quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Not about art nosthros.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

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.

A response to the document is here. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=248328

Apparently, the Document authors Ayres and Donohue didn't sufficiently consider cocaine sales that were expanding in the country at the time of Lott's study. There was some argument Lott failed because he didnt handle robberies to the satisfaction of These authors.

The authors had a problem with Lott not using incarceration rates. Lott explains that he compared counties that issue permit to counties that done and incarceration rates a statewide. The authors used statistics to apply statewide incarceration rates to counties and Lott just compared crime rates prior to RTC laws and after RTC laws.

Of course I'm simplifying but the paper that refutes Lott was refuted in turn.

So he wrote a paper in 1999 in to refute one that was written in 2009?

The paper you referenced is actually an update to work the author performed earlier. It added more data, criticized other work that criticized it, but it only restated earlier criticism of Lott. Lott's response was written after the original paper that criticized his work. Since this study doesn't state new criticism of Lott, apparently he's not felt it necessary to recriticise that which he'd already criticized. Keeping in mind I've reviewed both papers during my lunch hour and can't expound a vast discussion of them.

Seriously, take a closer look at figures 4a and 4b.

1991 is the year that the Cold War is considered to have ended, and a lot of other things were going on during that same time period. Lott's argument seems to be based entirely on correlation, and you could attribute his data to just about anything that was going on at that time. "Shaky" is charitable.

I think you've summed up the argument between the professionals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

DIE, LIBERTARIAN SCUM!! YOU ARE VILE! YOU ARE VERMIN! I WILL CLEANSE THE EARTH OF YOU! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

never claimed it was mine, there no rules on plagiarism here buy yours. Impress you? Never but you sure do make me laugh sometimes.

Well good. Then you're in for a lot of laughs.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

You know HunterCA I keep wondering why you use terms like

Postmodernism is a term that describes the postmodernist movement in the arts, its set of cultural tendencies and associated cultural movements. It is in general the era that follows Modernism. It frequently serves as an ambiguous overarching term for skeptical interpretations of culture, literature, art, philosophy, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism. Which has nothing to do with politics.

I get the feeling you just trying to impress us, not working very well is it.

You know, Nosathro, I keep wondering why you so often plagiarise other people's work.

Postmodernism is a term that describes the postmodernist movement in the arts, its set of cultural tendencies and associated cultural movements. It is in general the era that follows Modernism.[1] It frequently serves as an ambiguous overarching term for skeptical interpretations of culture, literature, art, philosophy, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism. ~Wikipedia

I get the feeling that you're trying to impress us. It's working, but not the way you think.

K.

You don't complain about Senator Rand Paul. Secondly never claimed it was mine, there no rules on plagiarism here buy yours. Impress you? Never but you sure do make me laugh sometimes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/07/rand-paul-plagiarism-accusations/3459887/

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

Cite me a doi, you useless fuck-brain, and not some fucking doctored-up statistics. I get tired of you punks. You have no fucking integrity. You don't have a fucking conscience.

The damn things won't even protect your silly ass: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099

But you're not going to believe anything that doesn't fit your political view: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

Hey, everybody, Hunter here thinks that he's substantiated his views, and he wants to prove it to us by citing some material from an NRA-linked website or something cited by a rightwing blogger. Everyone come laugh at this fuckhead.

The more I see these useless wastes of human life, the more I want to knock them down. GROW SOME INTEGRITY, YOU USELESS FUCK.

That is not what the vast majority of surveys show.
In fact an overwhelming number of them, many done by people who started out to show how dangerous guns were, show that ccw laws result in a drop in crime, relative to the national drop in crime.

Now it's a "vast majority"? 18 0 9 is strong, but it wouldn't convince anyone that a new drug was safe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

Cite me a doi, you useless fuck-brain, and not some fucking doctored-up statistics. I get tired of you punks. You have no fucking integrity. You don't have a fucking conscience.

The damn things won't even protect your silly ass: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099

But you're not going to believe anything that doesn't fit your political view: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

Hey, everybody, Hunter here thinks that he's substantiated his views, and he wants to prove it to us by citing some material from an NRA-linked website or something cited by a rightwing blogger. Everyone come laugh at this fuckhead.

The more I see these useless wastes of human life, the more I want to knock them down. GROW SOME INTEGRITY, YOU USELESS FUCK.

That is not what the vast majority of surveys show.
In fact an overwhelming number of them, many done by people who started out to show how dangerous guns were, show that ccw laws result in a drop in crime, relative to the national drop in crime.

Now it's a "vast majority"? 18 0 9 is strong, but it wouldn't convince anyone that a new drug was safe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR

read this
www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

Like Lott study it Kleck and Gertz was discredit. But bogus reports don't matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

DIE, LIBERTARIAN SCUM!! YOU ARE VILE! YOU ARE VERMIN! I WILL CLEANSE THE EARTH OF YOU! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I have never claimed it was unanimous so you are shooting blanks in the wrong direction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I have never claimed it was unanimous so you are shooting blanks in the wrong direction.

Where did I suggest that you claimed it was unanimous?

You did claim it was the "vast majority" though, and that's simply not true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I have never claimed it was unanimous so you are shooting blanks in the wrong direction.

Where did I suggest that you claimed it was unanimous?

You did claim it was the "vast majority" though, and that's simply not true.

2/3 majority with the other 1/3 being neutral on the results is pretty vast.
Count the no effects as abstaining  and you have 18-0.
Split them and you 22.5 4.5.
Were it an election it would clearly be a landslide.
The result are still very heavily weighted toward the pro gun side and I see no reason to quibble about your desire to minimize this fact. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You have just revived what I call the Kryptonian theory of crime.
The idea that the bad guy will when every confrontation would mean that criminals must be a superior being to the rest of us, you know like they came from Krypton.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Making an assumption that you believe the philosophy you are proposing,

You seem to be confused about what my philosophy actually is.

quote:

Since I do not accept 100% of any moral philosophy, it can truthfully be said that I am immoral. Whether I'm a piece of shit or not is biologically obvious. But, if butterscotch wishes to metaphorically believe so, I'm sure he's not the first.

I feel strongly about integrity. I don't have some elaborate philosophical argument to justify it. It's just a foolish ideal that I happen to feel attached to, and I'm probably fucked-up for investing any faith in it.

No, you don't seem to have an elaborate thought process. I agree.

You are a washed-up has-been who is trying to use a gun as a prosthetic to compensate for his own growing impotence. You recently described to me how you beat up some guy and threw him into a dumpster. This is just an opinion, but I think that's pretty juvenile. If you want to exchange insults, I can play, but do you really want to try to find out which of us can be the bigger asshole?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

never claimed it was mine, there no rules on plagiarism here buy yours. Impress you? Never but you sure do make me laugh sometimes.

Well good. Then you're in for a lot of laughs.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

It is a fair assumption that a person who has a weapon trained on you does not actually want to harm you, which may be counter-intuitive but does happen to be a fact. Most victims of armed robbery come out completely unharmed. I've never been mugged, but my understanding is that these things tend to happen pretty fast. An armed robber really doesn't want to stick around. He just wants to grab what he can get and run. Handing over your belongings immediately just reduces your involvement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And now you fall back on depend on the good will of the criminal after all he is just a well meaning guy whose down on hi luck.