RE: Must have used a knife

RE: Must have used a knife (Full Version)

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

Message

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 7:58:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Would you mind finding someone else to stalk? Your adoration does not impress me and you following from thread to thread is simply boring. Oh good grief, I wouldn't follow you around. I'd never get the smell out of my clothes. K. Clear cut case of projection, he is accusing you of what he is doing.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 12:35:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD In the hands of a smaller percentage of the population which puts an end to that. wrong as always A it proves that more guns does not equal more crime B it means that even a dyed in the wool gun a phobic like you presents a problem for the potential criminal because he doesn't know who is carrying. Anyone present may shoot him. As our Sheriff says "I like the idea that the bad guy doesn't know where it is coming from" C more states allow concealed carry which means that more people are carrying than ever before No, it means that claiming that more guns means less crime is clearly illogical. It has no basis in reality. There are other factors driving the decrease (readily apparent as the decrease happened uniformly across the country despite wide variance in gun laws and gun ownership rates). Actually every study not done by the Brady Bunch (and maybe Bloomberg) disagrees with you, about a fourth say it makes no difference the rest say that cc consistently leads to a drop in crime. Not nearly big enough to account for even a majority of the crime drop we have had but a drop none the less.

Musicmystery -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 2:18:00 PM)
Your last sentence explains what's wrong with the conclusions/methodology of those studies. The variable they're arguing for isn't isolated, so the truth is, none of us know.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 2:34:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD In the hands of a smaller percentage of the population which puts an end to that. wrong as always A it proves that more guns does not equal more crime B it means that even a dyed in the wool gun a phobic like you presents a problem for the potential criminal because he doesn't know who is carrying. Anyone present may shoot him. As our Sheriff says "I like the idea that the bad guy doesn't know where it is coming from" C more states allow concealed carry which means that more people are carrying than ever before No, it means that claiming that more guns means less crime is clearly illogical. It has no basis in reality. There are other factors driving the decrease (readily apparent as the decrease happened uniformly across the country despite wide variance in gun laws and gun ownership rates). Actually every study not done by the Brady Bunch (and maybe Bloomberg) disagrees with you, about a fourth say it makes no difference the rest say that cc consistently leads to a drop in crime. Not nearly big enough to account for even a majority of the crime drop we have had but a drop none the less. Crime rates are dropping nation wide. The claim that rates drop more where CC has been passed is actually disputed and when looked at when controlled for other factors the decrease disappears. For instance of the 10 states with the highest violent crime rates only 2 states, Maryland and Delaware, do not have very lenient CC laws. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/10/04/the-most-dangerous-states-in-america/2/

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 4:08:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD In the hands of a smaller percentage of the population which puts an end to that. wrong as always A it proves that more guns does not equal more crime B it means that even a dyed in the wool gun a phobic like you presents a problem for the potential criminal because he doesn't know who is carrying. Anyone present may shoot him. As our Sheriff says "I like the idea that the bad guy doesn't know where it is coming from" C more states allow concealed carry which means that more people are carrying than ever before No, it means that claiming that more guns means less crime is clearly illogical. It has no basis in reality. There are other factors driving the decrease (readily apparent as the decrease happened uniformly across the country despite wide variance in gun laws and gun ownership rates). Actually every study not done by the Brady Bunch (and maybe Bloomberg) disagrees with you, about a fourth say it makes no difference the rest say that cc consistently leads to a drop in crime. Not nearly big enough to account for even a majority of the crime drop we have had but a drop none the less. Crime rates are dropping nation wide. The claim that rates drop more where CC has been passed is actually disputed and when looked at when controlled for other factors the decrease disappears. For instance of the 10 states with the highest violent crime rates only 2 states, Maryland and Delaware, do not have very lenient CC laws. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/10/04/the-most-dangerous-states-in-america/2/ You found one of the few that agree with you the overwhelming majority of studies do not. None of the studies indicates in any way that concealed carry leads to an increase in crime unless Bloomberg has come up with another blatant lie. You also engage in a gross logical fallacy. You compare the current situation to perfection. For example to years after FL passed their cc law they had the 3rd highest crime rate in the country. This however included the fact that they had a drop in crime of 33%. A drop so great that Lott did not include it in his overall statistics. Of course you ascribe it to other factors, as do studies dedicated to the same world view you have. To not come up with another excuse would be to face reality and admit that you wrong.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 5:29:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD In the hands of a smaller percentage of the population which puts an end to that. wrong as always A it proves that more guns does not equal more crime B it means that even a dyed in the wool gun a phobic like you presents a problem for the potential criminal because he doesn't know who is carrying. Anyone present may shoot him. As our Sheriff says "I like the idea that the bad guy doesn't know where it is coming from" C more states allow concealed carry which means that more people are carrying than ever before No, it means that claiming that more guns means less crime is clearly illogical. It has no basis in reality. There are other factors driving the decrease (readily apparent as the decrease happened uniformly across the country despite wide variance in gun laws and gun ownership rates). Actually every study not done by the Brady Bunch (and maybe Bloomberg) disagrees with you, about a fourth say it makes no difference the rest say that cc consistently leads to a drop in crime. Not nearly big enough to account for even a majority of the crime drop we have had but a drop none the less. Crime rates are dropping nation wide. The claim that rates drop more where CC has been passed is actually disputed and when looked at when controlled for other factors the decrease disappears. For instance of the 10 states with the highest violent crime rates only 2 states, Maryland and Delaware, do not have very lenient CC laws. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/10/04/the-most-dangerous-states-in-america/2/ You found one of the few that agree with you the overwhelming majority of studies do not. None of the studies indicates in any way that concealed carry leads to an increase in crime unless Bloomberg has come up with another blatant lie. You also engage in a gross logical fallacy. You compare the current situation to perfection. For example to years after FL passed their cc law they had the 3rd highest crime rate in the country. This however included the fact that they had a drop in crime of 33%. A drop so great that Lott did not include it in his overall statistics. Of course you ascribe it to other factors, as do studies dedicated to the same world view you have. To not come up with another excuse would be to face reality and admit that you wrong. That's the great thing. it's simply a list of the 10 highest crime rates. It doesn't list anything about CC laws. I had to look that up separately. So you can stop that whine. And this is just the 2012 rate. Not any other year. So stop all the other pro gun bullshit used to deny reality. The most violent states in this country have the most lenient gun laws.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 5:33:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD In the hands of a smaller percentage of the population which puts an end to that. wrong as always A it proves that more guns does not equal more crime B it means that even a dyed in the wool gun a phobic like you presents a problem for the potential criminal because he doesn't know who is carrying. Anyone present may shoot him. As our Sheriff says "I like the idea that the bad guy doesn't know where it is coming from" C more states allow concealed carry which means that more people are carrying than ever before No, it means that claiming that more guns means less crime is clearly illogical. It has no basis in reality. There are other factors driving the decrease (readily apparent as the decrease happened uniformly across the country despite wide variance in gun laws and gun ownership rates). Actually every study not done by the Brady Bunch (and maybe Bloomberg) disagrees with you, about a fourth say it makes no difference the rest say that cc consistently leads to a drop in crime. Not nearly big enough to account for even a majority of the crime drop we have had but a drop none the less. Crime rates are dropping nation wide. The claim that rates drop more where CC has been passed is actually disputed and when looked at when controlled for other factors the decrease disappears. For instance of the 10 states with the highest violent crime rates only 2 states, Maryland and Delaware, do not have very lenient CC laws. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/10/04/the-most-dangerous-states-in-america/2/ You found one of the few that agree with you the overwhelming majority of studies do not. None of the studies indicates in any way that concealed carry leads to an increase in crime unless Bloomberg has come up with another blatant lie. You also engage in a gross logical fallacy. You compare the current situation to perfection. For example to years after FL passed their cc law they had the 3rd highest crime rate in the country. This however included the fact that they had a drop in crime of 33%. A drop so great that Lott did not include it in his overall statistics. Of course you ascribe it to other factors, as do studies dedicated to the same world view you have. To not come up with another excuse would be to face reality and admit that you wrong. That's the great thing. it's simply a list of the 10 highest crime rates. It doesn't list anything about CC laws. I had to look that up separately. So you can stop that whine. And this is just the 2012 rate. Not any other year. So stop all the other pro gun bullshit used to deny reality. The most violent states in this country have the most lenient gun laws. So you take a snapshot and foolishly believe it is a movie.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 5:38:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD In the hands of a smaller percentage of the population which puts an end to that. wrong as always A it proves that more guns does not equal more crime B it means that even a dyed in the wool gun a phobic like you presents a problem for the potential criminal because he doesn't know who is carrying. Anyone present may shoot him. As our Sheriff says "I like the idea that the bad guy doesn't know where it is coming from" C more states allow concealed carry which means that more people are carrying than ever before No, it means that claiming that more guns means less crime is clearly illogical. It has no basis in reality. There are other factors driving the decrease (readily apparent as the decrease happened uniformly across the country despite wide variance in gun laws and gun ownership rates). Actually every study not done by the Brady Bunch (and maybe Bloomberg) disagrees with you, about a fourth say it makes no difference the rest say that cc consistently leads to a drop in crime. Not nearly big enough to account for even a majority of the crime drop we have had but a drop none the less. Crime rates are dropping nation wide. The claim that rates drop more where CC has been passed is actually disputed and when looked at when controlled for other factors the decrease disappears. For instance of the 10 states with the highest violent crime rates only 2 states, Maryland and Delaware, do not have very lenient CC laws. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/10/04/the-most-dangerous-states-in-america/2/ You found one of the few that agree with you the overwhelming majority of studies do not. None of the studies indicates in any way that concealed carry leads to an increase in crime unless Bloomberg has come up with another blatant lie. You also engage in a gross logical fallacy. You compare the current situation to perfection. For example to years after FL passed their cc law they had the 3rd highest crime rate in the country. This however included the fact that they had a drop in crime of 33%. A drop so great that Lott did not include it in his overall statistics. Of course you ascribe it to other factors, as do studies dedicated to the same world view you have. To not come up with another excuse would be to face reality and admit that you wrong. That's the great thing. it's simply a list of the 10 highest crime rates. It doesn't list anything about CC laws. I had to look that up separately. So you can stop that whine. And this is just the 2012 rate. Not any other year. So stop all the other pro gun bullshit used to deny reality. The most violent states in this country have the most lenient gun laws. So you take a snapshot and foolishly believe it is a movie. Look at any recent year you like. I checked. the top ten shift around a little but the fact is the states with loose gun laws predominate. Florida is always in the top 5 for instance.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 5:49:06 PM)
Look at any recent year you like. I checked. the top ten shift around a little but the fact is the states with loose gun laws predominate. Florida is always in the top 5 for instance. Still proves nothing except that the states with the greatest need for self defense allows it. Not allowing self defense has worked out so well for D C and the center of your universe, Chicago.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 5:58:35 PM)
FR what does this have to do with the fact that gun free zones don't work.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 6:45:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Look at any recent year you like. I checked. the top ten shift around a little but the fact is the states with loose gun laws predominate. Florida is always in the top 5 for instance. Still proves nothing except that the states with the greatest need for self defense allows it. Not allowing self defense has worked out so well for D C and the center of your universe, Chicago. Illinois has a lower violent crime rate than Florida and is actually near the median for the nation. Chicago is not the most violent major urban center and neither is D.C. And Both cities allow self defense. You need to get past this belief that the only way to defend yourself is with a gun.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 6:47:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR what does this have to do with the fact that gun free zones don't work. That it is nonsense of the worst sort. millions of gun free zones are violence free every day. Just like millions of places that welcome guns. That violence occasionally occurs in both kinds of places, and it does, proves exactly nothing.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 6:52:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Look at any recent year you like. I checked. the top ten shift around a little but the fact is the states with loose gun laws predominate. Florida is always in the top 5 for instance. Still proves nothing except that the states with the greatest need for self defense allows it. Not allowing self defense has worked out so well for D C and the center of your universe, Chicago. Illinois has a lower violent crime rate than Florida and is actually near the median for the nation. Chicago is not the most violent major urban center and neither is D.C. And Both cities allow self defense. You need to get past this belief that the only way to defend yourself is with a gun. I have told you repeatedly that I don't think the only way to defend yourself is with a gun, it just gives me one more option than you have. It has only been a week since a judge told DC they had to allow cc. And you have been very pointed in stating that Chicago's cc hasn't been in effect long enough to have an affect. No a couple of cities in Mich protect you but can you honestly say that keeping people from legally owning guns has made Chicago safer? Never mind you believe it has the sure sign of a gunaphobic.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 6:56:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR what does this have to do with the fact that gun free zones don't work. That it is nonsense of the worst sort. millions of gun free zones are violence free every day. Just like millions of places that welcome guns. That violence occasionally occurs in both kinds of places, and it does, proves exactly nothing. It proves that gun free zones don't make a difference by your own words. And gun welcome zones have less casualties as per a study I have already posted on another thread.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 7:25:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR what does this have to do with the fact that gun free zones don't work. That it is nonsense of the worst sort. millions of gun free zones are violence free every day. Just like millions of places that welcome guns. That violence occasionally occurs in both kinds of places, and it does, proves exactly nothing. It proves that gun free zones don't make a difference by your own words. And gun welcome zones have less casualties as per a study I have already posted on another thread. Sure you did. There is simply no way to quantify such a thing. There is no way the researcher could gather representative data for all events of the two sorts. The fact that he even tried revealed a bias in favor of finding in favor of one out come or the other. Do you even think before posting such stuff?

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 7:34:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR what does this have to do with the fact that gun free zones don't work. That it is nonsense of the worst sort. millions of gun free zones are violence free every day. Just like millions of places that welcome guns. That violence occasionally occurs in both kinds of places, and it does, proves exactly nothing. It proves that gun free zones don't make a difference by your own words. And gun welcome zones have less casualties as per a study I have already posted on another thread. Sure you did. There is simply no way to quantify such a thing. There is no way the researcher could gather representative data for all events of the two sorts. The fact that he even tried revealed a bias in favor of finding in favor of one out come or the other. Do you even think before posting such stuff? Yes there is, he took a compilation of attempted mass shootings and compared the casualties. They were about a quarter as high when people had weapons as when they didn't. And as is often the case he started out to prove that having weapons caused more casualties. Like you, before doing the study, he assumed that the armed citizen would A Aim at the wrong person and B Be such a bad shot that he would hit anyone but the bad guy. It turned out that in one of those situations you are safer with an armed citizen than with a "highly trained police officer". And your own words say that gun free zones do nothing to stop crime.

DomKen -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 7:38:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR what does this have to do with the fact that gun free zones don't work. That it is nonsense of the worst sort. millions of gun free zones are violence free every day. Just like millions of places that welcome guns. That violence occasionally occurs in both kinds of places, and it does, proves exactly nothing. It proves that gun free zones don't make a difference by your own words. And gun welcome zones have less casualties as per a study I have already posted on another thread. Sure you did. There is simply no way to quantify such a thing. There is no way the researcher could gather representative data for all events of the two sorts. The fact that he even tried revealed a bias in favor of finding in favor of one out come or the other. Do you even think before posting such stuff? Yes there is, he took a compilation of attempted mass shootings and compared the casualties. They were about a quarter as high when people had weapons as when they didn't. And as is often the case he started out to prove that having weapons caused more casualties. Like you, before doing the study, he assumed that the armed citizen would A Aim at the wrong person and B Be such a bad shot that he would hit anyone but the bad guy. It turned out that in one of those situations you are safer with an armed citizen than with a "highly trained police officer". And your own words say that gun free zones do nothing to stop crime. Bullshit. How many cases were there? until it builds up to make a statistically significant number there is no case to be made. Last I looked the number of mass shooting where a civilian had a gun was 5. That is simply too small to make any calculations. But please present this supposed study.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 8:23:23 PM)
I will try to find it again. But you will not accept anything that doesn't fit your preconceptions. It may come as a surprise to you but just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Those incidents with armed citizens don't normally get as much coverage simply because the body count is lower.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 8:34:33 PM)
Bullshit. How many cases were there? until it builds up to make a statistically significant number there is no case to be made. Last I looked the number of mass shooting where a civilian had a gun was 5. That is simply too small to make any calculations. But please present this supposed study. Last time I linked it you attacked it because it was "pro gun" i.e. you didn't like the results.

BamaD -> RE: Must have used a knife (8/9/2014 8:44:20 PM)
FR www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875