RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment ***

RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 7:46:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That is not what the vast majority of surveys show. Show me a fucking doi. I have been looking at controlled studies on this for a decade, and most credible science demonstrates that gun control does have the intended effect. However, when you spend money on enforcing a law, there is always an opportunity cost. There is always something that you could have spent the same money on that would have had more of the intended effect. http://cad.sagepub.com/content/58/2/222 This study doesn't advocate gun control, but it advocates community-based law-enforcement initiatives. We could invest every penny of what we spend on gun control on such initiatives and probably save lives. But the claim that "gun control makes violent crime worse" is a popular myth that is also a colossal load of baloney. We seem to have a misunderstanding the surveys I am referring to show that 18 say ccw works much better than gun control. 9 show no effect either way. All 27 revealed sources and survived peer review. Only the Brady bunch, who refused to reveal their sources or methodology and (clearly) refused peer review supported the idea that guns cause crime. As for community policing. Good idea. My neighborhood had turned into a jungle. A few months ago we started getting a more proactive approach to policing the area and it has almost become civilized.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 7:57:36 PM)
Oh good, we have your say so and the studies Bama will reference. I really can't believe you didn't eat the snakes you killed. So a person saying exactly what they want like the moderator tried the other day. Can't tolerate the NRA and don't trust them. But, has all sorts of special expertise, non specified here, that trumps what everyone knows. Hum, and burley tough too.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:00:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That is not what the vast majority of surveys show. Show me a fucking doi. I have been looking at controlled studies on this for a decade, and most credible science demonstrates that gun control does have the intended effect. However, when you spend money on enforcing a law, there is always an opportunity cost. There is always something that you could have spent the same money on that would have had more of the intended effect. http://cad.sagepub.com/content/58/2/222 This study doesn't advocate gun control, but it advocates community-based law-enforcement initiatives. We could invest every penny of what we spend on gun control on such initiatives and probably save lives. But the claim that "gun control makes violent crime worse" is a popular myth that is also a colossal load of baloney. We seem to have a misunderstanding the surveys I am referring to show that 18 say ccw works much better than gun control. 9 show no effect either way. All 27 revealed sources and survived peer review. Only the Brady bunch, who refused to reveal their sources or methodology and (clearly) refused peer review supported the idea that guns cause crime. As for community policing. Good idea. My neighborhood had turned into a jungle. A few months ago we started getting a more proactive approach to policing the area and it has almost become civilized. You've had the evidence debunking this available to you for years. http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=john_donohue&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D10%26q%3Dconcealed%2Bcarry%2Bviolent%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C34%26as_ylo%3D2009#search=%22concealed%20carry%20violent%22 There was a rash of studies back in the late 1990's, a lot of which was published in journals of economics and other weird places, that seemed to support RTC laws, but more recent analysis of that data demonstrates that RTC laws don't have any such effect.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:05:42 PM)
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18294 Speaking of economics journals, the NBEC released this earlier this year. The only real effect, as far as they could tell, was a jump in aggravated assault.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:16:39 PM)
Hum, skimmed through. Most of it seems to speculate that if statistical analysis of economic factors is applied to other studies they'd get different results in those studies. Which goes along with butterscotches assurtions. But I've yet to find their study demonstrating their application of statistic or refuting other actual study findings. Which, so far means nothing as any scientifically trained person will tell you that when you apply your statistic without actual research you also apply your bias. Still reading however.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:19:09 PM)
https://scholarworks.csustan.edu/handle/011235813/273 California's concealed carry law also produced an odd mixture of results. I really think that trying to reduce violent crime is going to require us to stop thinking about it in terms of our gun laws, though. Instead, I think that we should regard violent crime as a symptom of an underlying problem. Although violent crime is harmful unto itself, the socioeconomic problems that have been MOST linked with high rates of violent crime are, from my point-of-view, a bigger issue. It reflects very low morale among individuals from underprivileged backgrounds, and I see that as a tragedy. If we could fix the socioeconomic problems that lead to gun violence, the violence itself would disappear, and we'll have resolved what is, in my opinion, a more depressing problem.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:19:24 PM)
I'll read more tomorrow. But it seems butterscotch has just found biased opinions he agrees with that somehow refute the NRA which he doesn't trust, although I'm not aware of any NRA studies.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:23:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash https://scholarworks.csustan.edu/handle/011235813/273 California's concealed carry law also produced an odd mixture of results. I really think that trying to reduce violent crime is going to require us to stop thinking about it in terms of our gun laws, though. Instead, I think that we should regard violent crime as a symptom of an underlying problem. Although violent crime is harmful unto itself, the socioeconomic problems that have been MOST linked with high rates of violent crime is, from my point-of-view, worse. It reflects very low morale among individuals from underprivileged backgrounds, and I see that as a tragedy. If we could fix the socioeconomic problems that lead to gun violence, the violence itself would disappear, and we'll have resolved what is, in my opinion, a more depressing problem. Sure, as the lasted deep recession showed no significant up take in crime with the devastating economic loss this sort of reasoning has become pretty well debunked. But I'm sure that debunking will officially take a while longer.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:25:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash https://scholarworks.csustan.edu/handle/011235813/273 California's concealed carry law also produced an odd mixture of results. I really think that trying to reduce violent crime is going to require us to stop thinking about it in terms of our gun laws, though. Instead, I think that we should regard violent crime as a symptom of an underlying problem. Although violent crime is harmful unto itself, the socioeconomic problems that have been MOST linked with high rates of violent crime is, from my point-of-view, worse. It reflects very low morale among individuals from underprivileged backgrounds, and I see that as a tragedy. If we could fix the socioeconomic problems that lead to gun violence, the violence itself would disappear, and we'll have resolved what is, in my opinion, a more depressing problem. Sure, as the lastest deep recession showed no significant up take in crime with the devastating economic loss this sort of reasoning has become pretty well debunked. But I'm sure that debunking will officially take a while longer.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:26:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash https://scholarworks.csustan.edu/handle/011235813/273 California's concealed carry law also produced an odd mixture of results. I really think that trying to reduce violent crime is going to require us to stop thinking about it in terms of our gun laws, though. Instead, I think that we should regard violent crime as a symptom of an underlying problem. Although violent crime is harmful unto itself, the socioeconomic problems that have been MOST linked with high rates of violent crime is, from my point-of-view, worse. It reflects very low morale among individuals from underprivileged backgrounds, and I see that as a tragedy. If we could fix the socioeconomic problems that lead to gun violence, the violence itself would disappear, and we'll have resolved what is, in my opinion, a more depressing problem. Sure, as the lastest deep recession showed no significant up take in crime with the devastating economic loss this sort of reasoning has become pretty well debunked. But I'm sure that debunking will officially take a while longer.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:29:25 PM)
http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/2/565.short The American Law and Economics Review is not known for having a heavy political bias.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:36:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash https://scholarworks.csustan.edu/handle/011235813/273 California's concealed carry law also produced an odd mixture of results. I really think that trying to reduce violent crime is going to require us to stop thinking about it in terms of our gun laws, though. Instead, I think that we should regard violent crime as a symptom of an underlying problem. Although violent crime is harmful unto itself, the socioeconomic problems that have been MOST linked with high rates of violent crime are, from my point-of-view, a bigger issue. It reflects very low morale among individuals from underprivileged backgrounds, and I see that as a tragedy. If we could fix the socioeconomic problems that lead to gun violence, the violence itself would disappear, and we'll have resolved what is, in my opinion, a more depressing problem. Sorry about the redundant posts above. Trying to edit on my phone. The people I've heard who talk like this, have these ideas and use these words have always tended to be people trained, sometimes by law enforcement, by very politically correct agencies like the City of San Francisco police. Their political point usually is, "We can't arrest our way out of gang problems." It's a pretty fashionable argument now a days in the politically correct crowd and since its inculcated into people like the police who wouldn't normally be considered politically correct it tends to carry apparent weight.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:39:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/2/565.short The American Law and Economics Review is not known for having a heavy political bias. Oh jees, the lawyers give more money to Obama than just about any other organization. You can a accept what they report if you want but don't pretend no bias.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:47:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash https://scholarworks.csustan.edu/handle/011235813/273 California's concealed carry law also produced an odd mixture of results. I really think that trying to reduce violent crime is going to require us to stop thinking about it in terms of our gun laws, though. Instead, I think that we should regard violent crime as a symptom of an underlying problem. Although violent crime is harmful unto itself, the socioeconomic problems that have been MOST linked with high rates of violent crime are, from my point-of-view, a bigger issue. It reflects very low morale among individuals from underprivileged backgrounds, and I see that as a tragedy. If we could fix the socioeconomic problems that lead to gun violence, the violence itself would disappear, and we'll have resolved what is, in my opinion, a more depressing problem. Sorry about the redundant posts above. Trying to edit on my phone. The people I've heard who talk like this, have these ideas and use these words have always tended to be people trained, sometimes by law enforcement, by very politically correct agencies like the City of San Francisco police. Their political point usually is, "We can't arrest our way out of gang problems." It's a pretty fashionable argument now a days in the politically correct crowd and since its inculcated into people like the police who wouldn't normally be considered politically correct it tends to carry apparent weight. I should also mention that agencies like the San Francisco police generally have a politically appointed head who pass the political drivel down. Most rank and file on the street see it for the crap it is.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:49:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash https://scholarworks.csustan.edu/handle/011235813/273 California's concealed carry law also produced an odd mixture of results. I really think that trying to reduce violent crime is going to require us to stop thinking about it in terms of our gun laws, though. Instead, I think that we should regard violent crime as a symptom of an underlying problem. Although violent crime is harmful unto itself, the socioeconomic problems that have been MOST linked with high rates of violent crime are, from my point-of-view, a bigger issue. It reflects very low morale among individuals from underprivileged backgrounds, and I see that as a tragedy. If we could fix the socioeconomic problems that lead to gun violence, the violence itself would disappear, and we'll have resolved what is, in my opinion, a more depressing problem. I have long quoted a paper written in the late sixties / early seventies that predicted the huge crime jump we experienced and accurately predicted when it would begin the rapid drop we have seen in recent years. This theory has recently revived but has received little attention. Simply put it is the baby boomer's (my generation) "fault" It stated that a rise in crime was unavoidable due to the population bulge represented by my generation. As you know doubt know certain age groups are more prone to crime and violence. While the baby boomers are no worse than any other but when they hit that age they contributed a larger portion of the total population than that age group had previously contributed. As the baby boomers aged the crime rate began to fall. Of course this isn't a "sexy" explanation and politicians can't get headlines with it so it tends to be ignored. It leaves us with boring solutions like community policing and full employment.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:52:32 PM)
California's concealed carry law also produced an odd mixture of results. -------------------------------------- It's California of course the results will be odd.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 8:52:39 PM)
However, since there are some pretty high power agencies who need this sort of drivel to promulgate their political views there tends to be a lot of study funding available and a lot of "acceptable" studies performed. Sort of like global warming studies funded by the government that wants to regulate based on global warming.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 9:09:54 PM)
Hum, I'm confused. Butterscotch is still on line and I'm anxiously awaiting that expressed knock down from the professional. Yet butterscotch is keeping me waiting. As smart and, refined and as burly powerful as butterscotch is I'm quivering in anticipation of the knock down.

Kirata -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 9:29:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash You've had the evidence debunking this available to you for years. However, the report of President Obama's Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence concluded: Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies. ~Source It's always convenient to assume that studies with findings to your liking used appropriate measures and evaluated the data in a correct an unbiased manner. But needless to say, there are always other studies with different findings that claim to debunk the former. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty and actually look for yourself. Let's take a case in point: The State of Florida publishes crime statistics dating back to 1971. Florida became a "shall issue" concealed carry state in 1987. So we have 17 years of data before the law was passed, and 25 years of data since. In the years from 1971 to 1987 inclusive Florida's total crime rate rose 49.6%, violent crime went up 86.4%, and forcible rape offenses more than doubled. When we compare 2012, the latest year for which data is available, to the 1987 rates we find that total crime fell by 55.1%, violent crime dropped 52.7%, and forcible rape offenses were down by 44.9%. More interestingly, attempted forcible rape plummeted 84.4%. It would seem the rapists were taking more care to choose likely to be defenseless targets. Now, crime in the United States has been dropping since the early 90's. So the question arises as to how much (if any) of Florida's drop in crime can be credited to concealed carry and how much was due to the general trend toward lower crime rates. Or as the question is usually put, how much was due to something else? But I have to ask, why the embedded assumption that it was "something else"? In 1986, only 8 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws, and 1 allowed unrestricted carry. By five years later, in 1991, the number of "shall issue" states had risen to 16. Five years later again, in 2001, 31 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. By 2006, 37 states had gone to "shall issue," and the number of unrestricted carry states rose to 2. Today in 2013 we have a total of 37 states with "shall issue" concealed carry, and 5 that now allow unrestricted carry. So, there seems little basis on which to assume that our national drop in crime rates was due to "something else". Granted there are other factors involved in crime rates, and states vary. But that opens up a whole different subject. I know of nothing that tracks the overall trend as clearly and unambiguously as the spread of concealed carry. As a closing note, the percentages above are my calculations from the data and any errors are mine alone. The sources are here: http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/f089698a-26f4-4899-9695-7c2dbc41f674/1971_fwd_sex_offenses.aspx http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/d75b9423-91ea-4704-86c8-5beb8c50fb61/1971_fwd_totalcrime.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif K.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/6/2013 9:31:19 PM)
Hum, I'm going to be silly again and discuss the last time I had a knock down offer. I was working as a bouncer in a topless bar in Scotsdale Az. A dancer I was fucking was dancing for an Apache Indian at the table next to me. The reference to an Apache Indian is germain to the story. So sitting at the table next to me this blond dancer I was fucking was dancing for an Apache. He, for some reason, hauled off and hit her. My reaction was immediate. I stood up and hit the Apache and knocked him over his table. Unfortunately, the cranial configuration of the Apache meant I hooked my last two knuckles on his cheek bones and shattered my hand. It was the third time I actually shattered those specific bones. But, regardless the effect was the same and I was one handed in a knock down fight. Actually, it ended up working out well. The bar had a heavy steel front door and I was able to pick up the dude and run him head first into the steel door one handed a few times before actually throwing him outside one handed. I then set the bones in my hand, for the third time and went outside and hauled the guy to the dumpster into which I deposited him. I don't even wonder if he woke up before the trash company came. But the point is, it's been a long long time since I've been in a knock down situation and I'm curious what butterscotch has in mind.

Page: << < prev 48 49 [50] 51 52 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625