Pin number

[Brian Peacock]

There's your problem - golf.

You wouldn't say that if you saw the ladies open.

[Blind groper]

There is absolutely zero credible evidence that more guns make less crime. Just statements by self serving people making money by pandering to the gun community. Lott and Kleck have been discredited by literally dozens of respected researchers who have looked at their so-called research, and their errors analysed.

One factor I do know has been demonstrated to cut crime is more and more effective police work. Especially if its effectiveness is well publicised. To reduce crime, more and better trained police will do the job. More guns in civilian hands will do the opposite.

It is also true that over 100,000 people each year in the USA, excluding suicides, receive a bullet through some part of their anatomy each year. With an average lifespan of 79 years, and 320 million people, that calculates out as a chance of greater than 1 in 50 for each American of being sot some time in his/her life time.

[rainbow]

Yes, banning guns creates a higher risk of innocent people being victimized by crime.

That is drivel and you know it.

No, it's a stone-cold fact, as proven repeatedly by US crime rates. When you compare crime rates in "gun free" cities and states to crime rates in "shall issue" concealed carry states you find that where guns are banned more innocent people get victimized by crime. Massively so. Places like Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, LA and other "gun free" gun-banner paradises have astronomical crime rates and some of them have murder rates that have skyrocketed in just the last year or so.

All it proves is that by carefully selecting your data, you can prove that confirmation bias is real.

[Seth]

Yes, banning guns creates a higher risk of innocent people being victimized by crime.

That is drivel and you know it.

No, it's a stone-cold fact, as proven repeatedly by US crime rates. When you compare crime rates in "gun free" cities and states to crime rates in "shall issue" concealed carry states you find that where guns are banned more innocent people get victimized by crime. Massively so. Places like Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, LA and other "gun free" gun-banner paradises have astronomical crime rates and some of them have murder rates that have skyrocketed in just the last year or so.

All it proves is that by carefully selecting your data, you can prove that confirmation bias is real.

So, how do YOU explain that despite a massive increase in gun ownership in the US, violent crime rates go down overall, but in places where guns are banned, they go up?

It ain't confirmation bias, it's stone-cold fact. Go look up the FBI statistics yourself and try to shoehorn the facts into your confirmation bias pre-determined opinion that more guns = more crime. You won't be able to do it.

[Seth]

There is absolutely zero credible evidence that more guns make less crime.

Actually, there is a large and growing body of evidence showing exactly that.

Just statements by self serving people making money by pandering to the gun community.

Ad hominem fallacy sans even one iota of evidence even suggesting such a motivation for committing academic fraud which flatly ignores the simple fact that every one of the gun opponent's research that YOU have cited are doing exactly the same thing for the anti-gun community.

Lott and Kleck have been discredited by literally dozens of respected researchers who have looked at their so-called research, and their errors analysed.

No, people have tried to discredit them but their attempts to do so have all been refuted and shown to be biased and blatantly false by ongoing new research, research which has convinced the legislative bodies of all 50 states that issuing concealed carry permits to law abiding citizens is a public benefit that poses no risk to the general public. I think the thousands and thousands of individual state legislators who have viewed all this evidence time and time again are far better informed than you are on this subject. And less obviously biased.

One factor I do know has been demonstrated to cut crime is more and more effective police work. Especially if its effectiveness is well publicised. To reduce crime, more and better trained police will do the job.

Can't argue with this. Better policing is better.

More guns in civilian hands will do the opposite.

You lie.

It is also true that over 100,000 people each year in the USA, excluding suicides, receive a bullet through some part of their anatomy each year.

And the vast majority of those completely deserve it because they are criminals engaged in criminality and are unlawfully shot by other criminals with illegal guns or by law abiding citizens with lawfully possessed guns used in lawful self defense. A tiny and shrinking (thanks to the NRA) fraction of them are the result of accident or gun mishandling.

With an average lifespan of 79 years, and 320 million people, that calculates out as a chance of greater than 1 in 50 for each American of being sot some time in his/her life time.

And this completely idiotic and simplistic "calculation" demonstrates exactly why you are so utterly wrong all the time.

[rainbow]

So, how do YOU explain that despite a massive increase in gun ownership in the US, violent crime rates go down overall, but in places where guns are banned, they go up?

I have already explained to you that correlation isn't causation:





Are you seriously too dim to understand this?

[Seth]

So, how do YOU explain that despite a massive increase in gun ownership in the US, violent crime rates go down overall, but in places where guns are banned, they go up?

I have already explained to you that correlation isn't causation:
Are you seriously too dim to understand this?

Er, non sequitur. I asked YOU to explain the correlation that is quite obvious. I know the answer, but clearly you do not, so you need to study the issue carefully and examine all of the data and explain to me how it is that crime in the US continues to go down as gun ownership goes up if the premise of the argument against the public being armed is that more guns mean more crime.

Otherwise just admit that more guns does not equal more crime. I'll even let it rest there because if more guns in society does not cause or result in more crime, then there's no rational argument to be made for banning private ownership of guns.

And if that's the case, then all the anti-gun zealots here can just shut the fuck up about it...finally.

But they won't because the fundamental premise of gun control freaks is that more guns equals more crime, even though the evidence that this is an outright lie stares them in the face every single day.

That makes THEM the deranged nutcases who in my opinion are far more dangerous than the occasional deranged nutcase with a gun because if they get their way, EVERYONE (except the gun-toting deranged nutcases) will be disarmed and entirely helpless against the inevitable attempts at massacre that criminals perpetrate in spite of the most draconian anti-gun laws on earth.

So put up or shut up. Look at the actual facts and then explain to me how it can be that way if the anti-gun propaganda is correct.

[Brian Peacock]

Among all this talk of correlation and causation and violence, there is the factor that not all violent crime is of the same type or order. How are we to decipher the respective effects of gun violence compared to fisticuffs, knife crime to baseball bats, group assailants to single assailants, multiple victims to single victims.

[rainbow]

So put up or shut up. Look at the actual facts and then explain to me how it can be that way if the anti-gun propaganda is correct.

People who take aspirin are more likely to suffer from headaches than those who don't.

You would argue that taking aspirin causes headaches.

Seriously, dude - you need to take some logic classes.

Is there a Community College nearby?

...or are you afraid to go because someone might shoot at you?

[Seth]

Among all this talk of correlation and causation and violence, there is the factor that not all violent crime is of the same type or order. How are we to decipher the respective effects of gun violence compared to fisticuffs, knife crime to baseball bats, group assailants to single assailants, multiple victims to single victims.

Not my problem. Defensive handguns can be effective against all such unlawful threats, which is an important point to keep in mind when reviewing the legitimate uses of firearms. Violent crime is violent. People have a right not to be victims of violent crime, no matter how it is perpetrated, and handguns are very effective for that purpose.

[Seth]

So put up or shut up. Look at the actual facts and then explain to me how it can be that way if the anti-gun propaganda is correct.

People who take aspirin are more likely to suffer from headaches than those who don't.

You would argue that taking aspirin causes headaches.

No, I would say headaches happen, and people use an effective remedy to reduce the pain and harm caused by headaches: aspirin.

Likewise, violent crime happens, and people use an effective remedy to reduce the pain and harm caused by violent crime: handguns.

As we can therefore see, it's not a matter of claiming causation because of a correlation, which in your example is fallacious, it's a matter of causation proving correlation. Thus the number of headaches is directly correlated to the amount of aspirin use and the number of violent crimes prevented is directly correlated to the number of guns used by potential victims to prevent such crimes.

Seriously, dude - you need to take some logic classes.

No, not really. Just because you think you're being all logical and junk doesn't mean you are. You got the whole thing ass-backwards because you fail to understand cause and effect, which is as important as correlation and causation when trying to make rational arguments, which you didn't.

Is there a Community College nearby?

Several. Would you like me to send you their addresses so you can stare wistfully at the brochures they send you?

...or are you afraid to go because someone might shoot at you?

Not actually afraid, merely concerned at the notion of contributing to the perpetuation of "gun free zones" where deranged mass killers ALWAYS GO to kill people because, well, they know their victims will not be armed.

[rainbow]

Likewise, violent crime happens, and people use an effective remedy to reduce the pain and harm caused by violent crime: handguns.

You see violent crime happens less in the civilised world, so people don't have to run around with guns.

[Brian Peacock]

Among all this talk of correlation and causation and violence, there is the factor that not all violent crime is of the same type or order. How are we to decipher the respective effects of gun violence compared to fisticuffs, knife crime to baseball bats, group assailants to single assailants, multiple victims to single victims.

Not my problem.

Sure, it's social issue.

[Seth]

Likewise, violent crime happens, and people use an effective remedy to reduce the pain and harm caused by violent crime: handguns.

You see violent crime happens less in the civilised world, so people don't have to run around with guns.

Wrong. It's not a statistical analysis you see. If violent crime happens, ever, then every citizen who is a potential victim of violent crime is entitled to carry effective self-defense weapons one-hundred percent of the time. Your argument reduces to the idea that because violent crime is less frequent (which is actually not true in the UK, for example) than some other place, that the cause of less violent crime is the absence of guns (which is not true either), and therefore guns must be denied all potential law abiding victims (who don't commit crimes with guns), which means that all those law abiding people who ARE victimized by violent crime, no matter how many or few of them there are, are nothing more than statistics and acceptable casualties to you and your government. That's what you seem incapable of understanding. Neither you, nor any government, has a right, the authority, or any argument to make about prohibiting any or all law-abiding citizens from carrying any or all effective self-defense arms, as they judge necessary and see fit.

To do so is to deliberately, intentionally and knowingly make helpless victims of those who are actually victimized, however many of them there are, and their pain, anguish, injury, loss and blood are on your hands and you should be held liable for compensating them for participating in denying them their rights.

[Blind groper]

First

Seth's claim that more guns correlate with lower murder rates over the past several decades.

The University of Chicago carried out a study which showed the truth. Since 1990, murder rates have gone down. But this is correlated with a reduction in the number of gun OWNERS.

Yes, there are more guns, but this is because the average number of guns owned by those with guns is increasing. The average is now more than 3. Most Americans are smart enough not to buy guns, but the one third that are paranoid buy more than one gun. Sometimes more than a dozen.

So number of guns has increased, but at the same time, the number of gun owners has dropped. The murder rate fell along with the number of gun owners.

Seth repeatedly denies this, but the University of Chicago is not a bunch of bunnies. Their research is solid.