RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA

RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (Full Version)

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

Message

BitYakin -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 2:00:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Of the 20 some odd studies done on this all but about 7 show that things like cc have a positive effect on crime rates. Not the massive drop we have seen but positive none the less. About 5 show no effect, no effect busts the argument to destroy a right when it does no good. Two show increased ownership and cc increase crime. While they are most likely the two sources you would accept as legitimate they come from Bloomberg, a proven liar who makes up his numbers. And even he admitted at one time to half a million legitimate uses of firearms to stop crimes, it has since been removed from his site. The other comes from handgun control who unlike the ones that showed a positive effect refused to reveal either their sources or methodology. We have told you about this repeatedly and you dismiss everything that doesn't fit your view as a illegitimate source so there is no point in wasting my time giving them to you again. I will note that the FBI estimates over 650,000 legitimate defensive uses of firearms a month. Before you say but we have more murder and mayhem than Europe remember that Mexico has more than the US and Europe combined and draconian gun laws. I know, I have heard it repeatedly Mexico has sociological differences from the US and Europe. To take that into account you also have to accept that there are major sociological differences between the US and Europe. If that negates the crime in Mexico, it negates it in the US. I think you understand that I've refrain from not using politics into this. That I've kept away from that aspect and simply looked at the OP's perspective in an objective viewpoint. When it comes to actual studies, and not merely studies based on statistics only; the pool of information is not even a billionth the knowledge we have access to when compared to automobiles. Yes, many people die in car accidents each year. Yet, its how those cars are designed. How the roadways are designed. How laws have been crafted. How regulation and enforcement have come into play. All these concepts have had an effect on reducing the number of fatalities. At the end of the day, most Americans want safe roads to travel on. Looking at actual firearm studies (i.e. non heavily or moderately based on statistics), is very slim. There was the study with CBS and the Philadelphia (or is that Pittsburg) PD. And those 2nd amendment guys whom tried to find ways for a sole gun owner to survive the Charlie Harbo attacks. Beyound that, the amount of evidence is very slim to none in many areas. I bring this up, in all honesty, that the level of information on this subject matter is abysmal! If we wanted to find out what happens to an SUV that is T-boned by a sports car; we could find that information out. Easily I might add! If we wanted to find out what happens when specific cars roll over (end to end, or side to side), we can find that information. Easily! If we wanted to find out that 'x' parts were defective, we could find this information out. Usually tied to a recall by the manufacture. And usually makes head lines. When was the last time we hard a firearm or one or more parts on that firearm might be defective per the manufacture on national news? And, I am stressing, I'm not pushing a political viewpoint on firearms. I'm open if someone makes a good argument with solid evidence to back their viewpoints up. But right now, the available evidence on firearm ownership with private citizens, when confronted by crime, is surprisingly tiny. We do a heavy amount of research on....EVERYTHING....in this nation From soil and water contamination, to air quality in cities, to even how to handle a rail car fire. But when it comes to firearms, the amount of knowledge is very low, if not extremely low. I point out the CBS and the 2nd amendment guys as two examples in which the studies find the myth pushed by gun nuts (whom are mentally/emotionally unstable compared to firearm owners) that the opposite is true. Science has shown a few million myths and superstitions to be absolutely false. Hell, there is a TV show about it: Mythbusters. Yet, when it comes to firearms, we Americans are squeamish on facing facts and reality. Why is that? If what the gun nuts state is true, then there should be no problem in having it tested. Unless they feel their views would not hold up well to scientific scrutiny. I've said it before, that we should test things. Find funding for the research from as political neutral sources as possible. Find researchers whom are pretty credible individuals to put together a series of experiments to test various hypothesis. That the evidence is clearly and cleanly gathered to which one or more conclusions would be based upon. All of this is done, because the study's findings...WILL BE...scrutinized. By all sides in the political spectrum. Why is it we can find a huge amount of money from the government (and other sources) to figure out how to make cars and roads safer, but not a penny for firearms research? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? I swore just a couple days ago I'd never post another word on these forums because of all the name calling and attacking, but so far this seems pretty civil, and I hope it stays that way. I am so sick of people whose only argument is, well you are a dodo head so there! but on to my question, how would such a study work, seems to me if you used existing communities one would AWAYS be able to claim this factor or that factor MIGHT have skewed the results. communities are fluid, how do you A) measure all these factors, then B) decide which one had the greatest and least effect. seems the only study you'd consider credible would be one where you create artificial communities that cannot be influenced by outside factors and compare the results lets see we'd need MILLIONS of people to vollenteer to live in them, then make one gun free, one with moderate gun control, one with NO gun control, one with all criminals, one with zero criminals, one an equal balance of criminal and non criminal people etc etc etc then watch them over a period of several years... THEN of course after you do alllllllllllllllll that, someone is going to pop up and say, wellllllllllll these aren't valid cause they are "artificial" communities! my dad who's an auto mechanic used to say, "when a car runs poorly or better look at the last thing that was changed on it" this translates to this issue in that if gun laws are changed, and within a relatively reasonable time period the crime rate changes as well there is PROBABALY cause and effect. sure you can say criminals MIGHT have moved into or out of the area, but the one thing we know for SURE did happen is gun laws were changed but that's to simple for anti gun people, for some reason, they refuse to accept any simple results, it requires a study that would make NASA scratch its head. of the pro gun people here I don't remember any ever saying that states where gun laws were relaxed and crime rate lowered proves beyond any doubt that its was the guns that were the sole cause. all I have ever heard was them say was that when more guns are present crime/death rates do not INCREASE, blowing the whole MORE GUNS = MORE CRIME/DEATH argument out of the water I think all anyone has been trying to say is, look in this area and this area and other areas we have MORE GUNS, but there was no INCREASE in the things you claim guns CAUSE, so quit proclaiming it as FACT when the KNOWN evidence seems to at least IMPLY the opposite. ok the three name callers can enter the discussion and tell us how everything I said is stupid and how therefor I MUST be stupid now! we ALL know who I am talking about, but apparently is against the rules for me to say their names here! maybe I should name them and get myself banned, because I am sooooooooooooooo sick of them showing up and taking a civil discussion and DESTROYING IT

BamaD -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 2:01:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xyzslaveboy Guns don't kill people,people kill people.....at least that's what we've been told ,right ? Guns are not responsible for gun deaths...yet they are responsible for a decrease in crime. If I wasn't laughing so damm hard I might be crying. Perhaps the fact that California has the largest percentage of it's citizens incarcerated has had more to do with the drop in crime rates. Of course California is finding it awful hard to keep that many prisoners in anything approaching humane conditions....so much so that they now find they need to release some of these folks as the federal guidelines for minimum level of care is proving to be financially prohibitive. As has been pointed out in several studies there are two government actions that lead to a drop in crime. A CCw laws. B Stiffer sentancing. C The criminal is responsible for the crime they commit the gun is the tool The citizens defending themselves is the reason a crime is stopped, the gun is the tool. Guns per se do not stop the crime, the ability to get them allows the citizen to do so, make sense now?

BitYakin -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 2:18:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xyzslaveboy No,if we follow your logic to it's natural conclusion that we can assume that guns do in fact allow others to kill more easily and readily.....something we have been told over and over is just not so. So which is it....you call it a tool,yet fail to see that it is a tool used far too often to maim,injure and kill You want to shine a spotlight on what you perceive as the good it does while retaining the ability to ignore the price society at large pays for its accessibility. I have a nervous disorder and cigarettes calm my tics......should I ignore I'm getting cancer while my hand stops shaking ? let us follow your logic, I should live a miserable life, because I MIGHT get cancer. personally I'll take a better, possibly shorter life, over a life filled with misery every time!

MercTech -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 3:16:30 PM)
Some seem to insist there is a direct correlation between gun ownership and crime rate. The statistics don't show this is fact. What does seem to directly correlate is population density and crime rate.

BamaD -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 5:36:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Some seem to insist there is a direct correlation between gun ownership and crime rate. The statistics don't show this is fact. What does seem to directly correlate is population density and crime rate. That with the influx of drug fueled gangs.

Moderator3 -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 5:40:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xyzslaveboy In that case feel free to enjoy your cigarette....but perhaps you ave noticed that most communities have started to legislate restricting the places you can legally smoke. So far it is still legal to smoke,but not in public places. So if we take that analogy further.....we reach a place where I don't care about the guns in your house but I expect your ass to be locked up if you take it out in public. As far as I'm concerned the length,or lack of,your life means fuck all to me....hell if you like I'll sing an aria at your funeral. Your smoking has no effect on my life,unfortunately,as has been shown time and time again your(the generic your) gun ownership can ,and often ,does have a disastrous effect on my and mine Funny meeting up with you here after you tried to get me into trouble with support saying I didn't email you. Might have had something to do with the fact that you had deleted your profile. Now, you evade ban and come in to play on a gun thread? Not for long dear one.

MrRodgers -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 6:28:46 PM)
Crime rates have been falling in America since the 1990's and ALL despite a population increase from around 250 million + or - a few million to 316 million in 2013. Murder: peaked in 1993 at 24,530, less every year since and now down to 14,196. Violent crime: peaked in 1992 at 1,932,270, less almost every year since and now down to 1,163,146 Rape: peaked in 1992 at 109,060, less in most years since and now down to 79,770 ALL crime peaked in 1992 at 14,438,200, less in all but a couple of years since and down to 9,795,658 I see no correlation or causation with respect to gun laws. Here

BamaD -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 6:37:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Crime rates have been falling in America since the 1990's and ALL despite a population increase from around 250 million + or - a few million to 316 million in 2013. Murder: peaked in 1993 at 24,530, less every year since and now down to 14,196. Violent crime: peaked in 1992 at 1,932,270, less almost every year since and now down to 1,163,146 Rape: peaked in 1992 at 109,060, less in most years since and now down to 79,770 ALL crime peaked in 1992 at 14,438,200, less in all but a couple of years since and down to 9,795,658 I see no correlation or causation with respect to gun laws. Here You need to factor in one more thing. The number of guns in society has doubled over that time I do not expect you to see a causation with respect to gun laws. But you have to admit that the huge increase in the number of firearms did not cause the crime explosion that would have occurred if they caused crime. Thus since they do not cause crime taking away a right for no effect would be unacceptable.

MercTech -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 6:53:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Crime rates have been falling in America since the 1990's and ALL despite a population increase from around 250 million + or - a few million to 316 million in 2013. Murder: peaked in 1993 at 24,530, less every year since and now down to 14,196. Violent crime: peaked in 1992 at 1,932,270, less almost every year since and now down to 1,163,146 Rape: peaked in 1992 at 109,060, less in most years since and now down to 79,770 ALL crime peaked in 1992 at 14,438,200, less in all but a couple of years since and down to 9,795,658 I see no correlation or causation with respect to gun laws. Here What I would like to see is statistics on crime rate and population DENSITY. When you pack too many too close together do we get a higher crime rate?

joether -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 9:18:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So anything leading to a conclusion you don't like is either illegitimate or covers the wrong information. Since the last time the government funded a study on firearms it came out like something Bloomberg would have published no it is not at all odd. Why pay someone to lie? Its a funny thing with science as it relates to humans. Its without many emotions. Some people go into studies demanding a particular outcome. And those studies are quickly torn to pieces by peer review. For example, we have Creationists that throw out evidence that would disprove something in the Holy Bible; later when actual scientists run the same experiments, they get very different results. They find that Creationists have set their tests up to prove a belief, rather than finding if that belief holds true. I've seen cases in which a quick thinking individual, with a firearm has used their arm to defend or stop a hostile attack. The question is, is that a fluke, or something likely to happen given the same circumstances? Psychology is often called a soft science, were as biology, chemistry, and physics are hard sciences. If I drop a ball to the floor, I should get nearly the same results each time. I run a simulator a 100 times, I should have very few 'fuck ups' and more 'successful planning'. So we are trying to test not just people's reflexs, hand-eye-cordination, or even tactical movement. But all those things and more. I'm 'OK" if a gun nut myth was proved right. Could gun nuts handle one of their myths being proved wrong? That's a better question. Funding is always a tough one. Usually it can come from the government or universities. Beyond that, it can be murky really quickly. Likewise, those investors might demand the facts be....adjusted....to suit their political viewpoints. Or, some investor simply states they are footing the bill, and the scientists have free reign to run their experiments. That is why we scrutinize the funding....BEFORE....any hypothesis is develop (and before the experiments are determined). What if the United States Army were to run such an experiment? Or the US Marine Corp? How about the FBI? Do you distrust any of those groups?

BamaD -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 10:19:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So anything leading to a conclusion you don't like is either illegitimate or covers the wrong information. Since the last time the government funded a study on firearms it came out like something Bloomberg would have published no it is not at all odd. Why pay someone to lie? Its a funny thing with science as it relates to humans. Its without many emotions. Some people go into studies demanding a particular outcome. And those studies are quickly torn to pieces by peer review. For example, we have Creationists that throw out evidence that would disprove something in the Holy Bible; later when actual scientists run the same experiments, they get very different results. They find that Creationists have set their tests up to prove a belief, rather than finding if that belief holds true. I've seen cases in which a quick thinking individual, with a firearm has used their arm to defend or stop a hostile attack. The question is, is that a fluke, or something likely to happen given the same circumstances? Psychology is often called a soft science, were as biology, chemistry, and physics are hard sciences. If I drop a ball to the floor, I should get nearly the same results each time. I run a simulator a 100 times, I should have very few 'fuck ups' and more 'successful planning'. So we are trying to test not just people's reflexs, hand-eye-cordination, or even tactical movement. But all those things and more. I'm 'OK" if a gun nut myth was proved right. Could gun nuts handle one of their myths being proved wrong? That's a better question. Funding is always a tough one. Usually it can come from the government or universities. Beyond that, it can be murky really quickly. Likewise, those investors might demand the facts be....adjusted....to suit their political viewpoints. Or, some investor simply states they are footing the bill, and the scientists have free reign to run their experiments. That is why we scrutinize the funding....BEFORE....any hypothesis is develop (and before the experiments are determined). What if the United States Army were to run such an experiment? Or the US Marine Corp? How about the FBI? Do you distrust any of those groups? Your reference to pro 2nd amendment people as gun nuts betrays your total lack of objectivity. Government funding does not in any way assure objectivity. A government funded study will always reflect the views of the people in government who commission the study. There is lots of evidence that the reaction depends on the individual. I will react to a threat with a reasoned use of equal or greater force, as has happened repeatedly. In the same situation most of the anti gun people will go off the deep end at one extreme or the other. The only way to know how a person will react in a given situation is when they are there. Contrary to your view no test can reveal this. I don't trust anyone who says they can do a test program that will tell me how a person will react when their life in on the line. PS both the FBI and the military have already done lots of training toward that very thing. Also there is less than no indication that depriving people of their rights will accomplish anything.

Kirata -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 10:28:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Crime rates have been falling in America since the 1990's and ALL despite a population increase from around 250 million + or - a few million to 316 million in 2013. Murder: peaked in 1993 at 24,530, less every year since and now down to 14,196. Violent crime: peaked in 1992 at 1,932,270, less almost every year since and now down to 1,163,146 Rape: peaked in 1992 at 109,060, less in most years since and now down to 79,770 ALL crime peaked in 1992 at 14,438,200, less in all but a couple of years since and down to 9,795,658 I see no correlation or causation with respect to gun laws. Here Well actually, there is a correlation. As crime rates rose to their peak in the early 90s, more and more states adopted concealed carry. In 1986, only 8 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. By 1991, the number of "shall issue" states had doubled to 16, enough to begin a leveling in the national crime figures. We were gaining a critical mass. In 2001, 31 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. Five years later it was 37. And by 2013, a total of 42 states had adopted either "shall issue" or unrestricted carry. It is not unreasonable to think that the spread of concealed carry may have at least contributed in some degree to the falling crime rate. To take just one exemplar, back in the 90's Florida had a problem. Tourists were being assaulted and robbed at an alarming rate, and the tourism industry was getting seriously nervous. But at first, nobody could figure out how the criminals were targeting the state's tourists with such uncanny accuracy. Florida was already a right-to-carry state, but much of our tourism is international, and the rate of assaults against foreign tourists was enough to make you wonder if they had little lights on their heads alerting criminals that here was a victim unlikely to be carrying a nasty surprise. Until, that is, the picture finally cleared. Most foreign tourists who come to Florida need to rent a car in order to get around, and in resort areas during the tourist season it was an all but certain bet that rental plates on a vehicle meant the occupants were foreign tourists and therefore unarmed. Florida immediately changed the law so that rental vehicles could no longer be distinguished by their license plates. As Doyle Jourdon, head of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement at the time, observed: "The bad guys are not stupid." K.

Kirata -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 10:31:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech What I would like to see is statistics on crime rate and population DENSITY. When you pack too many too close together do we get a higher crime rate? Research on the link between levels of poverty and homicide in urban areas has persistently reported the existence of a relationship for whites but not for blacks. This is despite the fact that most analysts expect that the higher levels of urban black homicide are due in part to the higher levels of urban black poverty. The present research introduces a more meaningful, spatially based measure of concentrated poverty and argues that the effect of concentrated poverty on homicide rates should be the same for both racial groups. The hypotheses are tested with race-disaggregated data for a sample of central cities circa 1990. The results suggest that, when poverty is measured as a linear spatially based phenomenon, it is a more important determinant of race-specific homicide rates than overall city levels of disadvantage and that the concentration of poverty increases both black and white homicide rather equally. ~Jstor K.

BamaD -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 10:33:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech What I would like to see is statistics on crime rate and population DENSITY. When you pack too many too close together do we get a higher crime rate? Research on the link between levels of poverty and homicide in urban areas has persistently reported the existence of a relationship for whites but not for blacks. This is despite the fact that most analysts expect that the higher levels of urban black homicide are due in part to the higher levels of urban black poverty. The present research introduces a more meaningful, spatially based measure of concentrated poverty and argues that the effect of concentrated poverty on homicide rates should be the same for both racial groups. The hypotheses are tested with race-disaggregated data for a sample of central cities circa 1990. The results suggest that, when poverty is measured as a linear spatially based phenomenon, it is a more important determinant of race-specific homicide rates than overall city levels of disadvantage and that the concentration of poverty increases both black and white homicide rather equally. ~Jstor K. Interesting, but not surprising. It suggests that people are people.

joether -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 10:33:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin I swore just a couple days ago I'd never post another word on these forums because of all the name calling and attacking, but so far this seems pretty civil, and I hope it stays that way. I am so sick of people whose only argument is, well you are a dodo head so there! It stays civil if the individual remains civil. A topic like this is....very....passionate and political. Such threads do not remain in existent long before insults and threats are thrown. I find it curious to observe whom starts first and why. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin but on to my question, how would such a study work, seems to me if you used existing communities one would AWAYS be able to claim this factor or that factor MIGHT have skewed the results. communities are fluid, how do you A) measure all these factors, then B) decide which one had the greatest and least effect. First allow me to correct a previous thought. I thought it was CBS that co-opted with the Philadelphia PD. It was ABC. The two groups I take as examples used different sets of individuals for their experiment. The ABC one used college students, were as the 2nd amendment group used just themselves. In the ABC study that placed fliers on campus for a free firearm training course. The information they gave was more than enough to pass the state's requirements. But they went a step further and started training them how to pull a gun from a holster quickly, deal with breathing, handling unnerving conditions that would through aiming off. Then they set the stage for the experiment. You can find the study and conclusion here In the 2nd amendment crew was immediately after the Charlie Hebdo attack in France just a few weeks ago. In that instance, each person got to play one of the two attackers and the lone conceal carry person. They tried a number of set ups after each failed attempt to see if there was a better way to survive or even fight back. I have one media source that comes from The Young Turks, however I could not find the original clip which showed many of the scenarios they ran. Let me absolutely clear here. I'm not asking nor demanding you or others accept the results of those two sets of studies. But to take observation of the set up. The core condition in both is safety. To carry things out in as safe a manner as possible. They use paint bullets rather than paintballs in both instances. So to help any experiment, creating a safe environment, with trained 'referees' becomes paramount to keep those in the area safe from injure. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin A) measure all these factors, then B) decide which one had the greatest and least effect. A ) This would be determine at the outset of the experiment. Its the creation of one or more hypothesis. These are for lack of a better phrase's, educated guesses on what the researchers believe is true or not. From there, its to create one or more experiments to help in the process of gathering evidence. Here, care has to be taken to keep the data from being corrupted. A push a political ideology here would undermine the whole of the experiment. Whether in favor of gun control or not, for example. So the experiments would be defined pretty clearly, and an explanation of 'area of study'. B ) This would come after the data has been collected. This stage of the experiment would be forming the conclusion. Did the data surprise the researchers of their original hypothesis or not? Did something happen they were not expecting or didn't account? Questions like this help form the conclusion of the experiment. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin seems the only study you'd consider credible would be one where you create artificial communities that cannot be influenced by outside factors and compare the results From young to old. From fat to skinny. With good eye sight and poor. Likewise, different educational levels, and work experiences. Finally their knowledge of firearms would play a factor. I would want beginner and experts alike. In other words a good mixture of people. Is this artificial? I'm just taking people 'off the side walk' with no prior knowledge of their experience with firearms. In studies like this, there is usually what is called a 'control group'. A group to help define how good or bad individuals performed. Constructing a good control group is its own hard task to over come. And its one that will be scrutinized if used. When trying to run an experiment, the idea is to try to eliminate possible variables. That which remains is what is being tested. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin lets see we'd need MILLIONS of people to vollenteer to live in them, then make one gun free, one with moderate gun control, one with NO gun control, one with all criminals, one with zero criminals, one an equal balance of criminal and non criminal people etc etc etc then watch them over a period of several years... Not really millions of people. A few hundred or a few thousand. I'm not sure I understand what the rest of your dialogue means here. That a study like this could be repeated over several years would not be unheard of in science. Medical science is chalked full of experiments that repeat each year. As are those in physics and other scientific disciplines. Over time, we can understand things better. Isn't that what we are trying to obtain here? Knowledge? quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin THEN of course after you do alllllllllllllllll that, someone is going to pop up and say, wellllllllllll these aren't valid cause they are "artificial" communities! People will do that in every experiment across science. There are people that totally dismiss experiments that show evidence towards the Theory of Climate Change for example. They will find any and all reasons, even silly and stupid ones, to support their viewpoint. For everyone else, the evidence speaks for itself. Even if you were to place these people into the experiment, then would later say things were rigged against them. That there is no way someone could win, because they didn't. Then they are asked 'Well, what would you do differently?". Psychology would point out the individual would set the challenge so they have little to no possibility of losing. Its been studied on many hundred of experiments over a few decades; none of which had anything to do with firearms! quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin my dad who's an auto mechanic used to say, "when a car runs poorly or better look at the last thing that was changed on it" this translates to this issue in that if gun laws are changed, and within a relatively reasonable time period the crime rate changes as well there is PROBABALY cause and effect. sure you can say criminals MIGHT have moved into or out of the area, but the one thing we know for SURE did happen is gun laws were changed I'm not talking firearm laws here. That would be a different topic all together from running experiments. To tighten or loose existing firearm laws may increase or decrease the crime rate. It might not have any effect all together. This is more a political argument than a scientific one. A convenience store is robbed regardless if the crime rate is low or high. Or if firearms are easy to obtain or not. Or if its day-light or night time. Or if its full moon or not. Or if the Patriots are playing the Cowboys in the Superbowl. Granted in higher crime rate areas, the frequency that it could happen does go up. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin but that's to simple for anti gun people, for some reason, they refuse to accept any simple results, it requires a study that would make NASA scratch its head. That is why we experiment. To see if there is fact to the myths. Some times simple results are true. Sometimes they are not. But to say a simple truth is true without an evidence to back it up, is a belief, not fact. Second, you are making an attack on other people by stating 'anti-gun people'. You started your post off by stating your disgusted that people insult and attack other people. And here you are, doing exactly that! As I stated, its up to the individual posting to refrain from the name calling. I hope you can refrain from that in the future. Not so much being 'politically correct' but 'gentleman's agreement'. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin of the pro gun people here I don't remember any ever saying that states where gun laws were relaxed and crime rate lowered proves beyond any doubt that its was the guns that were the sole cause. all I have ever heard was them say was that when more guns are present crime/death rates do not INCREASE, blowing the whole MORE GUNS = MORE CRIME/DEATH argument out of the water I've watched Democrats and Republicans take the same statistic and come to two very different viewpoints based upon it. Which is why I say we run experiments based on real life situations, rather than a pile of numbers from some database. We set up the experiments, run them, collect the data, and try to figure out what it all means. If we are mature enough and able to handle being wrong with our viewpoints; we might uncover some real truths to the facts and myths. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin I think all anyone has been trying to say is, look in this area and this area and other areas we have MORE GUNS, but there was no INCREASE in the things you claim guns CAUSE, so quit proclaiming it as FACT when the KNOWN evidence seems to at least IMPLY the opposite. Again this is arguing based on a set of numbers drawn from some database. I've pointed out, that the crime rate is decreasing, the effects that firearms have actually had on this decrease remains to be seen. You want to push a political viewpoint, go for it. And I can do the same. And we are no further ahead than when we started; and the problem(s) remain before us. I do not think the solution is to look at a pile of numbers by itself. Those numbers represent people. From all walks of life, different educations, different incomes, and different views on life. It would be a bad idea to forget these things. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin ok the three name callers can enter the discussion and tell us how everything I said is stupid and how therefor I MUST be stupid now! I hope I have not stated I think your stupid. Disagree on things, maybe, but not stated your stupid. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin we ALL know who I am talking about, but apparently is against the rules for me to say their names here! I've got one such individual myself. Starts with a 'K' and ends with an 'a', with 'I-Rat' in between. Since I-Rat is some Apple product in the making.... quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin maybe I should name them and get myself banned, because I am sooooooooooooooo sick of them showing up and taking a civil discussion and DESTROYING IT It happens on all sides of the debate. If they dont like the discussion, they try to torpedo it. I'm sure the Moderators are aware of them. I've been told by a few on here, that I'm very patient of those who insult me without lashing out. But even I have my bad days too. The important thing is just ignore them. Make sure you have good counter arguments that have solid evidence backing it up. It pissed them off to no end! Its the ultimate 'fuck up' to their faces. Because they will respond with even more insults and attacks, and get ban. The moderators *ARE watching.

joether -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 11:39:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Your reference to pro 2nd amendment people as gun nuts betrays your total lack of objectivity. There are many pro 2nd amendment people, to which do you refer to specifically? I have stated, and you can look it up. I view about five distinctive groups in the 'firearm debate' in this nation. You seem to have just two. Who is more likely to be objective in their viewpoint? Take time to study and think on each group of the spectrum? You view it as 'us verse them'. Like a football game. This is a 'Zero-Sum' game that has no good winners. That if one side is losing they will go to more and deeper levels of psychotic plans to gain that percentage back. That philosophy doesn't work for long before there is blood shed and violence. Is that what you really want, BamaD? I used to think you were some crazy gun nut. But over time, I've studied your material. Stuff you reply to myself and others. And changed that out. You can be reasonable, if approached with respect and reason. Whether you realize it or not, we both agree on many things. A common ground as it relates to this subject matter. Yes, we also disagree on things. But instead of resorting to insults and even physical violence, we agree to disagree. The seven groups as I see them in linear order: Gun Nuts, Gun Owners, Moderates, Concern Citizens, Gun Controllers. The people that keep the problems this nation have with gun laws and freedoms, are the two extremes. They have the most to gain by keeping things 'as is'. They have the most to lose if gun owners through to concern citizens actually sat down and discuss things like adults. We would see better firearm laws, that make sense. That remove the stupid restrictions and laws that either don't work or rarely work as intended. Things would be a bit more standardized between states, rather than the confusion that exists right now. The gun nuts and controllers make up about 20-30% of the voting population of this country (estimated). The gun owners, moderates, and concern citizens make up 70-80% (again, estimated). We as a society, will come to an agreement. We'll accept it will not be perfect, nor handle every possible case that comes up. That we'll depend on future generations to handle future questions in as adult responsibility like fashion as possible. Does this sound familiar? It should; its what the founding fathers thought on..... quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Government funding does not in any way assure objectivity. No, it assures a stable cash flow to which an objective experiment could be built upon. We (as government) set aside 'X' amount of dollars for one or more experiments. This creates a total budget for researchers to work from. Once the funds are handed over, the government has very limited say in how it is used. It would have a say if the researchers tried to steal it, or screw around with hookers and blow! Most credibility researchers would not do this. Joke, maybe, but when the cards are down, they perform the task before them. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD A government funded study will always reflect the views of the people in government who commission the study. There are plenty of studies out there to which the government's original view was not reflected in the final outcome of the study. An others in which the researchers found quite the opposite findings. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The only way to know how a person will react in a given situation is when they are there. Its a funny things with stressful situations; how people react. Even trained soldiers and police officers freeze up every once in a while. Imagine the general public that does not have that level of training and daily conditioning? How many people are in peak physical condition? This is the stuff the experiments take into consideration. Just having a gun doesn't ward you from all danger. It can help in certain situations. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Contrary to your view no test can reveal this. Contrary to your view, many tests have already shown this. That people, under stressful conditions, behave differently then when they are given plenty of time to relax and think things through. You want an example? Go to a gun range. Fire off 100 rounds, anyways you want. Then do 100 jumping jacks, pick up that pistol and unload the entire magazine within eight seconds. Then do it again, but fire with the other hand and other eye. The first test you ran, is your control. The second is the 'best of two' situations. The third is assuming your dominate eye is out of commission for some reason, and your not able to fire with your dominant hand. Try to do this as safely as you can. I could set up perhaps a half dozen situations. The point is not to prove or disprove a political notion. But to see if a hypothesis is correct or not, and more importantly.....WHY. An accept those results when forming the conclusion. Setting up the experiment must take safety into consideration. From start to finish. I wouldn't tell you what those ideas are, since if you knew what your being tested on, the results could be corrupted. The whole point of each experiment is to take a person in the most common instance and see what happens under a preset level of instructions and/or rules. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I don't trust anyone who says they can do a test program that will tell me how a person will react when their life in on the line. Don't trust them; check the information out for yourself. People in stressful situations tend to have a higher rate of errors being generated. That has been observed over the decades. From people performing office work to medical professionals in the ER. Its been shown that those without combat training do worst when shit is hitting the fan than professional soldiers. Astronauts under go a HELLUVA alot of training to cover almost every possible problem that could take place when their in orbit. Its not like they can call the paramedics if Julie is having a heart attack. Nor call a mechanic if something breaks down. All these people train, because its been understood that that under stressful moments, people handle, act, and react differently than under calm and normal circumstances. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD PS both the FBI and the military have already done lots of training toward that very thing. I didn't ask if they had done it or not. I asked if you (and anyone else) would have a problem with them funding the research for it? quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Also there is less than no indication that depriving people of their rights will accomplish anything. Since whether personal firearm ownership is a right or not, is a hotly debated political question. You can say stuff that says it is, and I can say stuff that it isn't. Its like debating statistics; we can take the same number and have opposite viewpoints with it. Whether or not a firearm is a personal right or not, is not something likely to be covered in a science experiment, like what is being discussed in this thread. That would be for another thread all together!

joether -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/18/2015 11:49:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Crime rates have been falling in America since the 1990's and ALL despite a population increase from around 250 million + or - a few million to 316 million in 2013. Murder: peaked in 1993 at 24,530, less every year since and now down to 14,196. Violent crime: peaked in 1992 at 1,932,270, less almost every year since and now down to 1,163,146 Rape: peaked in 1992 at 109,060, less in most years since and now down to 79,770 ALL crime peaked in 1992 at 14,438,200, less in all but a couple of years since and down to 9,795,658 I see no correlation or causation with respect to gun laws. Here You need to factor in one more thing. The number of guns in society has doubled over that time I do not expect you to see a causation with respect to gun laws. But you have to admit that the huge increase in the number of firearms did not cause the crime explosion that would have occurred if they caused crime. Thus since they do not cause crime taking away a right for no effect would be unacceptable. We should also factor in a number of programs by local charities on up to the US Government, that help those that need help. From paying for food to medical bills. At one time, the poor would steal just to make ends meet. Now, many have access to many different programs that cover a while amount of troubles. Based on psychology, with less demand to make ends meet by illegal activities, such activities are in decline. This is not to say the middle class doesn't have problems. They have some problems in common with the poor, others that are their own. An again, there are local groups on up to the US Government that have ways of keeping people from doing illegal actions. I'm not arguing whether firearms have helped or not. Not enough information is provided to arrive at such a conclusion. If you wish to push that viewpoint, then its fair for you to give me some actual evidence that supports it.

joether -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/19/2015 12:05:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Crime rates have been falling in America since the 1990's and ALL despite a population increase from around 250 million + or - a few million to 316 million in 2013. Murder: peaked in 1993 at 24,530, less every year since and now down to 14,196. Violent crime: peaked in 1992 at 1,932,270, less almost every year since and now down to 1,163,146 Rape: peaked in 1992 at 109,060, less in most years since and now down to 79,770 ALL crime peaked in 1992 at 14,438,200, less in all but a couple of years since and down to 9,795,658 I see no correlation or causation with respect to gun laws. Here Well actually, there is a correlation. As crime rates rose to their peak in the early 90s, more and more states adopted concealed carry. In 1986, only 8 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. By 1991, the number of "shall issue" states had doubled to 16, enough to begin a leveling in the national crime figures. We were gaining a critical mass. In 2001, 31 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. Five years later it was 37. And by 2013, a total of 42 states had adopted either "shall issue" or unrestricted carry. I just dont buy that as a likely issue. If the crime rate rose to its peak in the early 90s, with only 16 states having accepted some form of concealable carry, what effect did it have on the states that did not? Their crime rates were decreasing without concealable carry. This would mean, by the numbers your projecting, that concealable carry has no actual effect on the crime rate itself. I'm not stating this to say it as 'Oh hahaha, you made a mistake'; just merely pointing out the logical doesn't work. If more than half the states were doing it, and those states saw a faster decline with concealable carry; you could make an argument here. But then you would have to get more specific to the areas. That, I think would be a FUCK load of research (and time) at a university (most likely place to have such records, broken down by district). AN that's just proving it on your end. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata It is not unreasonable to think that the spread of concealed carry may have at least contributed in some degree to the falling crime rate. To take just one exemplar, back in the 90's Florida had a problem. Tourists were being assaulted and robbed at an alarming rate, and the tourism industry was getting seriously nervous. But at first, nobody could figure out how the criminals were targeting the state's tourists with such uncanny accuracy. Florida was already a right-to-carry state, but much of our tourism is international, and the rate of assaults against foreign tourists was enough to make you wonder if they had little lights on their heads alerting criminals that here was a victim unlikely to be carrying a nasty surprise. Until, that is, the picture finally cleared. Most foreign tourists who come to Florida need to rent a car in order to get around, and in resort areas during the tourist season it was an all but certain bet that rental plates on a vehicle meant the occupants were foreign tourists and therefore unarmed. Florida immediately changed the law so that rental vehicles could no longer be distinguished by their license plates. As Doyle Jourdon, head of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement at the time, observed: "The bad guys are not stupid." And this has nothing to do with whether someone was armed or not. It does have much to do with good detective work and observation. Once the pattern was identified, legislation was created to diminish the likelihood of such future attacks. All without having to give people more firearms. It should be noted, that many out of state, US Citizens were also being attacked. Some of those from states with the same or similar firearm laws.

Kirata -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/19/2015 12:20:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata It is not unreasonable to think that the spread of concealed carry may have at least contributed in some degree to the falling crime rate. To take just one exemplar, back in the 90's Florida had a problem. Tourists were being assaulted and robbed at an alarming rate, and the tourism industry was getting seriously nervous. But at first, nobody could figure out how the criminals were targeting the state's tourists with such uncanny accuracy. Florida was already a right-to-carry state, but much of our tourism is international, and the rate of assaults against foreign tourists was enough to make you wonder if they had little lights on their heads alerting criminals that here was a victim unlikely to be carrying a nasty surprise. Until, that is, the picture finally cleared. Most foreign tourists who come to Florida need to rent a car in order to get around, and in resort areas during the tourist season it was an all but certain bet that rental plates on a vehicle meant the occupants were foreign tourists and therefore unarmed. Florida immediately changed the law so that rental vehicles could no longer be distinguished by their license plates. As Doyle Jourdon, head of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement at the time, observed: "The bad guys are not stupid." And this has nothing to do with whether someone was armed or not. It does have much to do with good detective work and observation. Once the pattern was identified, legislation was created to diminish the likelihood of such future attacks. All without having to give people more firearms. It had everything to do with whether or not the victim might be armed. quote: ORIGINAL: joether It should be noted, that many out of state, US Citizens were also being attacked. Some of those from states with the same or similar firearm laws. Sorry, no cigar. Florida didn't enact reciprocity until 1999. K.

BitYakin -> RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA (3/19/2015 12:23:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin I swore just a couple days ago I'd never post another word on these forums because of all the name calling and attacking, but so far this seems pretty civil, and I hope it stays that way. I am so sick of people whose only argument is, well you are a dodo head so there! It stays civil if the individual remains civil. A topic like this is....very....passionate and political. Such threads do not remain in existent long before insults and threats are thrown. I find it curious to observe whom starts first and why. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin but on to my question, how would such a study work, seems to me if you used existing communities one would AWAYS be able to claim this factor or that factor MIGHT have skewed the results. communities are fluid, how do you A) measure all these factors, then B) decide which one had the greatest and least effect. First allow me to correct a previous thought. I thought it was CBS that co-opted with the Philadelphia PD. It was ABC. The two groups I take as examples used different sets of individuals for their experiment. The ABC one used college students, were as the 2nd amendment group used just themselves. In the ABC study that placed fliers on campus for a free firearm training course. The information they gave was more than enough to pass the state's requirements. But they went a step further and started training them how to pull a gun from a holster quickly, deal with breathing, handling unnerving conditions that would through aiming off. Then they set the stage for the experiment. You can find the study and conclusion here In the 2nd amendment crew was immediately after the Charlie Hebdo attack in France just a few weeks ago. In that instance, each person got to play one of the two attackers and the lone conceal carry person. They tried a number of set ups after each failed attempt to see if there was a better way to survive or even fight back. I have one media source that comes from The Young Turks, however I could not find the original clip which showed many of the scenarios they ran. Let me absolutely clear here. I'm not asking nor demanding you or others accept the results of those two sets of studies. But to take observation of the set up. The core condition in both is safety. To carry things out in as safe a manner as possible. They use paint bullets rather than paintballs in both instances. So to help any experiment, creating a safe environment, with trained 'referees' becomes paramount to keep those in the area safe from injure. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin A) measure all these factors, then B) decide which one had the greatest and least effect. A ) This would be determine at the outset of the experiment. Its the creation of one or more hypothesis. These are for lack of a better phrase's, educated guesses on what the researchers believe is true or not. From there, its to create one or more experiments to help in the process of gathering evidence. Here, care has to be taken to keep the data from being corrupted. A push a political ideology here would undermine the whole of the experiment. Whether in favor of gun control or not, for example. So the experiments would be defined pretty clearly, and an explanation of 'area of study'. B ) This would come after the data has been collected. This stage of the experiment would be forming the conclusion. Did the data surprise the researchers of their original hypothesis or not? Did something happen they were not expecting or didn't account? Questions like this help form the conclusion of the experiment. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin seems the only study you'd consider credible would be one where you create artificial communities that cannot be influenced by outside factors and compare the results From young to old. From fat to skinny. With good eye sight and poor. Likewise, different educational levels, and work experiences. Finally their knowledge of firearms would play a factor. I would want beginner and experts alike. In other words a good mixture of people. Is this artificial? I'm just taking people 'off the side walk' with no prior knowledge of their experience with firearms. In studies like this, there is usually what is called a 'control group'. A group to help define how good or bad individuals performed. Constructing a good control group is its own hard task to over come. And its one that will be scrutinized if used. When trying to run an experiment, the idea is to try to eliminate possible variables. That which remains is what is being tested. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin lets see we'd need MILLIONS of people to vollenteer to live in them, then make one gun free, one with moderate gun control, one with NO gun control, one with all criminals, one with zero criminals, one an equal balance of criminal and non criminal people etc etc etc then watch them over a period of several years... Not really millions of people. A few hundred or a few thousand. I'm not sure I understand what the rest of your dialogue means here. That a study like this could be repeated over several years would not be unheard of in science. Medical science is chalked full of experiments that repeat each year. As are those in physics and other scientific disciplines. Over time, we can understand things better. Isn't that what we are trying to obtain here? Knowledge? quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin THEN of course after you do alllllllllllllllll that, someone is going to pop up and say, wellllllllllll these aren't valid cause they are "artificial" communities! People will do that in every experiment across science. There are people that totally dismiss experiments that show evidence towards the Theory of Climate Change for example. They will find any and all reasons, even silly and stupid ones, to support their viewpoint. For everyone else, the evidence speaks for itself. Even if you were to place these people into the experiment, then would later say things were rigged against them. That there is no way someone could win, because they didn't. Then they are asked 'Well, what would you do differently?". Psychology would point out the individual would set the challenge so they have little to no possibility of losing. Its been studied on many hundred of experiments over a few decades; none of which had anything to do with firearms! quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin my dad who's an auto mechanic used to say, "when a car runs poorly or better look at the last thing that was changed on it" this translates to this issue in that if gun laws are changed, and within a relatively reasonable time period the crime rate changes as well there is PROBABALY cause and effect. sure you can say criminals MIGHT have moved into or out of the area, but the one thing we know for SURE did happen is gun laws were changed I'm not talking firearm laws here. That would be a different topic all together from running experiments. To tighten or loose existing firearm laws may increase or decrease the crime rate. It might not have any effect all together. This is more a political argument than a scientific one. A convenience store is robbed regardless if the crime rate is low or high. Or if firearms are easy to obtain or not. Or if its day-light or night time. Or if its full moon or not. Or if the Patriots are playing the Cowboys in the Superbowl. Granted in higher crime rate areas, the frequency that it could happen does go up. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin but that's to simple for anti gun people, for some reason, they refuse to accept any simple results, it requires a study that would make NASA scratch its head. That is why we experiment. To see if there is fact to the myths. Some times simple results are true. Sometimes they are not. But to say a simple truth is true without an evidence to back it up, is a belief, not fact. Second, you are making an attack on other people by stating 'anti-gun people'. You started your post off by stating your disgusted that people insult and attack other people. And here you are, doing exactly that! As I stated, its up to the individual posting to refrain from the name calling. I hope you can refrain from that in the future. Not so much being 'politically correct' but 'gentleman's agreement'. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin of the pro gun people here I don't remember any ever saying that states where gun laws were relaxed and crime rate lowered proves beyond any doubt that its was the guns that were the sole cause. all I have ever heard was them say was that when more guns are present crime/death rates do not INCREASE, blowing the whole MORE GUNS = MORE CRIME/DEATH argument out of the water I've watched Democrats and Republicans take the same statistic and come to two very different viewpoints based upon it. Which is why I say we run experiments based on real life situations, rather than a pile of numbers from some database. We set up the experiments, run them, collect the data, and try to figure out what it all means. If we are mature enough and able to handle being wrong with our viewpoints; we might uncover some real truths to the facts and myths. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin I think all anyone has been trying to say is, look in this area and this area and other areas we have MORE GUNS, but there was no INCREASE in the things you claim guns CAUSE, so quit proclaiming it as FACT when the KNOWN evidence seems to at least IMPLY the opposite. Again this is arguing based on a set of numbers drawn from some database. I've pointed out, that the crime rate is decreasing, the effects that firearms have actually had on this decrease remains to be seen. You want to push a political viewpoint, go for it. And I can do the same. And we are no further ahead than when we started; and the problem(s) remain before us. I do not think the solution is to look at a pile of numbers by itself. Those numbers represent people. From all walks of life, different educations, different incomes, and different views on life. It would be a bad idea to forget these things. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin ok the three name callers can enter the discussion and tell us how everything I said is stupid and how therefor I MUST be stupid now! I hope I have not stated I think your stupid. Disagree on things, maybe, but not stated your stupid. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin we ALL know who I am talking about, but apparently is against the rules for me to say their names here! I've got one such individual myself. Starts with a 'K' and ends with an 'a', with 'I-Rat' in between. Since I-Rat is some Apple product in the making.... quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin maybe I should name them and get myself banned, because I am sooooooooooooooo sick of them showing up and taking a civil discussion and DESTROYING IT It happens on all sides of the debate. If they dont like the discussion, they try to torpedo it. I'm sure the Moderators are aware of them. I've been told by a few on here, that I'm very patient of those who insult me without lashing out. But even I have my bad days too. The important thing is just ignore them. Make sure you have good counter arguments that have solid evidence backing it up. It pissed them off to no end! Its the ultimate 'fuck up' to their faces. Because they will respond with even more insults and attacks, and get ban. The moderators *ARE watching. I wish I were better at manipulating this quote stuff, I apologize to everyone for this becoming a HUGE post... let's me start with "anti gun people" is neither an attack or insult, its a simple description, unlike "gun nuts" which sounds a lot more like an insult or attack... there are pro gun people and anti gun people, neither is an attack or insult, just delineates which side of the fence they are on is all. now there was one other part I wanted to address, your experiment you say we shouldn't need millions of people etc etc etc but you WOULD for such a social experiment, you'd need groups large enough to simulate actual communities and they would have to be completely ISOLATED from outside influences, otherwise your data is tainted by the very thing you are arguing against, the 'WHAT IF" factors... sure you can pick a control group, but unless they are isolated the data is tainted by the people they come in contact with randomly in an open community... this is why your experiment hasn't been done and isn't a feasible experiment to begin with..... you'd need large enough numbers to simulate an actual community, including densely populated inner city environments and completely control ALL outside contact. you'd have to do that several times over for each type of control group.. you're right some sciences are hard sciences in that they deal with physical things, as per your ball example, with people and communities the variables of such an experiment are simply overwhelming... one last thing, you were not one of people I was referring to that simply throws out insults and thinks it meant they "made a point" and I don't think the person you mentioned does it either, least not to my memory has his entire argument ever been, you're stupid so I don't have to respond to what you actually said. I think I've only ever called one person here stupid, I'm pretty sure everyone knows who that is too... I actually challenged him once to take an IQ test and compare our results. he declined! mostly where that person was concerned, I just felt sorry for the people whose side he was on as he made everyone on that side look bad.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125