure. I would "ban" both with the caveat I mentioned before.
In my reading on the subject, it seems that the ability to accurately fire at a high rate of speed factors into the decision. The position of the stock and the pistol grip apparently makes the one on top more effective and killing the most in the least amount of time.
I must say, however, it would be a bit embarrassing to go into combat with the one on the bottom even though it is just as lethal as the one on top.Yep, you would ban both — meaning all semi-auto rifles — from varmint shooters to Elk rifles.
And yep, you would be embarrassed because the gun doesn't look 'Bad.'
GAFollowed by a ban on lever action rifles because they are nearly as fast as a semi-automatic.
Then a ban on all semi-auto pistols, because they are fast, too.
Then a ban on all shotguns because they shoot many, many "bullets" at one time.
Then a ban on BB guns because "you will shoot out your eye!"
All while crying "But we don't want your guns!"Actually no, that is not true. Not all semi-automatic rifles are anywhere as deadly as AR-15 variants.
The M-1, for example. It can kill only a few people at once and for those that don't die will probably have a body left.
How about ones with small magazines?
By the way, why would you use a semi-automatic rifle to shoot varmints? Seems like overkill unless you are after a dozen at a time.It seems you have never shot at varmints. It's not like standing game; deer, bear, etc. They're small and fast. And yes, many times there are more than one.
If you look into the capabilities of other hunting rifles you will find plenty of semi-auto rifles more powerful and destructive than the AR-15. Youtube will show you legitimate side-by-side ballistic gel tests that prove the point.
GANope. I once shot a bird off a telephone wire when I was a kid. I watched it fall to the ground an flutter around for a while. I hated myself for what I had done and have been against killing anything that can't fight back ever since. So, no, I haven't killed any varmints.
It seems patently ridiculous to me to go spraying many dozens of bullets everywhere to kill a mouse.Varmints aren't birds. And firing multiple shots at a scampering varmint isn't spraying bullets everywhere. But anyway . . .
My point in all of this is an argument against your "weapons of war" claims.
GAThe fact remains, if a weapon can kill dozens of people in the matter of seconds, it should not be generally available for purchase. If that means some farmer must be a better shot rather than pull out is AR-15, then so be it.
Only well vetted people should be allowed to own that kind of killing machine.
One day, after enough people have been slaughtered by them, politicians will wake up and get this menace off the streets.Yep, semi-autos are capable of killing a lot of people fast. Now your arguments against them have, at the least, a valid starting point. The 'assault weapon' argument never did.
GAScore one for sharpshooting and semantics. But, any of those killing machines could be adopted by a military to use in war. They just chose the AR-15.
No, that distinction is not 'sharpshooting' and it is a lot more than just semantics.
With "assault weapons" as your lead, you immediately shut down any chance for reasonable discussion. "Assault weapons" is a purposeful deception. That only leaves room for declarations of I'm right and you're wrong. Deception isn't a good starting point. Especially when factual evaluation shows that designation, and its associated claims to be wrong.
We've been through most of those "associated claims" and in each case, the claims have been shown to be deceptively presented. (Wait, don't jump, you know the ones I'm talking about, we don't need to rehash them)
However, if your "lead" was semi-automatic rifles, a lot of those 'associated claims' would be true. Not false comparisons. That's not just a difference of semantics.
GAExactly how does using an accurate description "shut down reasonable discussion"? The issue IS "assault weapons" on the streets of America.
The semantics (and the sharpshooting) comes in by not recognizing that "assault weapon" is shorthand for any weapon that can kill lots of people is a few seconds.If so, then a desired ban on "assault weapons" would mean a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, right?
After all the denials, your 'shorthand' says 'semi-autos' in longhand. You recognize the 'weapons of war' label, based on destructive capabilities, applies to all semi-autos, so why do you only want to ban the scary-looking ones?
GAYes, I have said that. If a gun looks like an assault weapon, sounds like an assault weapon, and acts like an assault weapon, its acquisition should be severely restricted. If it doesn't meet those specifications, then it should be easier to obtain.
Hells bells, now I have to recalculate, that was a reasonable response.
"Severely restricted" is a bit 'severe' for me, but restricted in some way might be a direction.
Although I don't support blaming and banning 'assault weapons' because they look scary, I do think their scary looks are a magnet for most mass shooters. (USA)
If that's a fair thought, then any restriction will be based on perception rather than capability. How do we do that?
GAI am a liberal and believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it does not hurt someone else (or the environment in which we live)
Social (as opposed to financial) conservatives, on the other hand, show us everyday that they want to tell us how we must live our lives..
I have said elsewhere that I don't think a total ban is necessary on almost any weapon, including tanks and artillery. The level of lethality ought to determine the level of vetting and other controls. Even owning high capacity magazines should be allowed to a select few who we are pretty certain they won't misuse them.
But, should these things capable of, or allows, the killing of lots of people in seconds to be generally available to the public? Absolutely not.You promote that it is a "weapon of war", is "military grade" and "used by the military". All lies, but if repeated often enough people WILL believe it.
And presto, you have a perception that demands restriction of that particular item.You skipped to the end without giving a 'spoiler alert.'
But, one direction for 'how do we do that' would be to be honest about the goals. I would have a conversation about finding ways to restrict Uvalde-type shooters' access to semi-autos. I don't know what they might be, or if they're equitably possible, but I would have a conversation about it. At least until the 'weapons of war' and 'assault rifle' rationalizations pop up.
GAI would too. Of course, the best way to keep such a madman from getting a weapon is to confine him in an institution - perhaps that could be the opening of such a discussion.
On what basis do you have to confine him or her. Did they do something overt that required incarceration?
Well, presumably we could give everyone in the country a bi-annual mental evaluation. Isn't that the up and coming concept; check everyone for mental illness? This would just put away anyone that had violent tendencies rather than leave them to their own devices, where they might murder someone else.
Solid, effective Red Flag laws would help. It would have kept guns out the hands of several of the recent killing and mass shootings.
Universal background checks would have prevented a few others.
See how the non-"all or nothing" approach works?Both assume that killers wishing to obtain a gun to murder with won't get one if the law says they can't have it.
Considering the number of guns that are owned illegally, and the tiny percentage of guns bought legally and owned by the buyer that are used to murder with, it is a forlorn hope. One that we all recognize as almost worthless, and that doesn't count those that will not buy a gun but will murder with a different tool.
But I like the way you simply assume that laws "would have kept guns out the hands of several of the recent killing and mass shootings" - it certainly helps your case for those that think criminals follow the law. I'm just not one of them - I live in the real world, not a fantasy utopia.Interviews with criminals say that the most common source for their guns are friends and family through transactions that don't require a background.
Also, once again, you are taking the position that if you can't stop 100% of killings you should NOT stop any. That is so sad.Kind of what I said, isn't it? Criminals wanting a gun will get one regardless of the law, while law abiding people find it difficult, expensive and time consuming.
What's sad is that you are willing, and even eager, to violate the freedoms of millions of people in order to assuage your grief at murders. Not to save lives but to lessen your grief as you beat your chest and declare "Well, I tried. again doing the same that has failed for years!".
(What percentage of killer criminals do you think won't obtain a gun if we pass a law requiring it's registration? 1%? .01%? .0000001%? Be honest here!)For years, since our first socialist president passed anti-gun legislation here in 2004, it is almost imposible for a normal citizen to obtain a gun here in Brazil. There are no gun stores, gun shows, etc.
Nevertheless, you only have to look at the gun murder rates to figure out that almost 100% of the criminals own guns. It is not unusual to walk into a favela in Rio and see drug trafficers walking around with submachine guns.Just imagine how big your death by gun rate would be if everybody owned a gun.
BTW, you forgot, for some odd reason, to mention that the Trump of Brazil loosened gun restrictions during is term.It would probably be significantly less but I cannot prove that of course. At the moment, if a criminal sees you walking on the street with your smartphone and decides he wants it, he pulls a gun and takes it away. If you do not have one, or do not carry enough money in your wallet, he will just shoot you. That is just one more gun death is a society plagued by gun deaths.
If that criminal knew that he might face a citizens gun and get shot he might be less willing to perform armed robberies. If that person were killed by a person getting robbed you could consider that a gun death, but it also would have the potential of preventing many more gun deaths in the future.
Concerning your last comment, Bolsanaro did relax the gun control laws during his time but was not in office long enough to see much change. The murder rate went down a little but since the socialist took office numbers are going back up. I guess your comment was "Trump of Brazil" was meant to be offensive.
It was not.And YOU forgot to mention the result on homicide rates when it did.
"Common sense" says they likely would. Experience may say otherwise, which is why I asked. For instance, when people own weapons of their own it may either prevent a homicide or just scare the killer into not trying it. No way of knowing until it is checked.
In my world, facts and data trump "common sense" every time. I recognize that those things are not nearly so important to you, for they might not say what you want them to say, but I still prefer reality over imagination.Based on what we are seeing in America, the rates of law-abiding citizens or good men with guns killing innocent people is happening almost every day.
- Instacart; April 22
- Lawnmower - April 21 (sentenced)
- Opening wrong car door: April 20
- Turning around in driveway: April 18
- Doorbell pusher: April 17
- Road rage: April 6
- Pranked: April 6
THEN YOU HAVE THESE:
- House Party: April 23 - 0 killed, 9 injured
- Party: April 22 - 1 killed, 4 injured
- Multiple locations: April 21 -0 killed, 9 injured including 12 yo.girl
- Drive by: April 20, 1 killed, 3 injured including 12 yo girl
- Ah hell, I am tired of writing. There were 34 more just in the month of April with a total of 34 killed and 164 injured
Most. if not all were not criminals, but law-abiding citizens with a gun.
-An otherwise law abiding citizen (and his cohorts) performed a drive-by shooting? I think that if you check that one out you will find out very differently. Did you even check the records of those other "law abiding citizens"...or just assume they were?
Your back to your "All-or-Nothing" approach. Did I saw the drive-by was by a law-abiding citizen. No! I said 95 - 100% of the things I reported were by law-abiding citizens.
I forgot one on my list - an otherwise law-abiding bank employee who murdered a bunch of his coworkers PARTLY because he wanted to show how easy it was for someone with mental issues to get a gun.
As to checking, I got tired of always finding they were law-abiding. Why don't you check them out and tell us which ones didn't have a violent criminal record. (Of course in some states, even then they will let you have a gun since domestic violence doesn't count as violence to them)Sorry, but you did NOT say 95-100% of the things you reported were by law-abiding citizens. You didn't mention a range at all; just that "the rates of law-abiding citizens or good men with guns killing innocent people is happening almost every day." followed by a list of shootings. Go back and read your own post if you can't remember.
YOU made the claim, not I. It is YOUR responsibility to support your ridiculous claims, not mine. Eso, you know and I know that you did not check a single one of your examples; you merely picked them from the news and made the statement quoted above. No testing, no data, no truth, no reality; just imagination as you produce stories without facts. Others may accept it as gospel, I don't know, but you should know by now I WILL call you out on such things.QUOTE "All that said, it is the law-abiding citizens that I now fear the most 95 - 100% of the killings I have recently posted were by people who were "law-abiding"." UNQUOTE
So YOU are calling ME a LIAR?? How rich. Yes, I picked them from the news. But since I am not the lazy type, I started checking to see if the shooters had records. After the first five, I stopped checking.Really? Here is the quote from your post that I replied to:
"Based on what we are seeing in America, the rates of law-abiding citizens or good men with guns killing innocent people is happening almost every day."
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … ost4291948
Show me where you mention any range of percentages, please. Or accept that you did not.
(And no, I do not believe you checked anything at all, any more than I believe you mentioned percentages in the post I replied to.)Shall I repeat my quote or will you turn a blind I to that again? And, to return the favor, stop lying about not having read my quote where I mention the percentages.
Great! Go to the link I replied to and copy/paste the percentages from it, along with a short section before and after.
Can I borrow your crystal ball, the one that shows what someone did or did not do? I would find it useful.
No, not really. They aren't breaking the law getting guns from friends and family. But common sense says that with Universal Background checks, fewer criminals will have guns because their source of supply is curtained. Now they will have to take the much more risky avenue of stealing them. That barrier alone will reduce the number of guns in circulation with criminals.
All that said, it is the law-abiding citizens that I now fear the most 95 - 100% of the killings I have recently posted were by people who were "law-abiding".Your "common sense" may tell you that criminals won't have guns because you pass laws requiring them to register it. Or pass a background check, or a mental health evaluation or any other roadblock you might throw up to keep people from buying a gun.
Experience, on the other hand, tells us all (including you) that the vast majority of killers are using an illegally owned gun, or at best a legally owned one but they are not the owner. So your response is to hassle others so they can't get the weapon they have a guaranteed right to. Makes excellent sense...as long as "common sense" is the guiding process and not actual experience in the real world.
I notice you didn't reply to your thoughts on the probability a crazy killer won't get a gun if we make a law requiring registration. No guess at all? Or just won't acknowledge that laws don't make much difference to criminals?"Your "common sense" may tell you that criminals won't have guns because you pass laws requiring them to register it. " - To have intelligent conversations you will have to move away from this pointless Black/White, All-or-Nothing paradigm. Nothing in the world is as you view it in those terms.
What is the point of answering a useless question? Of course there is a probability a crazy killer won't get a gun if we make a law requiring registration. But again, that is a manifestation of your All-or-Nothing mindset.
As I have and others have, under YOUR view, there is no need for ANY law. Is that your position?OK, your "common sense" says that 90% of criminals won't have guns. "Common sense" says that neither I nor anyone else thinks it will get 100% of the guns, but we're right back to the question I ask and you steadfastly refuse to answer: just what percentage of criminals, in your considered opinion, won't get a gun if they want one? Be sure to factor in the number of criminals with illegal guns when you do that. Given the facts we know, and our experience with gun control laws, what is the probability that a crazy killer won't get one - you say there is a probability (and I agree), but what, in your considered opinion, might it be?
We have sufficient laws to control guns to the point that it is necessary or useful. All we have to do is enforce them. It won't reduce the death toll, but neither will your "common sense" grab for the freedoms and rights of our people.Anyone that thinks those criminals would not be able to obtain guns if they keep citizens from owning guns probably also believes that they are not able to obtain fentanyl since it is against the law to do so.
The "goal" is to make weapons capable of killing lots of people in a matter of seconds unavailable to the general public. There is no overriding public interest in having everybody armed with an AR-15 while there is a public interest in the opposite.
If someone wants one of these weapons, all they have to do is pass a comprehensive background check, buy it from an authorized dealer, register it with the ATF and other authorities, agree to strict liability if it is ever stolen and it wasn't appropriately safeguarded, and prove you still have it annually. Easy peasy.And of course if it is registered no killer will ever use it to kill with. Right!
There you go with your meaningless all or nothing argument again.
Where is the lie? I already proved to you those types of weapons can kill lots of people in a matter of seconds which makes them by definition suitable for wars. Rather than call me a liar, would it be better for you to present facts, figures, and logic to back up your claim?
You were asked to show it was a "weapon of war", which you ignored. Under your theory an airplane is a "weapon of war"; it is no sillier than calling a common rifle one, after all. It does fit your definition of a "weapon of war"; it can kill many people quickly.
I have many times over. You apparently have a blind spot or simply want to be obtuse.
Oh, I know. You made up a new definition, something that had nothing to do with war, and presented it as the "right" definition. Doesn't do much for me or anyone else. Just another method of spreading fear without reason - another tactic to disarm the public without ever presenting a well thought argument.
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/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."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.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.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."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.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!
INO, The Democrats are hell-bent on tearing down every value Americans hold dear.
Many say that America is falling into toxic individualism. Hyperindividualism. It rejects social responsibility and cooperation, two fundamental pillars of a functioning society.
And "many" are correct - driven by the MAGA phenomenon.
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.
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 .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.
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?Again --- We have a very different views of what the concept of MAGA entails or what I personally like about some of its ideologies.
I don't feel that MAGA entails any form of war on race, people that choose other forms of sexuality, or it involves one supporting or not supporting what occurred on Jan 6th.
The MAGA concept was born long before the Capitol riot.
MAGA supports America First concepts. A great economy, better education, less crime, a strong military, fair trade deals, lower taxes, patriotism, loving one country, better job opertunities, and respecting our Constitution.
I have nothing more to say on the subject... I support the MAGA concept that was born in 2015... Period.
If you have a problem with my support, that would be your problem."I don't feel that MAGA entails any form of war on race, people that choose other forms of sexuality, or it involves one supporting or not supporting what occurred on Jan 6th."
The issues you called out are pretty much all MAGA focuses on. It's all culture wars all the time. Outrage politics. Republican preoccupation with transgender issues, has resulted in hundreds of bills at the state and federal levels. Republican feuled book bans have reached levels not seen in decades. Women's reproductive decisions are being stripped. Women forced to deliver non viable babies. A Republican judge with documented far right leaning writings in Texas attempting to revoke FDA approval of mifepristone. Republican governors punishing corporations for exercising free speech rights. Republican governor's taking away right to speech in Montana by banning a social media app. Tik Tok. And in education? Republicans are using the term “parents’ rights” as a guise to advance a rightwing education agenda that undermines public schools, whitewashes American history and marginalizes LGBTQ students.
All based on fear and disinformation.
The Republican party has clearly embraced authoritarian politics.
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.)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.
Not to mention that you don't know a person is "law abiding" until you do a background check.
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.htmlThis 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.htmlBTW, 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.
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?
Another day, another SEVEN mass shootings. Only in America.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/us/mass- … index.htmlIt 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/"I am shocked at how unsafe the country has become under Biden."
What actions has he taken to make it more unsafe?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.Agreed. Yet the right keeps pushing these unsubstantiated claims or statements. And then they don't even try to back them up.
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 . . .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?
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.)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.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.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....
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.htmlPart 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.htmlGoogle 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.
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.)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.
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.)Another day, another mass shooting or two.
https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/flori … g-address/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
That's a no-brainer. Now do it again using homicide rates instead of homicide by gun.
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.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.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.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?
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-00092413Another 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".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?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?Will you be covering this weekend's murders in Chicago?
You mean from the guns snuck over from gun-happy Indiana?
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?
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?"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?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.
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.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?
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
Another law-abiding man with a gun shooting whoever he wants.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/29/us/houst … index.htmlUpdate 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"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/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-1797596Finally 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.
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.
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.htmlSome 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.htmlI 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?
Death toll due to guns. There is a difference.
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?
The claim of saving lives is worthless without looking at people murdered, which you have yet to do.
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?
And tight gun laws lead to...fewer guns and the same pile of bodies. Quit dodging the issue and do some research.
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.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. 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 MATTERSYep, 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.
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-shootingMass 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" 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.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.
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.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.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.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.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.
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.htmlMy, 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)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 "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
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/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.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"..
It is. So we continue to attack the tool rather than the mindset that makes such a thing necessary.
Where did I attack the tool? Besides, that is just deflection.
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=_bDXXWQxK38Thanks! That is really interesting, and promising as well. Appreciate it.
That was absolutely fascinating. Thank you.
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.
I think it will do more than that. For one, it would replace all of our fission reactors as well.
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?
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....
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
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.
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.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 … -rcna83523Back 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.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.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.""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.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."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.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.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.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."THAT IS actually your MO, not mine."
Which is why you assume, without checking, that without a gun a killer will not kill. Because you study it, research it, and provide hard data showing it to be true...while you say your intuition says otherwise so that is what is really true. Right!
Go back and do your "research" using homicide rates rather than homicide rate by gun. Find out if your intuition is actually true rather than simply accepting that it is. Find out if fewer guns actually produces fewer homicides rather than using "common sense" to declare that "Well, of course it does!"A pretty comprehensive site, Wilderness.
https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.co … homicides/
Wilderness, over 75 percent of homicides in America are accomplished with firearms. Are you really going to tell me that if firearms were banned tomorrow, knives, pickle forks, dynamite, propane, fertilizer, etc. would fill the gap where firearms use once stood?You see how it is done, Wilderness? Credence makes a claim and backs it up with evidence (as do I when the claim is not obvious). I don't recall you ever doing that, you just attack the evidence,
So, ESO, where did Wilderness scurry off to? I was hoping to get an answer from him.
You did, just a little late. It is a few posts above.
Really? Show me in that link the comparison between gun ownership and homicide rates. A good, strong, equation showing how ownership rates can predict homicide rates.
You can start with this quote from it:
"Would a ban on assault rifles actually help to curb the violence? With rifles being a relatively uncommon type of weapon used in homicides in the United States, an assault rifle ban may not make much difference when it comes to the number of murders that occur. Homicides are overwhelmingly committed using handguns; they were found to be the most common murder weapon for nearly half of all homicides in the United States in 2019. Even hands, fists, and feet are used to commit homicide almost twice as often as a rifle is."You make the case for assualt rifles not being so much involved, but what about firearms as a whole, according to the article statistics?
I didn't see ANY statistics of gun ownership vs homicide rates. Did you? Not GUN homicides; homicides from any method at all.
Cred, you are coming in the thread half way through. The question is; "Do few guns produce a lower total homicide rate. And the answer is "We don't know, because there is no correlation anywhere in the world between gun ownership rates and homicide rates. Eso says his intuition and common sense are enough to answer the question; that as we already know the answer it doesn't need researching. I claim I DID research just that, and that there is no correlation. Eso says "Sure there is, and I know that because common sense says there is." And I ask for proof and he provides article after article showing that more guns = more GUN deaths, which is not in question at all. But never anything comparing total homicides to the number of guns in a society.Wilderness, did you read this?
"Using FBI homicide statistics from the 2019 Crime in the United States report, the insights team at the Joslyn Law Firm charted out how often different types of weapons were used in homicides in the U.S.. Of the 16,425 homicides that occurred in 2019, the FBI was able to collect supplemental data for 13,922 of them, which is what our data is based on. There was a total from the supplemental data of 10,248 homicides that involved the use of a firearm. The weapon types are broken down into the different types of firearms: handguns, rifles, shotguns, and a category for homicides in which the type of firearm was unknown. It also compares the number of homicides that were committed by non-firearm weapons such as knives or cutting instruments as well as bodily weapons, which include people’s hands, fists, and feet. Non-firearm weapons were used for one-quarter of all homicides in the United States."
You have been telling me that the violence in America has nothing to do with the quantity and easy availability of guns. Yet, firearms are responsible for almost 75 percent of homicides in the United States. What conclusions can we draw from that? You always say that if the gun were not available that that 75 percent would find other means.
I say no, in the absence of the convienient and lethal firearm, there would not be anywhere near the current homicides. So, a great deal of the homicide rate has to do with the firearm itself and not some sort of "violence gene" unique to Americans. Everybody, worldwide lives with mentally ill and violently troubled people, it is only the ease, lethality and availability of the firearm that turns troubled people into killers. Guns play such a predominant role in our homicide rate that one could say that fewer guns means fewer homicides.
Yet, never fear, Wilderness, no one wants to take your gun. You are free to cling to it for dear life. But, we can at least be honest as to the role it plays in our current homicide debates.
That is my theory and it is difficult to come to any other conclusions with the evidence presented.
What do you think of this assessment ESO?I think your assessment is spot-on. I too often forget about this aspect of the debate - "Everybody, worldwide lives with mentally ill and violently troubled people, ". So why does the rest of the industrialized nations mostly have a far lower rate of homicides (and homicides in general) by gun? Those nations aren't awash in guns like America is. That is why the gun problem is unique to America.
The following "large", quasi-industrialized nations have homicide rates greater than America's.
From low to high:
Russia (Vodka?)
Philippines (Insurrection)
Mexico (drug cartels)
Brazil (Lots of guns)
South Africa (?)
That is it, the rest are less violent than America.There are about 17,000,000 guns in Brazil, or about one for every 8 people. (Most of them are held by drug traffikers so there are not actually even that many among law-abiding citizens.) This is opposed to a country like the US where there are more than one gun per person, or "violent" countries like Sweden where there are over 20 guns per 100 people.
That is it? What about Venezuela, one of the most violent countries in the world where there are only about 18 guns per 100 people? Is it a problem that they do not fit your narrative?
Your continual rant about the rate of violence being related to the amount of guns does not hold up to facts.So, should I list Drug Cartels as the main driver of homicides. I haven't anywhere near as much about that regarding Brazil as I have about Mexico. All I have heard is you have lots of guns there.
Venezuela didn't meet my size/industrial criteria.
Oh, and the rate of gun related violence does factually relate to how easy it is to get guns, at least in America.
The FACT that countries with low gun prevalence also have low homicide rates, by gun or otherwise. That is a fact you can get around.So basically what you are saying is that where there are more guns there is more gun violence. Okay, so you are saying in a place where no one can own guns like NK there is no gun violence? Does that prove anything? Do you have any facts that prove that there is more violence of all kinds where guns are available?
(Might it just be that there is more violence in California, where guns are hard to get, than in Montana, where they are not? Can you not accept that guns are not the cause of violence, but only a tool that violent people use to commit their atrocities on others?)"The FACT that countries with low gun prevalence also have low homicide rates, by gun or otherwise. That is a fact you can get around."
Data, please, showing that fewer guns has lower homicide rates? You could start by making these comparisons:
England with 4.64 gun ownership and 1.12 homicide rate vs Italy with 14.4 ownership and .47 homicide,
Italy vs Spain, with 7.52 ownership and .64 homicide,
Or England vs Denmark, with 9.92 ownership and .95 homicide,
Or maybe look at Greece with 17.63 ownership and .75 homicide vs Switzerland with 27.58 ownership and .54 homicide rate.
Maybe compare New Zealand with 26.32 ownership and 2.63 homicide with Canada at 34.7 ownership and 1.97 homicide rate.
So much for a "fact you can <not> get around". Or do you need more examples? How many disproves your false theory?Seems to me you just proved my point. All of those places have homicide rates compared to the US at 6.4, SIX TIMES that of England:
- 3.2 times that of Canada with 3.5 times the rate of gun ownership
- 2.4 times that of New Zealand with 4.6 times the rate of gun ownership
- 11.9 times that of Switzerland with 4.4 times the rate of gun ownership
- 8.5 times that of Greece with 6.8 times the rate of gun ownership
- 6.7 times that of Denmark with 12.2 times the rate of gun ownership
- 13.7 times that of Italy with 8.4 times the rate of gun ownership
- 10 times that of Spain with 16.1 times the rate of gun ownership
How did you say it? "So much for a "fact you cannot get around". Or do you need more examples? How many disproves your false theory?"
As many of us say, this is a uniquely American problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated … by_countryIf you think it proved that higher gun numbers = higher murder rates go back and examine the data again. This time with an eye to understanding the point rather than trying to prove a false assumption.
You can cover your eyes as much as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that gun homicides are a uniquely American problem.
But homicides are not, and it is homicides that count. Not the number of bodies with bullet holes, but the number of bodies.
Neither the dead nor the survivors care, after all.You keep missing the point. In America, a homicide IS a gun-homicide about 3 out of 4 times it occurs.
That said, the rate of homicides in general seem to be almost a uniquely American problem? What did I show before? That there were only 5 or 6 developed countries of similar size and industrialization that had a higher homicide rate than America? Face it, there is a reason why many countries caution their citizens from coming to the USA.I agree that America has a very real problem with the ultimate in violence, a homicide. In fact, when I did my research I did not find a single country that I would include in the study that had a rate near that of our country. All had other problems, just as you indicate - Mexico with it's drug cartels, Venezuela and it's violence, the near East with it's wars, etc.
But that does not mean we should flail around in the dark taking freedoms and rights until we happen to get it right. The first step has to be a good hard look, a true study, into just what is causing it...and the proliferation of guns is not the answer. If it were, we would find a correlation when comparing other countries, even those with far fewer guns. Guns don't shoot themselves; it takes a human mind desiring to kill to make it happen; why are Americans so willing to kill? That's the question no one seems to want to discuss.You may perceive it as taking freedoms and rights, the rest of us understand that no right and no freedom is absolute.
You break a law, you can lose your freedom.
While you have a right of free speech, you don't have a right to use that speech to incite violence.
The 2nd Amendment is no exception to that rule. While the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms in order to protect the State, it does not literally give you the right to carry anything that you are able to pick up. Nor, did the literal reading of the words in the 2nd Amendment give you the right to have a gun in self-defense - Scalia had to legislate from the bench to come to that conclusion.
Again you throw out red herrings with your obtuse "guns don't kill" argument. It is not important whether guns, of their own volition, kill or not. That is simply a deflection from the real problem of guns getting into the wrong hands.
It is also a deflection to ask "why are Americans so willing to kill?" That would certainly be nice to know, but it has nothing to do with the real problem of keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
My side wants to limit the number of guns in the wrong hands while your side just doesn't care who has a gun or what they do with it.
I just did a simple regression on all the European countries plus Canada and Australia. As I suspected, without other explanatory variables, the relation between gun ownership rate and homicide rate appears to be random.
As I said, given the lack of guns in Europe I am not surprised with that result. But, one can't be sure until other explanatory variables are analyzed."As I suspected, without other explanatory variables, the relation between gun ownership rate and homicide rate appears to be random. "
Thank you God! That's exactly what I've been saying; they are random and that means there is no correlation.
Now explain why, if it is random, you think removing guns from society will reduce the homicide rate.
And comparing among those countries (not your list of countries with problems) with each other indicates a relative homicide rate that has no connection, no correlation, to the number of guns. One cannot predict the homicide rate, not even lower or higher, from the number of guns.
So...if more guns = more deaths, why does it consistently fail except when one of the countries is the US?
Answer: because there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates. One cannot predict the other; homicides are just as likely to go up with fewer guns as to go down.
Here: a graph of gun ownership rates vs homicide rates for a number of countries similar to the US:
Are you seriously going to tell me that there is a hard correlation between those two figures?So, you actually present evidence to support your point of view...
It did not appear here, you might check again.
Guns are used to commit 75 percent of homicides in America, that may or may not be correlated with gun ownership, but with gun use, availability and accessibility."It did not appear here, you might check again."
I don't understand. What did not appear? The graph?
Guns are used, yes. Because, just as you say, ease, availability and accessibility. BUT! You are assuming that without that ease a killer will decide not to kill.
And that assumption is, IMO, foolish for several reasons. The biggest, however, is that we can look all over the world and see that it doesn't matter; anyone desiring to kill will do so, using one tool after another. In Australia, for example, when they took away those awful "assault rifles" the preferred tool became matches and, to a lesser extent, poison. And the death toll climbed without those dreadful weapons of war. It took an additional 10 years of effort to get the homicide rate down to what it had been before the big gun buy-back.
But no one wants to look at such things, just as they will not look at that graph. It doesn't fit into the effort to limit gun ownership so is not relevant. ONLY "information" (true or not) saying that more guns = more deaths is acceptable because only that supports the goal of limiting (or removing to some legislators honest enough to speak out) gun ownership.He is also comparing apples to oranges, America to Europe. He also forgets that you have to consider many explanatory variables when doing ANY analysis.
For example, while ownership rate may not correlate well with homicide rate when it is the only variable, it may when things like strengthen of gun regulations are taken into account. In fact, in some of my runs, the ownership variable didn't even pass the p-test. But when combined with the variables I gave you in another comment, ownership rate became significant along with the other variables, each one explaining part of the variance between actual and predicted results."... it may when things like strengthen of gun regulations are taken into account."
And it may not. It did Australia no good to grab all the semi-automatic weapons (the same thing you want to do). Most mass shootings occur in gun free zones. The assumption that a law against having a gun will be followed by an insane criminal is ludicrous - just look at the amount of illegal drugs in the country, or the number of drunk drivers.And occasionally meteors strike the earth, what's your point? Stuff happens. The goal is to minimize that stuff from happening and apparently Australia has done that. The rate of death by gun is down.
But the rate of death by murder was not. If they didn't save lives, why would we want to follow the same path?
You might want to restate that.
Rate of Homicides in Australia.
"I say no, in the absence of the convienient and lethal firearm, there would not be anywhere near the current homicides."
And what are you using to support your opinion? Common Sense like Eso, or do you have firm numbers showing that if there are fewer guns the homicide rate falls?
It may be your "theory", but without facts it remains just imagination with no known connection to reality. And that is the point; all the unsupported, unproven opinions in the world cannot compare with a single known fact.If it is otherwise, you will need to prove it. As I said, I am not going to waste time proving such an obvious thing as water is wet.
Your's is a "theory" that defies reason, so the onus goes to you to prove something that on the face of it, doesn't make sense.
You might start with comparing homicide rates with England or France or Germany. If your theory is correct, then we ought to see comparable rates.
Actually, that is not the way the question is stated. That said, I suppose your formulation of "Does a lower rate of gun ownership lead to a lower rate of homicides?" Wilderness keeps trying to change the frame of reference to total homicides, but that misses the point.
It misses the point ONLY IF 1) there is a substantial number of non-gun homicides, and there aren't and 2) he presumes there is a one-for-one exchange that if someone wants to kill they will use any weapon laying around or will use their hands if a gun is not available. Both of those are not true.
What I found is that there is a correlation between rate of ownership and rate of gun homicides with an R-square of 64% (at a 95% level of confidence). Because it was not at the 70%, the standard normally used, Wilderness is claiming the R-squared is 0%, lol.
I suspect with the new data, I will blow through the 70% goodness of fit measure. For grins and giggles, here is the formulation that got me to the 64% level.
(Homicide Rate)^.5 = 1.570 + 1.436*(Rate of Gun Own)^1.35 -
2.234*(% Non-Minority)^2.4 + 1.253*(1/(2*% Male)^15.5) +
.013*(Avg Temp)^1.1 - 7.154*(1/Area^.2): R2 = .64
What are all those other things besides the Rate of Gun Ownership? They are other variables that might explain a give homicide rate. So, what does that formula tell us?
1. The homicide rate increases with an increase in the rate of gun ownership
2, The homicide rate decreases with an increase in minorities in the population
3. As the percent of males increase, the homicide rate decreases (not sure I understand that, but it probably made sense at the time.
4. As average temperature increases, so does the homicide rate
5. This is tricky. The negative sign says that the area of a state reduces the homicide rate, regardless of the size. BUT, as the area increases, the reduction is less and less.
So, how to interpret this. Notice that all of the variables except gun ownership rate are more or less constant, they won't change at all or very slowly. That leaves gun ownership rate as the only variable that can change in the short run depending on the states gun safety laws.
Better laws reduce gun ownership rate (I prove that conclusively elsewhere) and this formula says there is a high likelihood that the lower gun ownership rates would lead to a lower homicide rate.
Simple, right? Also quite intuitive..I suggest you graph your data of gun ownership rates vs homicide rates. And provide your data for others to look at.
All they need to do is view my Gun Rights series. The graphs are there as well as the source of the data.
Yep. Obtuse as you continue to pretend a different question was asked. Same old same old - Eso says that fewer guns means fewer gun deaths and therefore fewer deaths. Because of his intuition and common sense tells him that is true...but he will not research the question to provide real life data and conclusions. Only "common sense".
What you keep failing to understand is I am the one who posed the question, not you.
Actually, I might be able to parse out the trade off between guns and other means for homicides like I did for suicides, but I am not. Nor am I going to try to prove the earth is round or the sky is blue most of the time, or that water is wet. Like All People are Created Equal, it is self-evident given that ratio of gun homicides to all homicides. Like in geometry, it is axiomatic.Sorry; it was I who asked if fewer guns results in a lower death toll, not you. You just don't want to answer it except as an unsupported, untested and unproven opinion.
The object is not to "prove" something, and this is a matter that you don't seem to understand. You should not try to "prove" that fewer guns = fewer homicides, you should not try to "prove" that the number of guns doesn't matter. Instead you should be asking the same question: "If there are fewer guns are there fewer homicides?". The object should be to find answers, not to prove whatever it is you wish to be true.
And you Assume a killer, a subset, WILL kill without a gun each and every opportunity they would have had if armed with a gun. Pretty counterintuitive and far-fetched, if you ask me.
I have done my research, you need to do yours. I don't accept anything, I run the numbers and present my evidence. I am still waiting for you to do the same.Yep. Pretty counterintuitive indeed, and I had no idea that's what I would find when comparing gun ownership rates to homicide rates.
But there it is; there is no correlation between the two, and as you know, without a correlation there can be no causation. Guns do not kill people, and having one does not turn a person into a killer.
If you "run the numbers" I haven't seen it. I have seen no data OR conclusion on the question at all from you. On the other hand, it is written up and on my carousel for anyone that is actually interested in finding the answer rather than simply denying rights to people.So is mine, you ought to read it, you might learn something about statistics.
You are right, guns do not kill people (except in rare instances), but people with guns kill people. The more people with guns means more people will be killed with them.
While you TOTALLY MISCHARACTERIZE my findings by FALSELY saying "But there it is; there is no correlation between the two,". To be blunt, that is a lie. There is plenty of correlation, just not QUITE ENOUGH to meet the standard 95% threshold.
I have no doubt now, based on the latest data I have seen, I will probably be able to show a strong correlation at the 99% level, let alone the 95% level.You have too many articles to go through them all, and nothing on your carousel about guns. Point me to the one that looks at gun ownership rates vs homicide rates, please.
"The more people with guns means more people will be killed with them."
A no brainer, as I said. Now show (show, not just make a claim) that more people with guns means more people murdered. By any and all means.
You will show a correlation...but between what? Gun ownership vs gun deaths? A no brainer. Gun ownership vs homicide rate? No, you cannot do it.
Problem is you keep saying there is a correlation, that you KNOW more guns = more murders...but you have yet to provide anything at all even close to showing that. Everything you come up compares gun ownership to GUN deaths, an irrelevant number that says nothing about fewer guns means fewer murders.All six of them begin with "Gun Rights"
Your fewer guns means fewer total murder is simply a red herring.
The ONLY question is will fewer guns in circulation lead to fewer homicides (a broader category than simple murders) BY GUN? You have already said it, that is a no brainer.
Logic then dictates that since by far the most homicides are committed using a gun, it would be ludicrous to think homicides would stay the same or go up.
The ONLY time your argument makes sense is if guns account for only a small percentage of homicides.Yep, your "logic" again...but without data to support it. It's "ludicrous" to think your logic may not have all the facts and may not accurately reflect reality.
And therefore you will not check, will not test your "logic". That's exactly what I've been saying all along; reality says one thing, your logic, common sense and intuition say another so reality is wrong. No need to check; it is wrong.
(I recognize that I'm using "murder" the same as "homicide" and that the two are technically different according to the law. They are, however, identical to the dead that suffered either one.)
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?
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.
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/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/
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.htmlFood 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/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.
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?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?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.)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.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."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?
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.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)."
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.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/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?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.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.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.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."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.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?
Related Discussions
- 204
Why not pass Gun Control laws in pieces?
by Don Bobbitt 9 years ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby steps"?For instance, assault rifles! Just tell me who can justify owning an...
- 212
Beto - Hell Yes We're Going to Take Your Guns Away
by ga anderson 5 years ago
Beto O'Ruarke put it out there, center stage:"Hell Yes we're going to take your guns away, your Ar-15s, your AK-47s . . ."Regardless of how you feel about the issue of "assault " rifles, how do you think this will sit with non-progressive and anti-gun citizens?A couple of...
- 1302
Gun Control
by lesliebyars 12 years ago
How do you feel about gun control? Something has got to be done, but what?
- 135
Gun Control Who
by Judy Specht 12 years ago
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” - Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/gun-c … z2Halds2vi
- 51
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by strengthcourageme 10 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
- 28
Gun control -Latest polling
by PrettyPanther 5 years ago
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 2-5, 2019. N=1,003 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5. "Would you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?" Support 56%Oppose 41%Unsure 4% ...