What did this girl have that she needed?

[piscator]

d) yes, I've been dubbed an honorary American

American? Or redneck?

Is there a real difference when the person speaking is a litigatious, 2nd amendment supporting Merkin?

Plus points for saying, "Litigatious" when you could have opted for the Frenchier-looking litiginous.

no, the real French version would have been "litigynous", and I'd be trying to get inside her pants.

That settles it. "Le tijiy new" is a perfect name for a perfume!

[Seth]

"Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from both the state and county panel data models conducted over the entire 1977-2006 period with and without state trends and using three different specifications is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted."

Go read the paper instead of just the syllabus. Here's the section of the conclusion pertinent to the accuracy and reliability of, apparently, everybody's work on the subject:

While the NRC majority decision of uncertainty was clearly influenced by the sensitivity of the estimates to various modeling choices, the statement by Horowitz was even more categorical in its nihilism, essentially rejecting all applied econometric work on RTC legislation, as indicated by his following independent statement in an appendix to the NRC’s (2005) report:
“It is unlikely that there can be an empirically based resolution of the question of whether Lott has reached the correct conclusions about the effects of right-to-carry laws on crime.” (p. 304, NRC Report.)
Of course, if there can be no empirically based resolution of this question, it means that short of doing an experiment in which laws are randomly assigned to states, there will be no way to assess the impact of these laws. But there is nothing particularly special about the RTC issue, as the recent National Research Council report on the deterrence of the death penalty shows (essentially adopting the Horowitz position on the question of whether the death penalty deters murders). The econometrics community needs to think deeply about what these NRC reports and the Horowitz appendix imply more broadly for the study of legislation using panel data econometrics and observational data.
Finally, despite our belief that the NRC’s analysis was imperfect in certain ways, we agree with the committee’s cautious final judgment on the effects of RTC laws: “with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.” Our results here further underscore the sensitivity of guns-crime estimates to modeling decisions.48 If one had to make judgments based on panel data models of the type used in the NRC report, one would have to conclude that RTC laws likely increase the rate of aggravated assault.49 Further research will be needed to see if this conclusion survives as more data and better methodologies are employed to estimate the impact of RTC laws on crime. (emphasis added)

What the conclusion, rather than your cherry-picked out-of-context statement says is that nobody can currently make a "causal link" between RTC laws and crime. In other words, what they are saying, after grasping at straws as remote as the Mariel boat lift and crack cocaine as factors, is "we don't know."

Given their obviously desperate attempt to massage the data so as to come up with a negative result that refutes Lott and Mustad's work, what they concluded is that they can't come up with a scientifically-supportible result. The paper does NOT state what you falsely and mendaciously imply it does.

But even if I were to accept this conclusion, what was NOT found was what you claim, a statistically significant causal link showing that more guns equals more crime. Even you had to overreach and try to pander a suggestion of an increase in aggravated assaults as the ONLY category with statistically significant increases. You completely ignore every other category of crime and notably you evade your favorite category, murder, and try to move the goalposts to support your pre-determined and completely biased agenda.

So, if I grant, arguendo that the conclusion of the paper is true, and that there is insufficient data upon which to draw a scientific conclusion about the crime-suppressing effects of RTC laws, what is perfectly clear is that overall, crime rates in the United States continue to go down, and at the same time the number of guns in society continues to go up. Certainly there are local variations, particularly in places like Chicago where there is no concealed carry permitted, but one need only look at four data points to blow your theory out of the water: More guns and less crime.

Causal or not, the addition of guns to our society does NOT result in an increase in crime as you insist, so, again arguendo adding more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens results in at worst a neutral effect on crime rates, and therefore your argument for banning guns evaporates in the harsh light of reason.

Even if that is true however, because crime and crime victims are not statistics, they are individual events that happen to actual people, the fact remains that the right to keep and bear arms for self defense trumps your unproven claim that more guns equals more crime.

As I've said so many times, the rights of the individual are not subject to proportional recognition and protection based on a statistical analysis of anything whatsoever. Such rights are complete and sovereign to each individual and may not be apportioned based on some academic's analysis of the individual's risk factors because the risk factor for a crime victim is one hundred percent, every time.

Seth

First : your Australia reference shows 39 people shot. Compare that to 10,000 murdered each year with guns in the USA. Your argument is ridiculous.

Evasion. You stated that I would be safe there because "people don't have guns." You lied.

On the right to carry. You cherry picked a point I had already made - that most crime is not affected by right to carry, but armed assault increases with more right to carry permits. The quote above is taken direct from the abstract referenced.

Read the paper.

However, the study clearly shows you are wrong in suggesting more right to carry means less crime. It does not.

No, it doesn't. It specifically says that no supportable conclusion can be drawn from the present data, and it goes further by saying that it is impossible to draw such a conclusion without being able to randomly assign RTC laws to states as part of a research study.

Incidentally, calling me a liar without adding data to support that assertion makes you look silly.

Well, I've just done so, liar.

[Seth]

http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-r ... homicides/

Let me emphasize once more that the data shows that when more guns are owned, murder rates rise. The above reference relates to the Boston University study comparing American states, that shows every 1% increase in gun ownership is associated with a 0.9% rise in murder rate.

Harvard University found that increased ownership of guns, comparing different countries, is associated with higher rates of murder. My own correlation was plus 0.6 between those two factors.

My earlier reference from the Social Science Research Network shows that more right to carry permits results in a higher rate of aggravated assault (which normally means an assault with a deadly weapon, usually a gun). The New England Journal of Medicine papers show that simply having a gun in the home doubles the risk of being murdered.

More guns means more killing.

You are a liar.

[Blind groper]

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/nove ... 11414.html

Seth

Repeatedly calling me a liar does not change the facts. The reference above is from Stanford University - another impeccable source, which shows that they too, believe that the latest research shows that increasing the number of right to carry permits increases crime.

More guns means more crime and more killings.

[Seth]

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/nove ... 11414.html

Seth

Repeatedly calling me a liar does not change the facts. The reference above is from Stanford University - another impeccable source, which shows that they too, believe that the latest research shows that increasing the number of right to carry permits increases crime.

More guns means more crime and more killings.

You are a liar. The facts show nothing of the kind. What you call facts, aren't.

You do realize that this new "citation" you pander is merely a news report about the exact same paper we have just been arguing over, which states that nobody actually knows. The obviously biased news article from the university itself makes exactly the same mistake you did, the writer read the syllabus and got some quotes but didn't read the paper, which you didn't do either.

I did.

You're engaging in recursive referencing, which demonstrates how superficial your "research" actually is.

You should be embarrassed and ashamed of yourself. But like most hoplophobes, you have no shame and you will lie, prevaricate, dissemble, aggrandize, evade, dodge, misstate, misinterpret and do whatever else you have to do to perpetrate the lie that more guns equals more crime when it's perfectly clear from four data points that this is not the case.

Here are the data points:

Number of guns 30 years ago.

Number of guns today.

Amount of violent crime 30 years ago.

Amount of violent crime today.

The equation is very simple: Determine the polarity of the delta of the first two data points, which is positive, then determine the polarity of the last two data points, which is negative. State conclusion in terms that even an idiot can understand: More guns, less crime.

[Collector1337]

There are so many beta males in this thread it's hilarious.

They would rather depend on others for their protection rather than taking responsibility for themselves.

It's just disgusting. The pussiness is mind blowing.

This girl is more capable. How sad.

Find your balls.

[Blind groper]

Seth

In response to your last post, I have to tell you two things.

First : the drop in murder rate.
This has a cause different to gun numbers. Gun ownership is a major factor determining murder rates, but is not the only one. In this case, population demographics is the key.

Murder rates were low up until the late 1960's and then rose substantially, staying high till the early 1990's. This pattern was not caused by changes in gun ownership. Note the following.
1. The pattern was international, and was almost identical across many countries, regardless of gun ownership.
2. The pattern included a rise in the murder rate, without any rise or fall in gun ownership.
3. The fall in the murder rate began over 30 years ago, well before any increase in gun ownership in the USA, which is only a few years old.

But the whole pattern is explainable in terms of a change in the percentage of young men in the populations of all the nations affected. The baby boom began around 1946, and affected many nations as well as the USA. The first of those baby boomers reached their late teens by the mid to late 1960's, which is when murder rates began rising. Since males between around 17 and 32 years of age contribute disproportionately to violent crime, this was entirely predictable.

Equally predictable is that murder rates will fall when those young males get older than their early 30's. And that is exactly what happened.

Gun ownership correlates with murder rate, with higher gun ownership correlating with higher murder rates, which was shown clearly by the work of Harvard University, Boston University, and even by my own correlation coefficient.

Anyway, the second point.
The Social Sciences Research Network paper.
This showed that increasing the number of concealed carry permits did not have much effect on most crimes. But there was one exception. Aggravated assault. This increased where there were more concealed carry permits.

So having more people carrying guns does not, repeat not, lower crime rates. But it does increase the second worst crime (after murder), which is aggravagted assault. I even posted the sentence from the abstract which makes this point very clear.

[pErvinalia]

What didn't this girl have that she needn't have ned?

[hackenslash]

If you don't want to risk being killed when you try to rob someone, then don't rob someone. Pretty simple logic I'd say.

Two things: Firstly, there's a vast difference between that being the risk and actively wishing that to be the case, the latter being utterly contemptible, and secondly, you wouldn't know logic if it shot you in the fucking face, as demonstrated by your asinine argumentum ad populum below.

It seems that a very large number of my fellow citizens feel the same way, so I really don't give a flying fuck what you think, Hack.

You don't really give a flying fuck that that argument commits a schoolboy error either, moron.

[JimC]

If you don't want to risk being killed when you try to rob someone, then don't rob someone. Pretty simple logic I'd say.

Two things: Firstly, there's a vast difference between that being the risk and actively wishing that to be the case, the latter being utterly contemptible, and secondly, you wouldn't know logic if it shot you in the fucking face, as demonstrated by your asinine argumentum ad populum below.

It seems that a very large number of my fellow citizens feel the same way, so I really don't give a flying fuck what you think, Hack.

You don't really give a flying fuck that that argument commits a schoolboy error either, moron.

Mind you, I use the same sort of argument myself, in that it is very clear that a huge majority of Australians are comfortable with our current gun restrictions, so we in Oz don't give a flying continental fuck about the advice of American gun nuts that our citizenry should be armed to the hilt.

In the same vein, US gun laws are for US citizens to decide, and it does appear that a substantial majority is happy with their current freedom to own as many guns as they possibly can. So, unlike BG, I say it's up to them; the only comment I can make, reflecting XC's earlier post, is that a little more effort to disallow gun ownership to raving lunatics might pay dividends, while still leaving a substantial number of eager and well-armed minutemen, ready to repel an invasion by King Charles men, or indeed a tyrannical Democrat despot...

[pErvinalia]

[Seth]

Seth

In response to your last post, I have to tell you two things.

First : the drop in murder rate.
This has a cause different to gun numbers. Gun ownership is a major factor determining murder rates, but is not the only one. In this case, population demographics is the key.

Not relevant. The facts disassemble your claim to the molecular level. More guns, less crime. QED. It doesn't matter at all why this correlation exists, all that matters to destroying your claim is that more guns in American society has not resulted in higher crime rates, it has resulted in consistently lower crime rates over the long term.

Murder rates were low up until the late 1960's and then rose substantially, staying high till the early 1990's. This pattern was not caused by changes in gun ownership.

Wrong. Guess when the grand experiment in allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons really began. In Florida in 1987.

1976 to 1986: Getting Started

In the United States the history of modern concealed carry started with Georgia. In 1976 that state's lieutenant governor, Zell Miller, introduced what became the model for later laws. His effort was inspired by an NRA director and former border patrolman, Ed Topmiller. The heart of the law was that the job of administering the shall-issue permit process was given to a non-law enforcement, elected official, the Probate Court Judge.

Georgia joined a handful of other states allowing concealed carry, including Vermont, where no license is required; New Hampshire, with a 1923 law; Washington, which made issuance almost mandatory in 1961; and Connecticut, where in 1969 a Handgun Review Board was established to minimize arbitrary denials.

The Indiana Sportsmen's Council, assisted by the NRA-ILA, passed a mandatory issuance law in 1980, then had to sue the state police and other agencies and elected officials into compliance.

A trend started, with CHL laws passed in Indiana in 1980, Maine and North Dakota in 1985, and South Dakota in 1986.

1987-88: Florida, the Media Storm

The national media ignored these until 1987, when Marion Hammer tackled Florida. Anti-gun folks were horrified. Obviously concealed carry would turn Florida into another Dodge City. Blood would flow in the street. Fender-benders would turn into firefights.

The fight was tough, but the Unified Sportsmen of Florida succeeded. The dire Predictions? A year later the president of the police chiefs association, who had opposed the bill, was asked if he had kept track of all the problems the law caused. "There aren't any," he said.
1989 to 1998: CHL Sweeps the U.S.

That opened the way. CHLs swept through Oregon, Pennsylvania and West Virginia in 1989; Idaho and Mississippi in 1990; Montana in 1991; and Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee and Wyoming in 1994. Then came 1995, with Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Nevada, Utah, and Virginia. In 1996 Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Carolina passed CHL laws, and West Virginia passed it again, their state supreme court having struck down the first one. Alaska, in 1998, had to override a governor's veto to remove restrictions from their law.

Interesting how this liberalization coincides with the drop in murders in the 1990s you tout. Correlation? Yup. Causation? Probably.

Note the following.
1. The pattern was international, and was almost identical across many countries, regardless of gun ownership.

So what?

2. The pattern included a rise in the murder rate, without any rise or fall in gun ownership.

Yes, it did, which resulted in an outcry for liberalization of anti-gun laws so that citizens would be able to protect themselves, which is exactly what happened, which coincides with the drop in murders. QED.

3. The fall in the murder rate began over 30 years ago, well before any increase in gun ownership in the USA, which is only a few years old.

Wrong. The pertinent statistic is not the number of guns in society during the 1990s, it's the change in the number of guns being legally carried concealed in public, which serves as a strong deterrent to street crime.

But the whole pattern is explainable in terms of a change in the percentage of young men in the populations of all the nations affected. The baby boom began around 1946, and affected many nations as well as the USA. The first of those baby boomers reached their late teens by the mid to late 1960's, which is when murder rates began rising. Since males between around 17 and 32 years of age contribute disproportionately to violent crime, this was entirely predictable.

Yup. A climb in murder which fomented a loosening of restrictions on carrying weapons for self defense, which dissuaded criminals and caused them to do something other than murder.

Equally predictable is that murder rates will fall when those young males get older than their early 30's. And that is exactly what happened.

Yup. But again note that the increase of publicly-carried weapons in the 1990s and subsequently has NOT resulted in an increased crime rate, much less an increased murder rate, both have continued to drop, so your claim of "more guns, more crime" is entirely false.

Gun ownership correlates with murder rate, with higher gun ownership correlating with higher murder rates, which was shown clearly by the work of Harvard University, Boston University, and even by my own correlation coefficient.

Except it doesn't.

Anyway, the second point.
The Social Sciences Research Network paper.
This showed that increasing the number of concealed carry permits did not have much effect on most crimes. But there was one exception. Aggravated assault. This increased where there were more concealed carry permits.

Again you lie. Go read the fucking paper and it's official conclusion. Keep in mind that the syllabus was not necessarily written by the authors of the paper, it was likely written by the editor of the journal who evidently didn't read the fucking paper either, or did and decided to deliberately mischaracterize it to present the one data point mentioned in the whole paper that supports the University's anti-gun agenda.

So having more people carrying guns does not, repeat not, lower crime rates.

You lie.

But it does increase the second worst crime (after murder), which is aggravagted assault.

You lie.

I even posted the sentence from the abstract which makes this point very clear.

And I posted the relevant portions of the actual conclusion of the actual paper that shows that you are a liar, or at a minimum an incredibly careless and sloppy "researcher" who, like the author of the syllabus, didn't actually read the paper itself.

[Seth]

If you don't want to risk being killed when you try to rob someone, then don't rob someone. Pretty simple logic I'd say.

Two things: Firstly, there's a vast difference between that being the risk and actively wishing that to be the case, the latter being utterly contemptible,

Oh gosh, oh golly, I'm not a simpering panty-waist liberal criminophile who things that murderous home invaders are just poor, misunderstood kids who just need a good talking-to in order to reform them and make them model citizens.

Threaten someone's life, get dead right away is a perfectly rational and fair public policy that every state in the US, and indeed even the fuckwit UN Charter of Human Rights acknowledges (but refuses to respect or effectuate by denying the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental human right, making the "right to life" an empty promise).

The death penalty is a 100 percent cure for recidivism, just as it prevents further deadly or dangerous criminal conduct by an individual malefactor. They get what they deserve and I won't shed a single tear for any of them because humanity is better off without them, always. You seem to think, like the Pope, that every human life is valuable. I'm here to tell you that's not the case and there are plenty of human beings who are not just a complete waste of oxygen but who are in fact a threat to the rest of us who need to be eliminated from existence in defense of evolution.

Those who unlawfully threaten others with imminent death or serious bodily harm are high on that list and should be disposed of with as little concern as one disposes of a rabid animal.

And I don't care if you find that morally reprehensible or not. I care about the lives and safety of the innocent and law-abiding, and not at all about the lives or safety of criminals. They make their choice to be outside the constraints of the law, and therefore they remove themselves from the protection of the law. I wish they would make different choices, but if they don't, I don't lose any sleep over their demise.

and secondly, you wouldn't know logic if it shot you in the fucking face, as demonstrated by your asinine argumentum ad populum below.

It seems that a very large number of my fellow citizens feel the same way, so I really don't give a flying fuck what you think, Hack.

You don't really give a flying fuck that that argument commits a schoolboy error either, moron.

Nothing wrong with an argumentum ad populum when the issue is a political one in which the opinion of the majority is of prime importance.

The difference is that I know when I use such an argument and I do it deliberately in order to achieve a specific effect in the debate, whereas most participants in this debate don't have a fucking clue they are spouting fallacy after fallacy on top of fallacy. Which is why I inform them when they do. It's a public service I like to do.

The point of that statement is merely to point out that for all of BG's and everyone else's bluster and moral outrage, this is the United States, where every citizen has a fundamental, natural, unalienable right to keep and bear arms upon which the government is forbidden from infringing, so what you or anyone else in some other country thinks is of only marginal academic interest.

[Blind groper]

Seth still fails to understand basic maths. A tiny, tiny number of people with RTC in 1987 does not change crime rates. It cannot. But a massive sociological cahnge over numerous nations does. Duh!!!

Nor does he understand the simple words "aggravated assaults rise as more RTC licences are issued." Again, Duh!!!

[hackenslash]

Nothing wrong with an argumentum ad populum when the issue is a political one in which the opinion of the majority is of prime importance.

Except, of course, that opinion is NEVER of ANY importance, let alone of prime importance. Failure to think properly is failure to think properly.