If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Caller)   George Will: Tougher gun laws, assault weapons ban won't help. But shhh, he uses real world info, data and ignores media hyperbole. So warning; you might learn something   (dailycaller.com) divider line 865
    More: Obvious, George Will, assault weapons ban, gun laws, assault weapons, hyperbole, .info  
•       •       •

6299 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 3:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



865 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-17 12:27:10 AM

heap: redmid17: heap: iq_in_binary: "Fark You, You're a gun owner. We've kicked you in the nuts for no good reason and you should be lucky we don't just remove them this time."

again, i am a gun owner.

the desire to paint everything that doesn't blow smoke up your ass as part of some gun grabbing conspiracy to take away your freedom/toys/testicles is just frigging tiresome.

Then come up with something realistic.

if you follow the conversation, 'Don't try to get increased access to automatic weapons immediately after the death of 20 6 year olds' seems kind of realistic to me.

somehow it's a political issue that will be a winner, and this assumption just kinda leaves me baffled. advocacy like this is doing gun owners few favors.

rohar: Asserting that we need to increase laws that have historically done nothing is farking insane.

i like how the NFA guns are absolutely never used in the commission of crime, yet gun regulation simultaneously does nothing. a sane person might look at the increased barrier to ownership and the responsibilities required and admit regulation actually did something.

but we don't live in sanetown. we live in spiteville.


A sane person might look at the end of prohibition as the major turning point of murder at that point in time. Surely, you can isolate NFA for external variables right? No other gun control law has had a positive correlation with murder rates. Prior or after. That leaves very little room to argue NFA was a dominant variable and the end of prohibition was a subservient variable.

Again, some chucklehead with a conclusion, the wrapping history around it. I so miss critical thought.
 
2012-12-17 12:27:37 AM

heap: redmid17: heap: iq_in_binary: "Fark You, You're a gun owner. We've kicked you in the nuts for no good reason and you should be lucky we don't just remove them this time."

again, i am a gun owner.

the desire to paint everything that doesn't blow smoke up your ass as part of some gun grabbing conspiracy to take away your freedom/toys/testicles is just frigging tiresome.

Then come up with something realistic.

if you follow the conversation, 'Don't try to get increased access to automatic weapons immediately after the death of 20 6 year olds' seems kind of realistic to me.

somehow it's a political issue that will be a winner, and this assumption just kinda leaves me baffled. advocacy like this is doing gun owners few favors.

rohar: Asserting that we need to increase laws that have historically done nothing is farking insane.

i like how the NFA guns are absolutely never used in the commission of crime, yet gun regulation simultaneously does nothing. a sane person might look at the increased barrier to ownership and the responsibilities required and admit regulation actually did something.

but we don't live in sanetown. we live in spiteville.


Point out where, anywhere really, I've told you gun legislation does nothing? My proposal is built upon the premise that gun legislation DOES WORK. To top it off, I based it off of the most successful piece of gun control legislation the world has ever seen. Not a SINGLE NFA WEAPON has been used in a crime. Point me to a country that hasn't had a gun massacre after passing wide sweeping gun bans? Good luck.

You're just being a troll at this point.
 
2012-12-17 12:28:11 AM

redmid17:

Zero NFA weapons have been used in crime since '34. The reason is not lack of availability or price. It's the vetting process you have to go through to even own one.


and i am in complete agreement. again, this seems like a success story.
 
2012-12-17 12:28:32 AM
 
2012-12-17 12:29:20 AM

Repo Man: Dude, the connections between hopelessness, drug use, and then crime to fund further drug use once addicted is very nearly indisputible.


Honestly, I gotta wonder if I'm just being trolled. No one could possibly be that willfully out of touch with the realities of poverty. Hence the "silver spoon" quip. 

malialitman.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-17 12:29:35 AM

heap: iq_in_binary: And yet because I offer one teensy little thing to get the support from the gun owners that you're going to need to have it

yah, just a teensy thing.

a tiny, wafer thin mint, if you will.


You're a troll, then, a good one, but a troll. Fark off. Plonk
 
2012-12-17 12:30:10 AM

iq_in_binary: Point out where, anywhere really, I've told you gun legislation does nothing?


sweet jesus man, i wasn't talking to you. look at the person's name there. it's decidedly 'not you'.

and what did that person say? that person said that gun regulation did nothing.

see this?

rohar: Asserting that we need to increase laws that have historically done nothing is farking insane.


that's not-you saying something, and me responding to it. is that ok?
 
2012-12-17 12:30:31 AM

rohar: efgeise: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

Looking at your graph, there was a nice fall in the 93/94 year. Didn't the Assault Weapon Ban kick in around 1994? I'm not trying to be incendiary.

Yes, that occurred in '94. Well after the decline started. Just to put things in perspective, the overwhelming majority of gun related homicides are committed with hand guns that were not included in the assault weapons ban. Oh and after the ban was lifted, homicide rates continued to fall. Given all of this, what are you trying to say?


Actually, from the data you presented, you can not say, with statistical certainty, that there is a trend downwards. I see 2 spikes upwards, as well as accompanying falls.

I wasn't trying to say anything, only pointing out something I saw in your data.
 
2012-12-17 12:30:44 AM

whidbey: EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: The "challenge" would be for you to provide citations for all of the bare assertions you've been making.

You're the one who first suggested that poverty was responsible for violent crime

Um, no. First you made the statement "Social spending has nothing to do with the rate of violent crime."

No citation whatsoever.

Then you made the claim "There is no "provable" connection between violence and poverty"

which you also cannot prove.

I'm totally wasting my time replying to your nonsense.


The overwhelmingly highest rate of gun crime in this county by cohort is committed by black males between 17 and 28. You know another strange thing about this demographic? They're broke.

It may not be causation (I'll wait for someone to tell us how), but it's definitely causation.

Just for kicks, it turns out higher income variants of this cohort don't commit violent crime anywhere near as often.
 
2012-12-17 12:30:55 AM

iq_in_binary: Plonk


you suck at reading.
 
2012-12-17 12:31:50 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: You're either ignorant or trolling if you don't see how being poor and desperate just might drive you to committing crimes, especially when you feel you have nothing to lose.

Again, please define "nothing to lose" (and stop dodging the question, you coward). I suspect what you really mean is that many criminals have been taught to blame society for their problems and use this as a justification for theft, robbery, rape, and murder (while hard- left idiots like you cheer them on, of course). You talk as if we were still living in a Dickensian world where all crime involved starving orphans pinching a ha'-penny's worth of bread; it's pretty hard to reconcile this with the modern world and its well- fed perpetrators getting involved in muggings, bank robberies, shoplifting, looting etc.


Motivations notwithstanding, it sounds like you're in agreement.
 
2012-12-17 12:31:52 AM

rohar: heap: redmid17: heap: iq_in_binary: "Fark You, You're a gun owner. We've kicked you in the nuts for no good reason and you should be lucky we don't just remove them this time."

again, i am a gun owner.

the desire to paint everything that doesn't blow smoke up your ass as part of some gun grabbing conspiracy to take away your freedom/toys/testicles is just frigging tiresome.

Then come up with something realistic.

if you follow the conversation, 'Don't try to get increased access to automatic weapons immediately after the death of 20 6 year olds' seems kind of realistic to me.

somehow it's a political issue that will be a winner, and this assumption just kinda leaves me baffled. advocacy like this is doing gun owners few favors.

rohar: Asserting that we need to increase laws that have historically done nothing is farking insane.

i like how the NFA guns are absolutely never used in the commission of crime, yet gun regulation simultaneously does nothing. a sane person might look at the increased barrier to ownership and the responsibilities required and admit regulation actually did something.

but we don't live in sanetown. we live in spiteville.

A sane person might look at the end of prohibition as the major turning point of murder at that point in time. Surely, you can isolate NFA for external variables right? No other gun control law has had a positive correlation with murder rates. Prior or after. That leaves very little room to argue NFA was a dominant variable and the end of prohibition was a subservient variable.

Again, some chucklehead with a conclusion, the wrapping history around it. I so miss critical thought.


So let me guess, there hasn't been a significant up tick in mass shootings lately?
 
2012-12-17 12:32:35 AM
I will say it. Because nobody else will.Conservatives are too afraid they will look like a paranoid nutcases, and those mean liberals will mock them. They are afraid with reason, just look at your average libertarian.

The purpose of the second amendment is not so that we can hunt or defend ourselves. It is a check on the power of government. No, that does not mean I agree with crazy militia types. No, that does not mean I want to overthrow the government. No, that does not mean they can take my guns when they take them from my cold dead hands. I don't own any. I don't really like them.

I just have the mental capacity to recognize that this is a legitimate idea, and the balls (beers drank) to admit it. So you people on both sides can throw out your stats all you want. Doesn't matter. Society has seen again and again what happens when a populace is disarmed.

Slutter McGee
 
2012-12-17 12:32:58 AM
 
2012-12-17 12:33:37 AM

whidbey: "Nothing to lose" means exactly that. I see no reason to keep trying to get you to understand the mindset of someone poor and desperate enough to commit crimes. At any rate, you aren't capable of empathizing, and think everyone who breaks the law does it because they're evil and selfish.


I had an uncle once who used to steal scrap metal so that he could get the money to buy booze (he's dead now, God rest him). He was caught by the police when trying to pry the metal off a church roof. I don't believe he was evil, but he was definitely selfish. It's a shame he didn't meet you, or he could have learned some really elaborate rationalizations for his thefts.

I'm sure you believe that. Also, it's rather difficult if not outright pointless to have a discussion with someone who feels the need to use the term "hard left idiot." I am a moderate liberal, and I am educated.

No "moderate liberal" excuses people from the consequences of their own actions by making extravagant excuses for them... you are clearly much further to the left than you claim.

You' re clearly of some kind of upper-class if not rich background, and you are out of touch with the reality most have to face on a daily basis.

Look, there's the clairvoyance at work again! I wonder why you bother wasting your time on Fark when you could be reading minds out in the real world for fame and fortune.

There's little point in my telling you that you're totally wrong about my background; you wouldn't believe it anyway because your idiotic preconceptions are set in stone. But whether I were Bill Gates's son or living in a cardboard box, my opinions would still be either right or wrong based on their own merits. Only a fanatic would claim that certain people are automatically invalidated from expressing their beliefs on the basis of their upbringing... but then you are a fanatic, aren't you?
 
2012-12-17 12:34:21 AM

efgeise: rohar: efgeise: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

Looking at your graph, there was a nice fall in the 93/94 year. Didn't the Assault Weapon Ban kick in around 1994? I'm not trying to be incendiary.

Yes, that occurred in '94. Well after the decline started. Just to put things in perspective, the overwhelming majority of gun related homicides are committed with hand guns that were not included in the assault weapons ban. Oh and after the ban was lifted, homicide rates continued to fall. Given all of this, what are you trying to say?

Actually, from the data you presented, you can not say, with statistical certainty, that there is a trend downwards. I see 2 spikes upwards, as well as accompanying falls.

I wasn't trying to say anything, only pointing out something I saw in your data.


Agreed, somewhat. That said, there's still no correlation between gun legislation and murder rates. The murder rate goes where it does. We pass gun legislation and nothing improves. Legislation expires and rates don't go up. There simply is no correlation between the two.
 
2012-12-17 12:35:43 AM

rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?


Why did the fall suddenly stop in 2000?
 
2012-12-17 12:37:57 AM

iq_in_binary: So let me guess, there hasn't been a significant up tick in mass shootings lately?


You seem to think the victims care if they're killed one at a time or 30 in a group. I'm guessing not.

The same tactics that reduce murder as a whole, will likely reduce mass shootings as well. Can you come up with a reason why they wouldn't?
 
2012-12-17 12:39:44 AM

Slutter McGee: I will say it. Because nobody else will.Conservatives are too afraid they will look like a paranoid nutcases, and those mean liberals will mock them. They are afraid with reason, just look at your average libertarian.

The purpose of the second amendment is not so that we can hunt or defend ourselves. It is a check on the power of government. No, that does not mean I agree with crazy militia types. No, that does not mean I want to overthrow the government. No, that does not mean they can take my guns when they take them from my cold dead hands. I don't own any. I don't really like them.

I just have the mental capacity to recognize that this is a legitimate idea, and the balls (beers drank) to admit it. So you people on both sides can throw out your stats all you want. Doesn't matter. Society has seen again and again what happens when a populace is disarmed.

Slutter McGee


HERE

Read it, tell me what you think, and realize that it is something designed to both A) Solve the Problem, and B)Get passed. I'll address any concerns you have, although you might see a little bit addressed up thread.

It's already been changed once, I'll change it again with any good ideas coming up. Already did in fact.
 
2012-12-17 12:39:48 AM

Slutter McGee: I will say it. Because nobody else will.Conservatives are too afraid they will look like a paranoid nutcases, and those mean liberals will mock them. They are afraid with reason, just look at your average libertarian.

The purpose of the second amendment is not so that we can hunt or defend ourselves. It is a check on the power of government. No, that does not mean I agree with crazy militia types. No, that does not mean I want to overthrow the government. No, that does not mean they can take my guns when they take them from my cold dead hands. I don't own any. I don't really like them.

I just have the mental capacity to recognize that this is a legitimate idea, and the balls (beers drank) to admit it. So you people on both sides can throw out your stats all you want. Doesn't matter. Society has seen again and again what happens when a populace is disarmed.

Slutter McGee


Joe, Frank, and Bubba from Kentucky ain't going to stop the most massively funded military force in possibly the history of the world, with or without automatic weapons. Red Dawn was just a movie.
 
2012-12-17 12:40:13 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: No "moderate liberal" excuses people from the consequences of their own actions by making extravagant excuses for them... you are clearly much further to the left than you claim.


That's nice. Again, whatever disingenuous opinion you have of me isn't a fact, either.

EvilRacistNaziFascist:

Social spending has nothing to do with the rate of violent crime."

"There is no "provable" connection between violence and poverty"


Still waiting on those citatations.
 
2012-12-17 12:40:47 AM

rohar: iq_in_binary: So let me guess, there hasn't been a significant up tick in mass shootings lately?

You seem to think the victims care if they're killed one at a time or 30 in a group. I'm guessing not.

The same tactics that reduce murder as a whole, will likely reduce mass shootings as well. Can you come up with a reason why they wouldn't?


So what problems do you see with my proposal. Elaborate, I've changed it once already.
 
2012-12-17 12:41:35 AM

heap: redmid17:

Zero NFA weapons have been used in crime since '34. The reason is not lack of availability or price. It's the vetting process you have to go through to even own one.

and i am in complete agreement. again, this seems like a success story.


So if you have to go through the same vetting process, wtf are you talking about?
 
2012-12-17 12:42:46 AM

I Like Bread: EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: You're either ignorant or trolling if you don't see how being poor and desperate just might drive you to committing crimes, especially when you feel you have nothing to lose.

Again, please define "nothing to lose" (and stop dodging the question, you coward). I suspect what you really mean is that many criminals have been taught to blame society for their problems and use this as a justification for theft, robbery, rape, and murder (while hard- left idiots like you cheer them on, of course). You talk as if we were still living in a Dickensian world where all crime involved starving orphans pinching a ha'-penny's worth of bread; it's pretty hard to reconcile this with the modern world and its well- fed perpetrators getting involved in muggings, bank robberies, shoplifting, looting etc.

Motivations notwithstanding, it sounds like you're in agreement.


We are not in "agreement." He made some very absurd broadbrush statements, and my only conclusion is that he has no idea of what it's like to be poor and desperate enough to commit a crime. and has no place making judgments.
 
2012-12-17 12:45:18 AM

Repo Man: Dude, the connections between hopelessness, drug use, and then crime to fund further drug use once addicted is very nearly indisputible. Take a look at this: Children of the Mountains': Full Show


Again, I am looking for an objective definition of "hopelessness" -- which, if this phenomenon is so obvious and all- pervasive, should be perfectly easy to provide.
 
2012-12-17 12:47:27 AM

redmid17: heap: redmid17:

Zero NFA weapons have been used in crime since '34. The reason is not lack of availability or price. It's the vetting process you have to go through to even own one.

and i am in complete agreement. again, this seems like a success story.

So if you have to go through the same vetting process, wtf are you talking about?


repealing the hughes amendment as a reacharound.

somehow, i just don't see it as either a topical priority or a political possibility. that you can't get a full auto for under 50 grand was the specific gripe listed, and i found that absolutely daft to have as a priority. the assumption is that somehow it's a political winner or won't at all bite gun advocates in the ass is only about half of what had me cocking my head like a dog being taught algebra. the other half is just the off the rails histrionics i've gotten in return for saying as much.
 
2012-12-17 12:47:48 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Repo Man: Dude, the connections between hopelessness, drug use, and then crime to fund further drug use once addicted is very nearly indisputible. Take a look at this: Children of the Mountains': Full Show

Again, I am looking for an objective definition of "hopelessness" -- which, if this phenomenon is so obvious and all- pervasive, should be perfectly easy to provide.


Just stop it.
 
2012-12-17 12:48:19 AM

LoneWolf343: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

Why did the fall suddenly stop in 2000?


Huh, look at that. No major change in gun regulation and it just goes flat. Then it starts falling again in 2008. Odd isn't it.
 
2012-12-17 12:49:08 AM

heap: redmid17: heap: redmid17:

Zero NFA weapons have been used in crime since '34. The reason is not lack of availability or price. It's the vetting process you have to go through to even own one.

and i am in complete agreement. again, this seems like a success story.

So if you have to go through the same vetting process, wtf are you talking about?

repealing the hughes amendment as a reacharound.

somehow, i just don't see it as either a topical priority or a political possibility. that you can't get a full auto for under 50 grand was the specific gripe listed, and i found that absolutely daft to have as a priority. the assumption is that somehow it's a political winner or won't at all bite gun advocates in the ass is only about half of what had me cocking my head like a dog being taught algebra. the other half is just the off the rails histrionics i've gotten in return for saying as much.


Okay so you just don't have a decent grasp on guns politics
 
2012-12-17 12:49:59 AM

redmid17:

Okay so you just don't have a decent grasp on guns politics


your mother is a whore.

we've both explained our positions sufficiently now.
 
2012-12-17 12:51:15 AM

rohar: efgeise: rohar: efgeise: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

Looking at your graph, there was a nice fall in the 93/94 year. Didn't the Assault Weapon Ban kick in around 1994? I'm not trying to be incendiary.

Yes, that occurred in '94. Well after the decline started. Just to put things in perspective, the overwhelming majority of gun related homicides are committed with hand guns that were not included in the assault weapons ban. Oh and after the ban was lifted, homicide rates continued to fall. Given all of this, what are you trying to say?

Actually, from the data you presented, you can not say, with statistical certainty, that there is a trend downwards. I see 2 spikes upwards, as well as accompanying falls.

I wasn't trying to say anything, only pointing out something I saw in your data.

Agreed, somewhat. That said, there's still no correlation between gun legislation and murder rates. The murder rate goes where it does. We pass gun legislation and nothing improves. Legislation expires and rates don't go up. There simply is no correlation between the two.


I'm wondering if perhaps the effect of the AWB wasn't so much as stopping crime right then and there, but rather more about preventing future crime? Granted, as you said, I'm not sure how because the majority of gun-related crime is done with a handgun of some sorts (although the AWB does block some semi-auto handguns).

There is a definitely change in the slope of the graph, to a more negative slope, around 94/95, but it's probably mostly from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

If that is the case, then I would think that the data shows that an increase in police officers is much more beneficial to public safety than anything else, including people with CCW. I personally do not trust a civilian with a gun over myself, but I would trust a police officer.

I do have to say that I'd be all for extending the NFA to basically cover anything not a rifle or shotgun.
 
2012-12-17 12:52:59 AM

iq_in_binary: rohar: iq_in_binary: So let me guess, there hasn't been a significant up tick in mass shootings lately?

You seem to think the victims care if they're killed one at a time or 30 in a group. I'm guessing not.

The same tactics that reduce murder as a whole, will likely reduce mass shootings as well. Can you come up with a reason why they wouldn't?

So what problems do you see with my proposal. Elaborate, I've changed it once already.


Let me spell this out clearly so as that you can understand:

When corrected for major outside influences, gun control laws have had no affect on murder rates within a given demographic globally over the past 50 years. The likelihood of the next one having any affect is 0. It won't work.

That help?
 
2012-12-17 12:54:55 AM

rohar: LoneWolf343: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

Why did the fall suddenly stop in 2000?

Huh, look at that. No major change in gun regulation and it just goes flat. Then it starts falling again in 2008. Odd isn't it.


imgs.xkcd.com

/You're going to hurt yourself will all that spinning.
 
2012-12-17 12:56:23 AM

efgeise: rohar: efgeise: rohar: efgeise: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

Looking at your graph, there was a nice fall in the 93/94 year. Didn't the Assault Weapon Ban kick in around 1994? I'm not trying to be incendiary.

Yes, that occurred in '94. Well after the decline started. Just to put things in perspective, the overwhelming majority of gun related homicides are committed with hand guns that were not included in the assault weapons ban. Oh and after the ban was lifted, homicide rates continued to fall. Given all of this, what are you trying to say?

Actually, from the data you presented, you can not say, with statistical certainty, that there is a trend downwards. I see 2 spikes upwards, as well as accompanying falls.

I wasn't trying to say anything, only pointing out something I saw in your data.

Agreed, somewhat. That said, there's still no correlation between gun legislation and murder rates. The murder rate goes where it does. We pass gun legislation and nothing improves. Legislation expires and rates don't go up. There simply is no correlation between the two.

I'm wondering if perhaps the effect of the AWB wasn't so much as stopping crime right then and there, but rather more about preventing future crime? Granted, as you said, I'm not sure how because the majority of gun-related crime is done w ...


Can you show how NFA was any improvement at all isolating for the end of prohibition? I can't and I'm paid to run statistics for a living.
 
2012-12-17 12:57:28 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Repo Man: Dude, the connections between hopelessness, drug use, and then crime to fund further drug use once addicted is very nearly indisputible. Take a look at this: Children of the Mountains': Full Show

Again, I am looking for an objective definition of "hopelessness" -- which, if this phenomenon is so obvious and all- pervasive, should be perfectly easy to provide.


Watch the 20/20 episode. If you can't make the connection from that, nothing I can say will convince you.
 
2012-12-17 12:57:48 AM

whidbey: Still waiting on those citatations.


Whidbey, you halfwit, you were the one who originally suggested (before I said anything) that more social spending would reduce violence: and not only did you not supply a single shred of evidence to back up this extraordinary claim, you became offended that anyone would dare to question you on it and resorted to fabricating an imaginary socio- economic background for me that would magically excuse you from having to answer my questions. And after all that -- hilariously, amazingly -- you want me to have to prove a negative! Don't you see how illogical this all is?

A. "Black people are evil!"
B. "Wait... can you prove that?"
A. "Duh, it's obvious! You must be black to ask such a question!"
B. "That makes no sense. Again, can you prove that black people are evil?"
A. "Can you prove that they aren't? Well, there you go then."

As usual, I am never disappointed by the amount of dogmatic idiocy and blind groupthink to be found on Fark... if you are really as "educated" as you claim you are, Whidbey, then God forgive your teachers.
 
2012-12-17 12:58:00 AM

LoneWolf343: rohar: LoneWolf343: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

Why did the fall suddenly stop in 2000?

Huh, look at that. No major change in gun regulation and it just goes flat. Then it starts falling again in 2008. Odd isn't it.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 461x295]

/You're going to hurt yourself will all that spinning.


You see, identifying historical statistics isn't extrapolating. Using historical statistics to predict future results is. You'll notice, I have yet to do that. Logic, it's not your strong point is it?
 
2012-12-17 01:11:45 AM

rohar: efgeise: rohar: efgeise: rohar: efgeise: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

Looking at your graph, there was a nice fall in the 93/94 year. Didn't the Assault Weapon Ban kick in around 1994? I'm not trying to be incendiary.

Yes, that occurred in '94. Well after the decline started. Just to put things in perspective, the overwhelming majority of gun related homicides are committed with hand guns that were not included in the assault weapons ban. Oh and after the ban was lifted, homicide rates continued to fall. Given all of this, what are you trying to say?

Actually, from the data you presented, you can not say, with statistical certainty, that there is a trend downwards. I see 2 spikes upwards, as well as accompanying falls.

I wasn't trying to say anything, only pointing out something I saw in your data.

Agreed, somewhat. That said, there's still no correlation between gun legislation and murder rates. The murder rate goes where it does. We pass gun legislation and nothing improves. Legislation expires and rates don't go up. There simply is no correlation between the two.

I'm wondering if perhaps the effect of the AWB wasn't so much as stopping crime right then and there, but rather more about preventing future crime? Granted, as you said, I'm not sure how because the majority of gun-related crime ...


I'm looking at this graph:
thepublicintellectual.org

From what I can tell, Prohibition didn't skyrocket homicides to unseen levels. So, judging from this assumption, it stands to me that the sudden fall wouldn't be strictly from the end of Prohibition. I'll admit, this isn't a statistical evaluation, but more of a gedankenexperiment of sorts.

Anyways, I'm trying to work on my thesis.
 
2012-12-17 01:12:38 AM

rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?


[citation needed].
 
2012-12-17 01:16:02 AM

whidbey: EvilRacistNaziFascist:

Social spending has nothing to do with the rate of violent crime."

"There is no "provable" connection between violence and poverty"

Still waiting on those citatations.


You won't get one. Some people like to toss out tautologies like "X is bullshiat" and think these statements can stand on their own, because they don't understand the meaning of "you can't disprove a negative".
 
2012-12-17 01:16:06 AM

pion: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

[citation needed].


shiat, that was timely. Look one post up, efgeise was kind enough to post the chart supporting my assertion.

/that's gotta be somewhat embarrassing right?
 
2012-12-17 01:16:10 AM

rohar: LoneWolf343: rohar: LoneWolf343: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

Why did the fall suddenly stop in 2000?

Huh, look at that. No major change in gun regulation and it just goes flat. Then it starts falling again in 2008. Odd isn't it.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 461x295]

/You're going to hurt yourself will all that spinning.

You see, identifying historical statistics isn't extrapolating. Using historical statistics to predict future results is. You'll notice, I have yet to do that. Logic, it's not your strong point is it?


Well, predict a few "future results" with these apples.

www.washingtonpost.com

www.washingtonpost.com

www.washingtonpost.com

Further, your dodging the very honest question speak volumes to your logic. Your refusal to answer that question, responding with only ego-masturbation and condescension, means you 1.) do not know the answer, and are trying to obscure that your inadequacy, or 2.) You don't care, and won't be made to care. Either way, you are thoroughly disqualified from credibility until you account for that discrepancy in your data.

/Also, logic is "premise + premise = conclusion," not "make statement + marginalize challenges = proof."
//It's amusing that someone who is running on a post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy would assert logic to intimidate opponents.
 
2012-12-17 01:18:16 AM

heap: redmid17:

Okay so you just don't have a decent grasp on guns politics

your mother is a whore.

we've both explained our positions sufficiently now.


I was with you (or at least respected your right to espouse your opinions) right up to now. Is there some reason you decided to take the lowest road possible and call redmid17's mother a whore?
 
2012-12-17 01:23:03 AM

rohar: pion: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

[citation needed].

shiat, that was timely. Look one post up, efgeise was kind enough to post the chart supporting my assertion.

/that's gotta be somewhat embarrassing right?


You seem to fail at reading comprehension. Show me something from a peer-reviewed journal. If the chart is from such a journal, provide a citation. If you don't know what "peer-reviewed" means, I'd be happy to provide an explanation.
 
2012-12-17 01:24:56 AM

LoneWolf343: rohar: LoneWolf343: rohar: LoneWolf343: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

Why did the fall suddenly stop in 2000?

Huh, look at that. No major change in gun regulation and it just goes flat. Then it starts falling again in 2008. Odd isn't it.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 461x295]

/You're going to hurt yourself will all that spinning.

You see, identifying historical statistics isn't extrapolating. Using historical statistics to predict future results is. You'll notice, I have yet to do that. Logic, it's not your strong point is it?

Well, predict a few "future results" with these apples.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 580x464]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x695]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x695]

Further, your dodging the very honest question speak volumes to your logic. Your refusal to answer that question, responding with only ego-masturbation and condescension, means you 1.) do not know the answer, and are trying to obscure that your inadequacy, or 2.) You don't care, and won't be made to care. Either way, you are thoroughly disqualified from credibility until you account for that discrepancy in your data.

/Also, logic is "premise + premise = conclusion," not "make statement + marginalize challenges = proof."
//It's amusing that someone who is running on a post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy would a ...


That's awesome, you found some charts. You'll also notice that homicide rates in WA are half of what they are in LA. They have virtually the same gun laws. So here's the problem. Either homicide rates are a function of gun control laws or they're a function of a larger societal difference. As hard as you've been trying, you've not addressed that issue. One way would be to cite a single instance where a gun control law had a correlating reduction in murder rates for a single demographic. Another would be to cite two similar demographics with different gun control laws and different murder rates. You chose to do neither. Your argument sucks.
 
2012-12-17 01:28:29 AM

LoneWolf343: Slutter McGee: I will say it. Because nobody else will.Conservatives are too afraid they will look like a paranoid nutcases, and those mean liberals will mock them. They are afraid with reason, just look at your average libertarian.

The purpose of the second amendment is not so that we can hunt or defend ourselves. It is a check on the power of government. No, that does not mean I agree with crazy militia types. No, that does not mean I want to overthrow the government. No, that does not mean they can take my guns when they take them from my cold dead hands. I don't own any. I don't really like them.

I just have the mental capacity to recognize that this is a legitimate idea, and the balls (beers drank) to admit it. So you people on both sides can throw out your stats all you want. Doesn't matter. Society has seen again and again what happens when a populace is disarmed.

Slutter McGee

Joe, Frank, and Bubba from Kentucky ain't going to stop the most massively funded military force in possibly the history of the world, with or without automatic weapons. Red Dawn was just a movie.


Do you know what a check is? Apparently not. See the Senate can override a presidential veto. This is called a check. It does not mean the law will not be passed at some point in the future. I think I made it clear that I don't give a crap about militias, so your attempt at an insult is pretty silly. I will just take this to mean you have no counter argument and so must resort to the need to belittle me.

That is alright. I have no problem with your need to make yourself feel intellectually superior.

Slutter McGee
 
2012-12-17 01:30:27 AM

pion: rohar: pion: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

[citation needed].

shiat, that was timely. Look one post up, efgeise was kind enough to post the chart supporting my assertion.

/that's gotta be somewhat embarrassing right?

You seem to fail at reading comprehension. Show me something from a peer-reviewed journal. If the chart is from such a journal, provide a citation. If you don't know what "peer-reviewed" means, I'd be happy to provide an explanation.


What!? We now need to peer review standardized metrics? No scientist on the planet would suggest such a thing. Do you have any metrics that show otherwise?

Oh, and the source is the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
 
2012-12-17 01:30:54 AM

rohar: That's awesome, you found some charts. You'll also notice that homicide rates in WA are half of what they are in LA. data. I have an anecdote.


You're like those people thinks that a cold day disproves global warming.

Slutter McGee: LoneWolf343: Slutter McGee: I will say it. Because nobody else will.Conservatives are too afraid they will look like a paranoid nutcases, and those mean liberals will mock them. They are afraid with reason, just look at your average libertarian.

The purpose of the second amendment is not so that we can hunt or defend ourselves. It is a check on the power of government. No, that does not mean I agree with crazy militia types. No, that does not mean I want to overthrow the government. No, that does not mean they can take my guns when they take them from my cold dead hands. I don't own any. I don't really like them.

I just have the mental capacity to recognize that this is a legitimate idea, and the balls (beers drank) to admit it. So you people on both sides can throw out your stats all you want. Doesn't matter. Society has seen again and again what happens when a populace is disarmed.

Slutter McGee

Joe, Frank, and Bubba from Kentucky ain't going to stop the most massively funded military force in possibly the history of the world, with or without automatic weapons. Red Dawn was just a movie.

Do you know what a check is? Apparently not. See the Senate can override a presidential veto. This is called a check. It does not mean the law will not be passed at some point in the future. I think I made it clear that I don't give a crap about militias, so your attempt at an insult is pretty silly. I will just take this to mean you have no counter argument and so must resort to the need to belittle me.

That is alright. I have no problem with your need to make yourself feel intellectually superior.

Slutter McGee


A check doesn't mean anything if it doesn't have teeth.
 
2012-12-17 01:33:50 AM

LoneWolf343: rohar: That's awesome, you found some charts. You'll also notice that homicide rates in WA are half of what they are in LA. data. I have an anecdote.

You're like those people thinks that a cold day disproves global warming.


So you can cite any gun regulation in any country on the face of the planet in the past 50 years that had any effect on murder rates?

I can't and I've combed through all of it.
 
2012-12-17 01:36:27 AM

llachlan: heap: redmid17:

Okay so you just don't have a decent grasp on guns politics

your mother is a whore.

we've both explained our positions sufficiently now.

I was with you (or at least respected your right to espouse your opinions) right up to now. Is there some reason you decided to take the lowest road possible and call redmid17's mother a whore?


because dismissal isn't conversation.

there really isn't a need to take 'oh, so you just don't understand what you're talking about' with no support, argument or even clarification seriously - so i don't.
 
Displayed 50 of 865 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report