Gun control ideas crumbled when researched

[Michaels153]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.7397fbbd3625
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

By Leah Libresco October 3
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths. and in Britain and Australia they both have a parliament not our form of Congress, and they do not have a constitution that protects the 2nd ammendment

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

This is more research that the Left is likely to ignore because it does not support their goals. It is interesting when an ex member of the left actually does objective research, finds out they were misguided by the talking points of the left that they had accepted, and is willing to admit it.
It reminds me of What C.S. Lewis said in one of his radio broadcasts:
"We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man."
Does the left want to reduce gun deaths? or guns?
If they want to reduce gun deaths, then the research provided by Leah Libresco and her group is a better choice than anything else the left have proposed thus far.

[leftyg]

Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries, a new study finds.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gu ... countries/

The same article goes on to say

Even though it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the United States accounted for 82 percent of all gun deaths. The United States also accounted for 90 percent of all women killed by guns, the study found. Ninety-one percent of children under 14 who died by gun violence were in the United States. And 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed by guns were in the United States, the study found.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gu ... countries/

The evidence is overwhelming that our gun culture has a profound effect on homicides and on all gun deaths. You can look at the chart of countries. How the gun lobby bambozzles people is stunning. And I think Americans wanted to reduce gun deaths, and the way to do it may be to eliminate certain guns and certain accessories that make killing easier.

It amazes me that the right does not get it. At Ohio State, a terrorist attacked people with a knife, and he, the terrorist, was the only person who died, because a knife (like cigarettes) does not kill reliably enough

"More than two-thirds of the homicides in the U.S. are firearm homicides and studies have suggested that the non-gun homicide rate in the U.S. may be high because the gun homicide rate is high,"

said Dr. Erin Grinshteyn of the University of Nevada.

"For example, offenders take into account the threat posed by their adversaries. Individuals are more likely to have lethal intent if they anticipate that their adversaries will be armed,"

she explained. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gu ... countries/

The problem with the 538 study is that deaths in these other countries are so few that even gun buy backs seem to make little difference in significance. And bizarre shootings like Las Vegas might not be eliminated, no matter what we do. But without a bump stock he might not have been able to kill as many people. There is no need to have automatic or even semi-automatic weapons

Guitarist Caleb Keeter of the Josh Abbot Band, performers at the event:

“I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd Amendment my entire life,” he wrote. “Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with CHL licenses, and legal firearms on the bus. They were useless.”

I cannot think of a single incident where a shooting of this type was stopped by the intervention of a citizen. And please do not mention the the setup at the Muslim cartoon show in Garland, Texas those were police officers who were anticipating violence.

No, there is no excuse for peple to have assault weapons or automatic weapons, and the evidence that we have a much bigger gun problem than other advanced countries is pretty incontrovertible.

[Michaels153]

Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries, a new study finds.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gu ... countries/

In the United States, you are more likely to die from an abortion than from guns.

Leftyg, while you may find comparing gun deaths in "developed countries" interesting, these facts are essentially irrelevant to the issues facing our country. I showed you some of the basic problems that occur when you compare different countries when you wanted to compare health care costs of different countries that had single payer or universal health care.
What you and the rest of the Left don't get is that the guns in the United States are not going anywhere. But if you want to throw statistics around to try and persuade others to your point of view, then at least try to be honest by presenting relevant statistics.

First of all of the 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, two thirds of those deaths were suicides! And according to the New York Times, this rate of suicide is pretty constant every year. But, It does not really matter how a person chooses to commit suicide. So suicide deaths by guns is not the real problem. Brian Keith chose to take his life by a self inflicted gun shot. Robin Williams chose to hang himself. Two actors, chose two different methods of suicide. The problem is the suicide, not the choice in how to accomplish it.

So of the 33,000 gun deaths, 22,000 were suicides, leaving 11,000 gun deaths per year. I would like to find out how many of these deaths were the result of homicides, self defense, accidents, etc. But for the purpose of this discussion lets just leave the number at 11,000 gun deaths per year.

No one is challenging the number of deaths involved with guns in this country. Just like nobody is challenging the number of deaths in this country due to obesity, smoking, driving a car, or the number of abortions. What the Left does not get is that all of these deaths are a result of legal activities. It is not illegal to eat, to smoke, to drive a car, or to get an abortion. It is also not illegal to own a gun. But just as you pointed out to Scorp that smoking is a bigger problem than obesity; Abortion is a bigger problem than smoking, obesity, and car deaths combined.
According to the Guttmacher Institute there are over 1 million abortions each year. The various numbers you may find for yearly abortions may differ because some numbers only have the actual number "reported" to the CDC. For example; in 2013 the CDC had 664,435 reported abortions. But in 2008, The Guttmacher Institute found that the total abortions conducted IN JUST 25 STATES was over 1 million. And in that same year, California and Florida combined for a total of 308, 550 abortions, AND, THEY DID NOT SEND A REPORT TO THE CDC THAT YEAR.
According to the information you shared in Scorp's thread, the number of smoking related deaths were 400,000 and the number of Obesity related deaths was 112,000. According to Wikipedia, the number of car related deaths last year was 37,461.
So in summary:
Yearly deaths by Abortion - over 1 million
Yearly deaths by Smoking - 400,000
Yearly deaths by Obesity - 112,000
Yearly deaths by cars - 37,461
Yearly deaths by guns - 11,000

Now how many lives were saved because of guns? There are no statistics kept on how many lives were saved because of guns but we do know of actual cases, actual incidents where guns used by police ended active shooter situations, Domestic violence events, home break ins, etc. And I am not even sure how to classify suicide by cop events.
But one of the statements made from your article Leftyg was this:

studies have suggested that the non-gun homicide rate in the U.S. may be high because the gun homicide rate is high," Grinshteyn said."

Now If we are going to include speculations and suggestions as part of this discussion, then I "suggest" that people who carry guns are less likely to be confronted by opportunistic criminals, and I am not referring just to those who openly carry guns, but to those who carry concealed guns as well. Opportunistic criminals seek out 'vulnerable targets." These targets are more likely to have mannerisms that reflect timid cautiousness where they walk and go, which in turn are seen and registered in the minds of these opportunistic criminals as a green light. I am suggesting that those individuals who are concealed carry holders of guns have different, and a more confident behavior which make them appear less appealing because they are a harder target to opportunistic criminals.
So overall, in the Left's portrayal of guns, the actual good that they do both overtly and covertly is not part of the discussion, and it should be. We also do not know how many lives were saved by automobiles either, yet we know of cases where people were rushed to the hospital in somebody's car which resulted in a life being saved. Yet while there are more deaths by cars than guns, we do not hear the left trying to get rid of cars.

[leftyg]

In the United States, you are more likely to die from an abortion than from guns.

A stunningly irrelevant red herring. Start another thread to talk about abortion. This is about gun control.

Leftyg, while you may find comparing gun deaths in "developed countries" interesting, these facts are essentially irrelevant to the issues facing our country. I showed you some of the basic problems that occur when you compare different countries when you wanted to compare health care costs of different countries that had single payer or universal health care.

From a guy who just brought up a stunningly irrelevant argument about abortion, this is rich. Conparisons with other countries on health care or gun control are very relevant. Talk about abortion, here, is utterly irrelevant. There is little defense for what you say about gun control just as there is little defense for what you wrote about single payer.

What you and the rest of the Left don't get is that the guns in the United States are not going anywhere. But if you want to throw statistics around to try and persuade others to your point of view, then at least try to be honest by presenting relevant statistics.

I am using honest relevant statistics. not irrelevant gobbledegook like you tossing irrelevant abortion into this conversation. Unless we are differently programed genetically, our murder and suicide rates from guns is relevant. It shows that other countries do not have our problem with gun deaths and that includes Australia which like us is a cowboy culture.

First of all of the 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, two thirds of those deaths were suicides! And according to the New York Times, this rate of suicide is pretty constant every year. But, It does not really matter how a person chooses to commit suicide. So suicide deaths by guns is not the real problem. Brian Keith chose to take his life by a self inflicted gun shot. Robin Williams chose to hang himself. Two actors, chose two different methods of suicide. The problem is the suicide, not the choice in how to accomplish it.

It matters greatly because guns account for about 50% of suicides https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/ And states with more guns have more suicides. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fire ... p-and-use/ It is much easier to kill yourself with a gun.

So of the 33,000 gun deaths, 22,000 were suicides, leaving 11,000 gun deaths per year. I would like to find out how many of these deaths were the result of homicides, self defense, accidents, etc. But for the purpose of this discussion lets just leave the number at 11,000 gun deaths per year.

There are over 8,000 homicides and 606 accidental deaths in households with guns. Many gun owners have killed innocent people with guns who were not intruders. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... yth-114262

Our nation nation has a gun problem. Comparisons with other countries is relevant; comparisons with abortion are not.

[Michaels153]

In the United States, you are more likely to die from an abortion than from guns.

A stunningly irrelevant red herring. Start another thread to talk about abortion. This is about gun control.

At Ohio State, a terrorist attacked people with a knife, and he, the terrorist, was the only person who died, because a knife (like cigarettes) does not kill reliably enough

You said "This is about gun control, and then you wrote about a terrorist who attacked people with a knife.

In Scorpion's thread: "Health care will be overwhelmed" she presented a link to Obesity, you said in your first post on that thread: "Scorp, smoking is a bigger health risk than obesity,"I presented to you four death rates that were higher than guns

I presented the findings of Leah Libresco, which went against her formerly held beliefs on gun control, and you did not respond to any of that. Instead, you talked about comparing gun deaths in other countries.

Considering your own actions in Scorpion's thread and in this thread, your protest about the inclusion of Abortion in this thread has been summarily rejected,

.

[leftyg]

You said "This is about gun control, and then you wrote about a terrorist who attacked people with a knife.

Exactly, and my point was he was not very successful because knives are not reliable killing devices; automatic weapons are. All guns are.

In Scorpion's thread: "Health care will be overwhelmed" she presented a link to Obesity, you said in your first post on that thread: "Scorp, smoking is a bigger health risk than obesity, "I presented to you four death rates that were higher than guns

Yes you did, but they were not relevant. What I was trying to convey to Scorp was that, health risk from obesity would probably change little because the mortality rate for obesity is much lower. AND both are health issues. Notice I did not talk about guns in that thread.

I presented the findings of Leah Libresco, which went against her formerly held beliefs on gun control, and you did not respond to any of that. Instead, you talked about comparing gun deaths in other countries.

Leah talked about gun deaths in other countries. What she said was that the number of gun deaths in those countries was so low that more laws made little change in the bottom line. She probably used a t-test, a relatively simple test of the difference a change makes in a stat that is being tracked and a multiple regression test, a more sophisticated test that tries to measure causation of unique variables. The problem is that when the numbers are already very low (less than one per 100,000) significance is hard to find, and again she was using numbers from other countries.

BTW, the young man, Caleb Ketter who said guns in the hands of victims would not have helped in Las Vegas, was a long-time supporter of the Second Amendment.

Considering your own actions in Scorpion's thread and in this thread, your protest about the inclusion of Abortion in this thread has been summarily rejected,

Michaels, you could not be more wrong. Obesity and smoking are both health issues with different weights for mortality and physical dysfunction, but they are both health issues. With abortion you have to believe that a fetus is a fully functioning separate person which I do, but I cannot have children like a woman who is allowed to make decisions for her own body, so I do not get a vote.

What disqualifies your argument in my mind is the same thing that disqualifies most conservatives on this subject: their utter lack of concern for actual human beings after they have been born or even during pregnancy. AND your support for law enforcement when they shoot unarmed black children and when you want to go to war and kill lots of innocent civilians, some of them pregnant women.

I respect Pope Francis for his principled position on abortion and on life in general; I do not respect the kill crazies who want to carve out an exception to their murderous ways called abortion.
.

[Michaels153]

Leftyg
Regarding your Ohio State attacker, yes guns are more deadly than knives. But this attacker chose to use a knife. I don't know why this attacker chose to use a knife. He could have thought that he could scare more people with a knife and maybe that he could make some people die more horribly with a knife instead of trying to kill as many people as he could. The Las Vegas shooter seemed like he was just trying to kill as many people as he could.

The reason why I provided Abortion, smoking, obesity, and automobile death rates is because the left does not approach or campaign to reduce those deaths in the same manner as they do guns. And, the Left acts as if guns are bigger problems than the others.

Quoting statistics is easy, but that only points out certain facts and does nothing to stop these problems. We still have warning labels on cigarettes.
When I was a social worker I did some research of my own regarding the "Scared Straight" program. I found out that 14 year old males were less likely to become involved in criminal activity if they were properly supported and did not commit a crime up to that point. But after that, it was harder to stop young males from criminal activity if they had already involved themselves in criminal activity. Whether gangs understand this or not, the fact is they recruit members at younger and younger ages, and if they succeed, these gang members usually maintain their gang affiliations into adulthood. You may remember the outreach programs such as Boys and Girls clubs of America, and after-school sports programs (midnight basketball) etc. "These were all geared to try and keep vulnerable youth from getting into trouble with the law.
This is one of the reasons why I think the findings by Leah Libresco point towards a better strategy at reducing gun deaths.
Regarding Caleb Ketter: I agree that guns in the hands of the victims would not have helped much. It is much easier to shoot downward and much more difficult to shoot accurately upward.
You said:

What disqualifies your argument in my mind is the same thing that disqualifies most conservatives on this subject: their utter lack of concern for actual human beings after they have been born or even during pregnancy. AND your support for law enforcement when they shoot unarmed black children and when you want to go to war and kill lots of innocent civilians, some of them pregnant women.

Leftyg, I spent more than 32 years in social services, more than ten of those years was as a licensed independent social worker.so that blows up your ridiculous allegation that I as a conservative have a lack of concern for "actual? human beings after they have been born." I support Law enforcement, but you can not find any evidence of me supporting law enforcement for doing anything wrong. Nor can you find any evidence of your allegation of what I feel about war. These are more of your ad hominem attacks. These are just more of your lame, baseless, lies.

[leftyg]

Leftyg, I spent more than 32 years in social services, more than ten of those years was as a licensed independent social worker.so that blows up your ridiculous allegation that I as a conservative have a lack of concern for "actual? human beings after they have been born." I support Law enforcement, but you can not find any evidence of me supporting law enforcement for doing anything wrong. Nor can you find any evidence of your allegation of what I feel about war. These are more of your ad hominem attacks. These are just more of your lame, baseless, lies.
First the attack is not at you personally; it is at conservative writers and talk show hosts who seem to have profound conern for the unborn and no concern for the person after the birth. I can find plenty of evidence that most conservatives will have a hissy fit about abortion, then support a cop no matter what they do or who they hurt, pregnant woman, adolescent child, unarmed man. They will support capital punishment, preemptive war, banning needy immigrants, denying health care to needy people, free lunches to children etc. Truly there is nothing Christian about what most right wing conservatives believe which in so doing hurts the Christian religion because it drives decent people away.

Which all leads back to gun control. No one has ever significantly shown that a gun protects anybody. They will give their anecdotes, but they will not address the fact that a lot of people are killed by the guns they own and that we have a much higher rate of gun homicide than any other technically advanced country in the world.

[Michaels153]

Which all leads back to gun control. No one has ever significantly shown that a gun protects anybody. They will give their anecdotes, but they will not address the fact that a lot of people are killed by the guns they own and that we have a much higher rate of gun homicide than any other technically advanced country in the world.

'

There is the old saying, that to those who believe, no proof is necessary, to those who don't believe, no proof is possible. This is not just about faith Leftyg. You don't believe in guns period. Acknowledging the anecdotes are evidence of those who do believe in guns because they have experience with guns helping them in their lives. But you are free to dismiss each and any anecdote that you hear and to label all of them as being insignificant. But they are insignificant to you, not to them.
Nobody is denying the negatives here. Yes, there have been accidents with guns, Yes innocent lives have been killed by guns. But just as you could point that out with automobiles, you are not against people driving. You are not for abortion, yet you think it is okay for those who choose to have an abortion because it is legal, it is the law of the land. Buying and owning a gun, is also legal, it is also the law of the land.

[leftyg]

There is the old saying, that to those who believe, no proof is necessary, to those who don't believe, no proof is possible. This is not just about faith Leftyg. You don't believe in guns period. Acknowledging the anecdotes are evidence of those who do believe in guns because they have experience with guns helping them in their lives. But you are free to dismiss each and any anecdote that you hear and to label all of them as being insignificant. But they are insignificant to you, not to them.

First, Michaels do not build a straw man for me. I believe in guns for all sorts of purposes, hunting, safety recreational shooting. There is just no good use for automatic weapons, bump stocks or silencers (unless you follow the errant argument when killing an intruder, you do not want to wake your sleeping children or the neighbors).

As to proof, I have given ample evidence, and you have given none. I have said that we have by far the highest gun death rate in the democratic-industrial world and given the numbers. You depend on the Constitution and the second amendment. Yet even Anton Scalia has said the second amendment is not absolute. Don't obscure things. You can keep your gun by your bed if you feel safer doing so; you can hunt if you enjoy it; you can go to a shooting range if you wish. All of this is fine. But you have to take responsibility for the higher death rates.

And while we are at it why is it OK to ban entry to America for people from a certain religion for our safety but not ban certain types of guns for our safety? I would argue you have it backwards. It is not constitutional to ban certain people because of religion but that banning notably dangerous and nefarious weapons is totally reasonable.

Nobody is denying the negatives here. Yes, there have been accidents with guns, Yes innocent lives have been killed by guns. But just as you could point that out with automobiles, you are not against people driving. You are not for abortion, yet you think it is okay for those who choose to have an abortion because it is legal, it is the law of the land. Buying and owning a gun, is also legal, it is also the law of the land.

As with abortion, there have to be limits. Past five months, abortion should probably only be allowed for the mothers health or for some horrible birth defect that the mother has to decide about. Most abortions (91%) are performed in the first trimester. only 100 in one million are performed in the third trimester. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/06/17 ... stics.html What you ask for with guns is not the same. You want any gun you want any time you want for any purpose you want. We have limitations on abortion; we should have limits on gun ownership as well.

[Michaels153]

First, Leftyg, there is no straw man here for you. you probably own some sort of copyright on it and I don't want to be sued for copyright infringement. You say you believe in guns for all sorts of purposes, hunting, safety recreational shooting, well good for you. Automatic weapons, (are so rare), bump stocks and silencers can be eliminated and it would not matter to me. It also would not do anything to end gun deaths.

As to proof, you have given none. Your statistics are a non sequitur. I do refer to the Constitution and the second amendment. I know that the second amendment is not absolute. I have been very clear about everything I have said on this issue. I have to take responsibility for my self. I am not responsible for how others use guns. Are you responsible for deaths due to abortion because you are in favor of it? And that ends another non sequitur

Leftyg you said: "And while we are at it why is it OK to ban entry to America for people from a certain religion for our safety but not ban certain types of guns for our safety? " First of all there was no ban to entry in our country for people of a certain religion. Banning certain types of guns for our safety would not result in our safety because there still would be other guns available.

You also said: "As with abortion, there have to be limits." [list=]But there really are not limits to abortions, there are only certain types of abortion that are not legal.[/list] Past five months, abortion should probably only be allowed for the mothers health or for some horrible birth defect that the mother has to decide about. Most abortions (91%) are performed in the first trimester. only 100 in one million are performed in the third trimester. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/06/17 ... stics.html What you ask for with guns is not the same. You want any gun you want any time you want for any purpose you want. We have limitations on abortion;Not really we should have limits on gun ownership as well. What kind of limitations? You should know that there really no truly automatic weapons that are sold to the public. Semi-automatic weapons could have magazines limited, but to what number? Magazine sizes are limited by caliber too. The number of guns owned or the number of guns purchased during a certain period of time, could be limited. But did you know that if you use a gun to defend yourself, even if you did everything according to the law, when the police came and you filled out your report they would take your weapon as evidence and hold it until there is a trial or court hearing on the incident. That is why most gun owners have at least two weapons.

[hmmmmm]

Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries, a new study finds.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gu ... countries/

What percentage of those are committed by illegal guns and what percentage of those are committed by people who are legal gun owners ?
Because stricter laws are only going to hurt the legal gun owner and not the criminal gun owner.

[leftyg]

What percentage of those are committed by illegal guns and what percentage of those are committed by people who are legal gun owners ?
Because stricter laws are only going to hurt the legal gun owner and not the criminal gun owner.

That is a tough question to answer because I looked. I will say that 120 kids were accidentally killed in 1998 in homes where the owner was a legal gun owner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viole ... ted_States.

I got this from a researcher:

"More than two-thirds of the homicides in the U.S. are firearm homicides and studies have suggested that the non-gun homicide rate in the U.S. may be high because the gun homicide rate is high," said Dr. Erin Grinshteyn of the University of Nevada. "For example, offenders take into account the threat posed by their adversaries. Individuals are more likely to have lethal intent if they anticipate that their adversaries will be armed," she explained. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gu ... countries/

[Michaels153]

and studies have suggested that the non-gun homicide rate in the U.S. may be high because the gun homicide rate is high," said Dr. Erin Grinshteyn of the University of Nevada. "For example, offenders take into account the threat posed by their adversaries. Individuals are more likely to have lethal intent if they anticipate that their adversaries will be armed," she explained. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gu ... countries/

[/quote]

Excuse me, but lets try and think this through with a hypothetical. A person takes a knife and decides to stab someone more than once because they think that the person they are stabbing may have a gun? You mean if the same person thought that the person that they are going to attack did not have a gun, they would only cut that person up a little bit and not kill them. Did they think that just cutting a person bad, but not killing them would teach that person a lesson, or get what they wanted from that person and that the victim would not at some point try to identify their attacker and turn them over to the police? So a person kills another person with a knife, only because they think that person might have a gun?

Who actually paid these researchers to come to this conclusion?

[leftyg]

Excuse me, but lets try and think this through with a hypothetical. A person takes a knife and decides to stab someone more than once because they think that the person they are stabbing may have a gun? You mean if the same person thought that the person that they are going to attack did not have a gun, they would only cut that person up a little bit and not kill them. Did they think that just cutting a person bad, but not killing them would teach that person a lesson, or get what they wanted from that person and that the victim would not at some point try to identify their attacker and turn them over to the police? So a person kills another person with a knife, only because they think that person might have a gun?

No Michaels, that misses the point. The person robbing the victim packs heat because he thinks the victim is packing heat so he ups his game. Knives do not kill as reliably as guns. So if people do not think a homeowner has a gun they may be more likely to take a knife or use less lethal weapons. Your hypothetical makes no sense. It is about an escalating arms race. Do you get that. The intent to kill is still there; the method is just less efficient and less reliable.

[Michaels153]

The person robbing the victim packs heat because he thinks the victim is packing heat so he ups his game? [/quote]

Leftyg, there are mandatory sentences for crimes committed with a gun. http://famm.org/projects/federal/us-congress/gun-mandatory-minimum-sentences/ These laws may act as a deterrent for some, and it may be the reason why some will try other weapons to commit crimes. But for those who plan to kill someone, they use their weapon of choice. A gun of any caliber is more accurate when the target is close range but it is also louder and leaves gun residue for evidence. That is not a problem with a knife. Knives are just as lethal in close range, and are quieter which is why special forces are trained in their use. Guns are far more expensive than knives. So the weapon of choice for anyone who is determined to kill someone includes cost of the weapon, proficiency in the use of the weapon, and likelihood of getting caught. These are just basic, well known facts.

Dr. Erin Grinshteyn said "studies have suggested that the non-gun homicide rate in the U.S. may be high because the gun homicide rate is high." What is the rationale behind this suggestion. Because if any party is concerned with their victim having a gun, why then are there any "non-gun homicides?" That is why that suggestion makes no sense. I chose to use a different crime to try and apply this suggestion because the original suggestion does not make much sense as presented. For some rapists, the weapon of choice was a knife. The knife was used to induce fear with the hope of gaining the cooperation from the victim. The knife could also have been chosen to avoid adding years to the rapists's sentence if he were caught and convicted of the crime.
But with homicide, "offenders" are not taking into account the threat posed by their adversary. They could not care less what their "adversary" has or doesn't have. The offender has a tunnel vision with the sole focus upon killing their "adversary."
Now a homeowner who hears someone breaking into their house, does not know what that person or person has on them. The homeowner is likely to seek out the best an closest weapon available to them either before or after calling the police.
In any of these cases, the suggestion that non gun homicide rate may be high because the gun homicide rate is high lacks substantive reasoning for such a claim. You could say that the non-gun homicide rate MAY BE high because the use of other weapons has more practical use than guns. NOW DO YOU GET IT?

[leftyg]

Leftyg, there are mandatory sentences for crimes committed with a gun. http://famm.org/projects/federal/us-con ... sentences/ These laws may act as a deterrent for some, and it may be the reason why some will try other weapons to commit crimes. But for those who plan to kill someone, they use their weapon of choice. A gun of any caliber is more accurate when the target is close range but it is also louder and leaves gun residue for evidence. That is not a problem with a knife. Knives are just as lethal in close range, and are quieter which is why special forces are trained in their use. Guns are far more expensive than knives. So the weapon of choice for anyone who is determined to kill someone includes cost of the weapon, proficiency in the use of the weapon, and likelihood of getting caught. These are just basic, well known facts.

A knife is never as lethal as a gun. Get serious. It is dangerous, but there are countless situations where a knife wielder merely maims people or sends them to a hospital. I gave the one example; there are many more

Dr. Erin Grinshteyn said "studies have suggested that the non-gun homicide rate in the U.S. may be high because the gun homicide rate is high." What is the rationale behind this suggestion.

it is at the crux of why people like you and I differ. What she has likely done is check all homicides and sees and underlying correlation and possible causal relationship between the two.

Because if any party is concerned with their victim having a gun, why then are there any "non-gun homicides?" That is why that suggestion makes no sense. I chose to use a different crime to try and apply this suggestion because the original suggestion does not make much sense as presented. For some rapists, the weapon of choice was a knife. The knife was used to induce fear with the hope of gaining the cooperation from the victim. The knife could also have been chosen to avoid adding years to the rapists's sentence if he were caught and convicted of the crime.

That is possible because some planning probably goes into planning a rape I guess, and if the person thinks about it he may decide to cover his bets so to speak. You have to remember that a knife hurts a lot. You may not die, but a knife wields terror, and that is likely what rapists want.

[Michaels153]

Leftyg:

A knife is never as lethal as a gun. Get serious. It is dangerous, but there are countless situations where a knife wielder merely maims people or sends them to a hospital.

https://moderncombatandsurvival.com/featured/tactical-firearms-training-vs-a-knife/
Firearms Experts Joke, “Never Bring A Knife To A Gunfight”? Here Are 5 Reasons They Were Wrong. JEFF ANDERSON
Why do you own a gun?
The obvious answer is to protect yourself and those you love from an attacker who poses a lethal threat, right?

Reports of real close-quarters attacks reveal that when it comes to facing an armed attacker intent on taking your life, you’re in much more danger from a knife attack than from someone armed with a gun.

Don’t believe me? Here are…

5 Reasons A Knife Can Be More Dangerous Than A Gun

Knife vs. Gun

1. Knives Are Deadlier

Yes, you read that right…

According to FBI fatality stats from officers killed in a fight, 10% of those who were shot died from their wounds.

But 30% of those who were attacked with a knife were killed as a result of being cut and stabbed.
Go ahead Leftyg, check out the links yourself.

2. Knives Don’t Have A Line Of Fire

A gun can only kill you if you’re in the direct line of the path of the bullet.

That also explains why , even in ranges as close as 3′-6′, only about 1 in 4 bullets actually hit the target – and these stats are from trained police officers!
Both Police and Security Officers have a close quarters training drill known as the Groin shot. This is part of armed qualifications test and it is done within 3 feet of the target.

But knives can do lethal damage from any angle and they don’t miss their target.

3. Knives Don’t Run Out Of Ammo

In a close quarters attack, you could be stabbed 3-5 times in a single second.

A handgun is only going to give you about 15 rounds or so (on the high end).

Unless you’re behind cover or at a distance far enough to give you some time to reload, that’s all you’re going to get.

And FBI stats also reveal that only 1 in 4 bullets ever hit their mark – even at ranges as close as 3′.
And that is with trained officers.

Considering that it may take several rounds to finally stop an attacker, you may find your clip empty and still facing an enraged thug with a knife that’s not running out of metal.

4. Knives Take No Skill To Use

Since we were young, holding and cutting with a knife has been built into our natural abilities.

While it takes lots and lots of training to become an expert with a firearm, any scumbag with a pointy piece of metal can wield a blade like a master with even the crudest of movements.

Consider also that most gun owners who go to the range are practicing “target shooting” and aren’t prepared for how to shoot in a real close-quarters gunfight.And most concealed carry owners don't train any differently after receiving their permit. Most CC owners go back to the shooting ranges and shoot at stationary targets. Combat training requires more practice and skill, and increases your chances to survive a knife attack if you are carrying a gun.

5. Knives Give Little Warning

Not only can knives be concealed and drawn easier than a firearm, but they’re silent killers.

When a gun is fired, you know you’re in a gunfight.

However, many victims in a knife attack claim they didn’t even know they were being stabbed until it was too late.

When under the influence of the adrenaline rush of a real attack, you may in fact not feel yourself being cut and mistake it for simply being punched.
Follow the links in the article if you want to see reports of real close attacks. I think this is enough to show that knives can be as lethal as a gun.

[the whispering eye]

WOW LEFTY STATED badly.......

A knife is never as lethal as a gun. Get serious. It is dangerous, but there are countless situations where a knife wielder merely maims people or sends them to a hospital.

eye think ron and nicole would BEG to differ!!!!!!!!

[the whispering eye]

another leftyGem ( i am assuming the "G" is for gem??? )

You have to remember that a knife hurts a lot. You may not die

EYE guess they should have charged OJ with MAIMING!!!!! who knew !!!!

[leftyg]

First leftyg stands for Lefty Grove, an homage to the greatest left handed pitcher of all-time. And it somewhat reflects my center left political views.

Guns are much more efficient killers than knives. I am a weak physically pathetic 68 year old man. I could kill the most physically imposing person on the planet with a gun, but could do nothing to that person with a knife. So please don't insult people's intelligence with stories. I went to the site and every statement was a questionable opinion. A knife is not more lethal than a gun; a gun can easily kill; a knife takes work. An expert with a knife has as much skill as one with a gun, if not more. The article was bunk.

As to the most vulgar graphic I have ever seen on this site and one I wish JT would pull down, I can show you graphics of bodies torn to smithereens by gun fire, but I will not indulge that pornographic vulgarity for amusement the way our resident vulgarian does.

No Michaels your source bears little weight with me because I find it suspect. Guns are far more lethal the same way machine guns are more lethal than hand guns. To equate knife with guns when all relevant empirical evidence says otherwise is just bunk because it does not make sense and because I will always believe scholars over tabloid journalists and that is what was sited. We have by far the highest homicide rate of any technologically advanced democracy in the world. And most of those homicides were with a gun. http://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-hom ... art-2015-6

[the whispering eye]

First leftyg stands for Lefty Grove, an homage to the greatest left handed pitcher of all-time. And it somewhat reflects my center left political views.

Guns are much more efficient killers than knives. I am a weak physically pathetic 68 year old man. I could kill the most physically imposing person on the planet with a gun, but could do nothing to that person with a knife. So please don't insult people's intelligence with stories. I went to the site and every statement was a questionable opinion. A knife is not more lethal than a gun; a gun can easily kill; a knife takes work. An expert with a knife has as much skill as one with a gun, if not more. The article was bunk.

As to the most vulgar graphic I have ever seen on this site and one I wish JT would pull down, I can show you graphics of bodies torn to smithereens by gun fire, but I will not indulge that pornographic vulgarity for amusement the way our resident vulgarian does.

No Michaels your source bears little weight with me because I find it suspect. Guns are far more lethal the same way machine guns are more lethal than hand guns. To equate knife with guns when all relevant empirical evidence says otherwise is just bunk because it does not make sense and because I will always believe scholars over tabloid journalists and that is what was sited. We have by far the highest homicide rate of any technologically advanced democracy in the world. And most of those homicides were with a gun. http://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-hom ... art-2015-6

:lol: yes indeed RAYCIST check mark, yellow fighter check mark !!!!!!!!! EYE think you named urself well LEFTY "center left" TRY left of "ALT LEFT"

leftythe selfproclaimed rayrayraycist.PNG (163.99 KiB) Viewed 8792 times

[the whispering eye]

As to the most vulgar graphic I have ever seen on this site and one I wish JT would pull down, I can show you graphics of bodies torn to smithereens by gun fire, but I will not indulge that pornographic vulgarity for amusement the way our resident vulgarian does.

HMMMMM sounds a little Dr. Joseph GoebbelsISHHHHHHH .........please post some pictures of "bodies torn to smithereens by gunfire" 99.5% chance they happened in a democratic controlled hell hole like shitcago or detroit...... post away or you turning ur back

[leftyg]

Thanks eye, that was some interesting history, and I do not doubt it. I never said he was a saint, just a great great pitcher. In a four year period from 1929-1932 he went 103-23 with four ERA titles. Compare that to Sandy Koufax who I would rate number two in his four best years where he was 97-27 also with four ERA titles. In Grove's career he always pitched in a hitters park; in Koufax's career he always pitched in a pitchers park. Grove frequently had ERA's that were half those of the league ERA.

About the pictures: those poor people were dead, and I feel looking at them is pretty sick. A lot of people loved them and that is sacred.

[Michaels153]

[quote="leftyg"]

Guns are much more efficient killers than knives. Now that is a lot different than saying: "A knife is never as lethal as a gun. Get serious. It is dangerous, but there are countless situations where a knife wielder merely maims people or sends them to a hospital." Lets start with "A knife is never as lethal as a gun." First, you are ignoring the definition of Lethal. lethal

(The Free Dictionary)
le•thal (ˈli θəl)

adj.
1. of or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose.
2. made to cause death: a lethal injection.
So when you say "A knife is never as lethal as a gun" you discount the obvious. Knives kill. Saying that a knife wielder may maim people or send them to the hospital is true, but knives do kill, you can't dismiss that fact by stating that someone may not kill a person with a knife. Guns kill too. But not everyone who is shot dies either.
Next, you said " I could kill the most physically imposing person on the planet with a gun." And I know that there is a possibility that exists that you could. I have witnessed two women in a CCW class taking aim at a target only 15 feet away. They had their hands resting and perched on sandbags, and they only hit the paper, sometimes, never the 9 inch target. And that was only 15 feet away with no stress involved. Shooting a gun accurately is a skill that takes practice to learn. The fact that even trained police officers hit their target, in the field, only about a quarter of the time should tell you that it is not easy.
Your third statement: " So please don't insult people's intelligence with stories." Leftyg, your insulting common sense. Your purposely being contentious here where there is no need to. I challenged Dr. Erin Grinshteyn, who said that "studies have suggested that the non-gun homicide rate in the U.S. may be high because the gun homicide rate is high." I posited a better reason for the non use of gun homicides than what this doctor said about "studies, that have "SUGGESTED" that non-gun homicide rate in the U.S. may be high because the gun homicide rate is high. You went off saying one lethal weapon was not as lethal as another. LETHAL is LETHAL! DEAD is DEAD. Period. Then you wanted to turn this discussion into a different direction based on numbers, which is not what this Dr. Grinshteyn was talking about. I went to the site and every statement was a questionable opinion. There is nothing questionable about the FBI statistics, which I believe is based on 2013 stats. Police officers were more involved in gun attacks than knife attacks, but the percentage of officers who died as a result of their wounds was more from knife attacks than gun attacks. You really should do some more reading on the use of knives as weapons. (including the 21 foot rule) If a trained officer can have so much trouble with an attacker with a knife, think about how the untrained and unsuspecting public does against a person attacking them with a knife.
No Michaels your source bears little weight with me because I find it suspect. Big surprise here. Anytime anyone finds any material that goes against what you say you find it suspect. To equate knife with guns when all relevant empirical evidence says otherwise is just bunk because it does not make sense and because I will always believe scholars Yes don't forget the scholars you believed who told you about global warming and evolution.

[the whispering eye]

EYE wonder why the "LOCAL" gun nuts "HERE" didnt carry on and play the tired card about the Texas Gun shooting ????

CHOICES:

1 ) A good guy with a legal gun killed the guy with the illegal gun and prevented more murders?

2 ) he was a atheist ?

3 ) Lets see it didnt match up demographically or politically for you?

4) He liked the "FAKE NEW$ FACTORY" CNN ?

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/columnists/bernardgoldberg/2018/05/29/the-racism-liberals-dont-recognize--their-own-n2484478
The Racism Liberals Don't Recognize -- Their Own
by Bernard Goldberg

[quoteCommentators, almost always from the right, have documented liberal media bias for many years now. And the response by the perpetrators of this bias has been both constant and predictable: Circle the wagons and blame the accusers. Accuse us of bias for seeing their bias. See Kurt Schlichter's "Real Conservatives Refuse To Kneel Before Their Liberal Overlords." You see Liberals don't expect Conservatives to fight back. Liberals don't expect Conservatives to point out Liberal failings either. https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/05/28/real-conservatives-refuse-to-kneel-before-their-liberal-overlords-n2484875

The bias we've been talking and writing about is usually about partisan politics and hot social issues like abortion. But there's one kind of liberal media bias that hasn't gotten much attention. It's a bias that liberals both in and out of the media often attach to conservatives, but almost never to themselves. It's racial bias. The interesting aspect of the Liberal racial bias is how it extends past overt behavior. Liberals criticize conservatives and accuse them of prejudicial behavior and of being racists. But it is the actions of Liberals regarding their pursuit of gun control, as well as their inactivity regarding African American victims of gun violence that points to diverse and extreme examples of Racist behavior.

My friend Lee Habeeb, a conservative radio executive who appears on cable TV from time to time, has written a piece in Newsweek about how too many journalists have played down -- and often downright ignored -- the murder of young black men in places like Chicago. First question: Why are liberals ignoring the Black Lives Matter movement? If Black lives matter to them, why are they "downplaying - - and often downright ignoring the murder of young black men in places like Chicago?
If these journalists focus on school shootings where the majority of victims are white, then wouldn't it be fair to say that this focus on their part demonstrates that "white victims" are more important than black victims?

"In Chicago, it's Parkland every week," Habeeb writes about a city that had more than 1,400 homicides in 2016 and 2017. And in just the first week of May 2018, 84 people were shot -- nine of them wound up dead.

Journalists, of course, care very much about young black men who are shot -- when the person doing the shooting is a cop. Have you noticed that in these instances the primary focus is on the police officer. If the police officer involved in the shooting is white, every article covering the shooting never fails to point that out. But if the officer involved in the shooting is African American, the fact that the officer is African American, (if it is mentioned at all), is downplayed. This too suggests behavior that is racist. If young black men shooting and killing each other is ignored or not covered in the press, is it because they are young black men?
Or is it even simpler than that? Is it because they are Black? If the reason is because they are black, that might explain why when a African American officer is involved in a shooting it is hardly ever mentioned that the officer is African American.Then, news organizations, even those based a thousand miles away, report the names of the dead -- like Michael Brown who was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri -- and (rightly) give as much information as possible about their deaths.

"But Americans know none of the thousands of innocent young black men and women killed by other black men in our nation's third largest city -- and across America," writes Habeeb. "There's a reason. A young black male's life is not worth reporting when it is taken by another black male. That's the real racism that prevails in America's newsrooms. The marginalization of black urban life."

Habeeb believes that liberal journalists don't like the storyline. "Journalists and activists can't blame the deaths on assault style weapons like the AR-15.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/ If Chicago Criminals favorite gunmakers are Smith & Wesson, and a favorite gun is the revolver, then when Liberals concentrate their efforts to ban AR-a5, but ignore the Revolvers used in places like Chicago, are they not giving consent for the availability for revolvers to people in Chicago and other places? And in Chicago or other places where the majority of murders are not by the AR-15, what does the silence of the journalists about these 5 or 6 shot revolvers say when they concentrate on handguns that can hold up to 10 shots?Or the National Rifle Association."

It's true. Black on black murder doesn't fit the liberal journalists' template -- and not only because assault weapons aren't involved. In Chicago, the weapon Brand of choice is the Smith & Wesson, which builds both revolvers and semi-automatic hand guns. One of the favorite revolvers used in Chicago, besides the Saturday Night Specials, are the .38 caliber Smith & Wessonn. These revolvers have a capacity of 5 or 6 shots. *See https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/Liberals journalists don't feel comfortable when it comes to reporting dysfunction in black neighborhoods in places like Chicago. If white kids in tony suburbs were being gunned down in such horrific numbers, you can be sure that the liberal media would more than simply take note. They'd run stories on Page 1 for days on end.

Does that mean that liberals think white lives matter more than black lives? It's not that simple -- not when you introduce paternalism and white liberal guilt into the mix. Simple or not, the inaction on the part of journalists in covering this aspecto of gun violence betrays their bias regardless of their stated or unstated intention.

When it comes to the slaughter of black young men, liberal journalists fear that playing up this kind of bad news could give ammunition to bigots, who might use the information to bolster their already nasty opinions of African-Americans. Then by contrast, when it comes to the slaughter of white young men, liberal journalists don't fear that playing up this kind of bad news could give ammunition to bigots, who might use the information to bolster their already nasty opinions of White people? They don't fear that their reporting on White victims and White shooters will add to the existing negativity against Whites? : White privilege, Reparations, etc....

And since much of the killing is the work of fatherless young men, that's another important story the national media would rather play down, and for the same reason. More dysfunction amounts to more ammo for the bigots.][/quote]

[Michaels153]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/california-city-to-award-stipends-up-to-1k-month-to-those-deemed-most-likely-to-shoot-somebody/
California City to Award Stipends — Up to $1K/Month — to Those Deemed Most Likely to Shoot Somebody
BY TYLER O'NEIL MAY 30, 2018

A California city is seriously considering a program to pay residents "deemed most likely to shoot somebody," on the premise that paying them will make crime less likely. The idea is unconscionably stupid. For anybody to "SERIOUSLY CONSIDER" such a program is incontrovertible evidence that they are a being totally devoid of intelligence. Another way of explaining this is to say that this idea came from a liberal.

Michael Tubbs, mayor of the Bay Area city of Stockton, defended the idea of giving money specifically to the people most likely to shoot others. Of course he is going to defend this. He, like all other liberals think all of their ideas are perfectly reasonable.He would give a stipend of $1,000 per month to those who "stay the course" after an 18-month program. Just a $1,000 per month? People who are most likely to shoot you need more than $1,000 per month to live in California. What about medical benefits, What about other perks like a key to the city for being such an outstanding member of the community. (The key to the city would only be given if you have proof that you voted only for democratic party candidates in the last election, and for every tax issue on the ballot.

"Stockton is about to award stipends of up to $1,000 a month to residents deemed most likely to shoot somebody," the Los Angeles Times's Steve Lopez reported. Stockton can begin by signing up all MS-13 members"This program is called Advance Peace, and it's modeled after a crime reduction program in the Bay Area city of Richmond." This program is modeled after Chicago Gang and Mafia protection rackets.

For his part, Lopez was skeptical, but perhaps not as skeptical as he should have been. Ya Think! "There's a difference between a vision and a hallucination, There is also a difference between asinine and ludicrous although you probably need a micrometer screw gauge to measure the gap separating the two in describing this idea.and time will tell with Tubbs," the Times reporter wrote. "But I like the young man's mix of rebelliousness, impatience and willingness to take risks."
The "Advance Peace" program certainly would be a risk. "The idea is that a small number of people are responsible for a large percentage of violence, and offering them an alternative path — with counseling and case management over an 18-month period, along with a stipend if they stay the course — can be a good investment all around," Lopez explained. Al Capone offered the same program through his lieutenants who counseled store owners. And the lieutenants received a stipend for their "counseling."

"Let me be clear, Advance Peace is not a get out of jail free card," Oh I see, it is like another "Promise Program."Tubbs wrote on Stockton's public safety website. "Participating in this program doesn't erase the past, "Promise Program."but it does help these young men learn how to make better choices for their own and our community's collective future." Is that a promise too?

While Lopez expressed a cautious optimism for the program, he included quotes from local critics. "Obviously, it's a dumb idea," deli operator Robin Luna-Gonzalez said about the Advance Peace program. "Why are we paying criminals?" Why would you consider paying criminals, again. When Obama paid Iran all that money in unmarked bills, it did not stop Iran's terrorist operations, it only enriched them.

Herk Washington, Mayor Tubbs' barber, expressed support for Advance Peace and for a general stipend to guarantee a "basic income" for all residents. He said paying criminals would cost a few dollars, but it might save lives and money. [color=#FF0000So the only guarantee here is that the program is going to cost - "a few dollars". There is no guarantee that the program might save any life. And It would be very interesting to see how this program is set up and "how it would measure lives saved."[/color]and from becoming a subsidy to criminals, precisely because they committed crimes in the past?


Basic economy theory states that if you tax something, you get less of it because you decrease the incentives for it. Conversely, if you pay for something, you get more of it, because you increase the incentive for it. Subsidizing crime would likely make the city more violent, not less.

Tragically, The Los Angeles Times reporter Steve Lopez focused his article on general subsidies for residents — giving "at least $500 a month to a select group of residents," allowing them to "spend it as they wish, for 18 months, in a pilot program to test the impact of what's called guaranteed basic income."

His article vociferously defended this idea, adding a few arguments against it. He mentioned Advance Peace occasionally, but focused on guaranteed basic income.

Tubbs defended the government paycheck idea by explaining it came from volunteer research assistants, and reminded him of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s book "Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community," in which the Civil Rights hero suggested something similar.

Lopez noted that the idea of stipends "isn't exactly new," since Canada and Finland have tried it. He even insisted that "on the right, it's often framed as a substitute for existing safety net programs." Lopez even gave the idea a tech twist, noting that "Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Space X's Elon Musk have pitched the idea in terms of inevitability, given the growing income gap and the threat of massive job losses because of automation."

He had the good sense of noting that a universal basic income would undermine the dignity of work, but seemed to pit more sources for the socialist idea than against it.The focus on "universal basic income" might not be misplaced, however. If the government is to guarantee an "income" to people, essentially handing out money with no strings attached, then the Advance Peace program might follow, in a bizarre big government ideology.

Basic free market thinking explains the fundamental weaknesses of both programs, even on their own terms. Both might subsidize bad behavior: Advance Peace paying for criminals, while guaranteed basic income paying for people who do not work. The article presented poor people whose struggles would be alleviated by such a program, but it did not dwell on would-be shooters, for some reason. I wonder why the article "did not dwell on would-be-shooters."

Many Americans may be open to the idea of government helping the unfortunate, hard working poor to get by, but they would likely — and rightly — cringe at the idea of paying would-be shooters to not become mass murderers.

Let's contrast the basic strategies of the gun control movement. Let's try to get guns off the streets vs. lets pay people deemed most likely to shoot somebody (and thereby admitting that the gun control strategy to remove the availability of guns from criminals does not work)
The gun control advocates have passed legislation limiting types of guns, requiring licenses to purchase and own weapons, requiring waiting periods before you can purchase and pick up your weapon, increasing the age before you can purchase a gun, proposing to require additional insurance for [gun owners. And all of this is basically additional burdens that the left feel are totally reasonable to add on the law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights. I don't see any burdens proposed for those people participating in the Advanced Peace Program. Perhaps this is out of fear. Perhaps Mayor Tubbs, and anyone who agrees with him on this program, are concerned that placing any burden on people deemed most likely to shoot somebody is contrary to their aim of appeasement. But paying criminals while you increase the financial burdens on the law abiding members of the community is not the way towards peace, and it certainly is not fair.

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/columnists/sheriffdavidclarke(ret)/2018/05/30/target-criminal-behavior-not-guns-n2485493
Target Criminal Behavior, Not Guns
By Sheriff David Clarke (Ret.) |Posted: May 30, 2018

...

If the gun was the cause of violence then gun violence would be evenly distributed across demographics among the gun owning population. However, that isn’t the reality.

Most of the crime is centered in the American ghetto. The average gun owner does not use a gun to take somebody’s property by force, settle a dispute or intimidate their neighbors.

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting, black suspects make up 52 percent of arrests in homicides, 50 percent of robbery arrests, 32 percent of arrests for aggravated assaults and 41 percent of arrests in weapon carrying/possession. To put it into perspective, blacks make up about 13 percent of the total U.S. population but are disproportionately the perpetrators in these criminal acts. It may be an ugly fact to some but it is the reality of violent crime.

It’s a swing and a miss to target guns. Instead, we should target violent career criminals and their anti-social behavior. We shouldn’t take politically correct policy advice from the same leftists that have failed to deter crime.

[JuicedTruth]

You ignorantly combine all sources of gun violence into one bucket. The potential solutions to to decrease inner-city crime, gang violence, school shootings, domestic homicides, etc. are all different.

As Lefty pointed out, people in homes with guns are much more lucky to die from a gunshot than homes without. Someone in my distant family died from an accidental gunshot. Almost all school shootings are committed using legally-acquired guns. This country is gun obsessed and it's deadly.

[leftyg]

The simple fact is we are 25 times as likely to have a gun death as other advanced countries. http://www.politifact.com/california/st ... ot-and-ki/

The differences are staggering and the right's insistence that " the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun "is simply not supported by evidence. It simply results in an escalating arms race.

[Michaels153]

You ignorantly combine all sources of gun violence into one bucket. The potential solutions to to decrease inner-city crime, gang violence, school shootings, domestic homicides, etc. are all different. Your wrong Juice. The very first post in this thread advocates individualized approaches from research provided by Leah Libresco. And since that first post, I have discussed Leftyg's contributions that focus on gun deaths in this country versus gun deaths in other countries. The Left's lamentations on guns, and the statistics they use to try and highlight gun deaths do nothing to help in addressing the use of guns in our country.
I have not heard of a single suggestion from the left that would be helpful in reducing the violent use of guns in our country. That is not just my opinion. Many have come out to challenge the Left to show how there proposed bills would solve any of the complaints that they make. I have responded to every argument made by Leftyg, and you, and I will respond appropriately to anyone who wants to argue this. The left argues incessantly to ban guns. Would you like to create a table of statistics for the number of times that the Left have called for the ban of guns and then compare the results of those stats to what actually occurred? And that is about as useful as the rest of the Left's use of statistics regarding guns.

As Lefty pointed out, people in homes with guns are much more lucky [color=#FF0000](likely ?)to die from a gunshot than homes without. Would you like to research the other side of that? How many homes that had/have guns in them did not have any accidents? Why don't we compare that to death's by automobiles?
How many licensed drivers did not die from driving in one year versus the number that did? Someone in my distant family died from an accidental gunshot. I am sorry for your loss, and for any other family who loses somebody. Is the loss of life by X a reason for others not to do Y? Isn't that what the left is suggesting when it comes to gun's but not for anything else? Why continue calling for the ban of guns if that is not going to happen? At least the principal who sought to "equp" the classes in his school with buckets of stones was not satisfied with just calling for the ban of guns.Almost all school shootings are committed using legally-acquired guns. And almost all shootings are ended by either suicide, or by a policeman either arresting or stopping the shooter by shooting them.
Why is it so hard for the Left to accept guns "as a solution (I did not say nor suggest that guns should be the only solution to address the violence that some cause with guns.)This country is gun obsessed II do not share this characterization, but you are not the only one who have said this.and it's deadly.

[Michaels153]

The simple fact is we are 25 times as likely to have a gun death as other advanced countries. And this statistic serves what purpose?
If you provided that statistic to inform the public, then thank you. Now would you come up with a solution?http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jun/14/gavin-newsom/claim-americans-are-25x-more-likely-be-shot-and-ki/

The differences are staggering and the right's insistence that " the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun "is simply not supported by evidence. It simply results in an escalating arms race.

Would you like to disprove the statement that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? Would you like to provide statistics that show that there are more efficient ways to stop a bad guy with a gun? Were waiting.

[leftyg]

I wrote:

The simple fact is we are 25 times as likely to have a gun death as other advanced countries.

?http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jun/14/gavin-newsom/claim-americans-are-25x-more-likely-be-shot-and-ki/

And this statistic serves what purpose? If you provided that statistic to inform the public, then thank you. Now would you come up with a solution

The statistic serves the purpose of showing how full of shit gun advocates are when they say guns lead to fewer gun deaths: clearly they lead to more. You see my offering is a contribution to the debate. You cannot counter it with the idea more guns are going to result in more good guys defeating bad guys; it clearly leads to more dead people.

And I lack a perfect solution, but al you offer is a bigger problem. It is kind of like saying if you want to stop lung cancer, smoke more. It is a complete non sequitur that will make things worse.

I said:

The differences are staggering and the right's insistence that " the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun "is simply not supported by evidence. It simply results in an escalating arms race.

You retort

Would you like to disprove the statement that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? Would you like to provide statistics that show that there are more efficient ways to stop a bad guy with a gun? Were waiting.

This Headline states: States with looser concealed carry laws have more gun deaths, study says
It says

The study found that states with shall-issue laws had handgun homicide rates that were 10.6 percent higher than may-issue states. Additionally, shall-issue states had firearm homicide rates that were 8.6 percent higher and overall homicide rates that were 6.5 percent higher than may-issue states.

On opposite ends of the spectrum, Louisiana, a shall-issue state, had a firearm homicide rate of 9.96 per 100,000 residents in 2015; Hawaii, a may-issue state, had a firearm homicide rate of 0.75 per 100,000 residents in 2015.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 3e5989a06c

Check this yahoo page for a list of other sources that confirm this: https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf- ... 533_052918

Only poorly thought out anecdotal evidence confirms that guns help. But then poorly thought out anecdotes are all you have ever had.

The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.

"Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them. Mark12:17

Evidently Jesus was a liberal

[Michaels153]

I

The statistic serves the purpose of showing how full of shit gun advocates are when they say guns lead to fewer gun deaths: clearly they lead to more. You see my offering is a contribution to the debate. You cannot counter it with the idea more guns are going to result in more good guys defeating bad guys; it clearly leads to more dead people. It clearly doesn't. And instead of just saying it doesn't, I will reprint the evidence already presented in another thread: "The Left's Tirade on guns weakens. The right defense doesn't."
https://townhall.com/columnists/larryel ... s-n2465644
Where's the Common Sense in 'Common Sense' Gun Laws?
By Larry Elder |Posted: Mar 29, 2018

....The "common-sense" gun control activists rarely ask, "What about the beneficial effect of gun ownership?" The Centers for Disease Control examined research on the defensive uses of guns. It concluded: "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."

The CDC's report also found that "defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence." Exact statistics are hard to find because the police are not always notified, so the number of defensive gun uses is likely understated because they're underreported. "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," wrote the CDC, "with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." The CDC noted one study of defensive gun users who believe that but for their own firearm they would have been killed.

Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes each year. One in six of that number, or 400,000, believe someone would have been dead but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms. Kleck points out that if only one-tenth of the people are right about saving a life, the number of people saved annually by guns would still be 40,000.

And from this thread you wanted to use 33,000 as the number of lives lost each year by gun deaths and this includes guns used by suicide. As I pointed out, according to the New York Times, the rate of suicide by guns is pretty constant and that is 22,000 or two-thirds of the annual number of gun deaths in this country, every year. Still, even using 33,000 as the number of gun deaths annually, The number of lives saved by guns, AT A MINIMUM, WOULD BE 40,000. So the idea that more guns in the hands of the good guys leads to defeating the bad guys has been shown to be true. As shown here, more lives were saved by a gun than lives lost by a gun. If these people did not have a gun at the time, instead of 33,000, the annual number of gun deaths would be at least 77,000. So the defensive uses of a gun actually saves more lives than lives lost from gun usage, and therefore, the defensive use of a gun to save lives is a solution to this type of violence.

And I lack a perfect solution, You lack a solution.but all you offer is a bigger problem. It is kind of like saying if you want to stop lung cancer, smoke more. It is not like that at all. It is a solution that says, since this works, lets use it. It is a complete non sequitur Not true. This is not a non-sequiturthat will make things worse. The defensive use of guns does not make things worse.
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/03/2 ... save-life/
Illinois Man Uses AR-15 To Save A Life
Posted on March 29, 2018 by Tom Knighton
Time and time again, we’re told that there’s absolutely no reason to have an AR-15 except to take a human life. They’re “weapons of war,” they’re tools designed to kill and nothing else, some say.
However, an Illinois man is alive today because of an AR-15 in the hands of a private citizen...A sheriff’s spokesman, Detective Bryan Harl, credited Thomas with preventing the situation from getting worse, and said the investigation showed he’d done nothing criminal. “He did in the moment what he thought was going to de-escalate this situation and stop any further violence or loss of life and for that he is to be praised,” Harl said.this was a good guy with a gun at the right place and the right time, something anti-gunners insist almost never happens. Well, it does happen, and this is a prime example.

Further, this one is unlikely to be counted in any statistics, either. The stabbing itself will, but the resolution by an armed citizen may well not be. There’s nothing to report at this point, so it may well slip through the cracks.

And that’s a shame.

Good guys with guns end violent acts by bad people with weapons of all kinds. They end the threat and protect lives. They do it far more often than bad people with guns take lives, and that’s because guns are a lifesaving tool.
_________________

I said:

The differences are staggering and the right's insistence that " the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun "is simply not supported by evidence. But it is supported by evidence.
And all you need is just one example to disprove the claim that it is not supported by evidence.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/great ... index.html
Maryland school officer stops armed student who shot 2 others
By Eric Levenson, CNN

Maryland school officer stops armed student who shot 2 others
Eric Levenson
By Eric Levenson, CNN
[list=][color=#FF0000]
[/list](CNN)A 17-year-old male student shot two other students at Great Mills High School in Maryland on Tuesday morning before a school resource officer engaged him and stopped the threat, authorities said.

The incident began in a school hallway at 7:55 a.m., just before classes started. Authorities say Austin Wyatt Rollins, armed with a handgun, shot a female and a male student. The shooter had a prior relationship with the female student, St. Mary's County Sheriff Tim Cameron said.
School resource officer Blaine Gaskill responded to the scene in less than a minute, the sheriff said. Gaskill fired a round at the shooter, and the shooter fired a round simultaneously, Cameron said.
Lone resource officer's quick action stopped the Maryland school shooter within seconds
Lone resource officer's quick action stopped the Maryland school shooter within seconds
Rollins was later pronounced dead. Gaskill was unharmed. The 16-year-old female student is in critical condition with life-threatening injuries, and the 14-year-old male student who was shot is in stable condition.
[/color]It simply results in an escalating arms race.

No, defensive gun use simply saves lives.
You retort
[quote]Would you like to disprove the statement that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? Would you like to provide statistics that show that there are more efficient ways to stop a bad guy with a gun? Were waiting. More than a "retort" I provided the evidence that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. ->
"found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies." [Taken from above.]

This Headline states: States with looser concealed carry laws have more gun deaths, study says
It says [quote]The study found that states with shall-issue laws had handgun homicide rates that were 10.6 percent higher than may-issue states. Additionally, shall-issue states had firearm homicide rates that were 8.6 percent higher and overall homicide rates that were 6.5 percent higher than may-issue states. And you post an article that does not address what you were challenged to disprove. I said: Would you like to disprove the statement that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? Would you like to provide statistics that show that there are more efficient ways to stop a bad guy with a gun? Were waiting. And you didn't. This article that you posted does not disprove the statement that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Only poorly thought out anecdotal evidence confirms that guns help. And statistics from studies reviewed by the CDC. But then poorly thought out anecdotes are all you have ever had.
Wrong again.

[Michaels153]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/20/making-guns-on-3d-printers-is-blow-against-gun-control.html
This marks the end of gun control
By John R. Lott | Fox News

The federal government has finally recognized the obvious – that sharing instructions on how to make guns with 3D printers counts as constitutionally protected speech. Despite little fanfare, this is an important victory for First Amendment rights. It also represents a real blow to the increasingly futile cause of gun control.

The U.S. Justice Department announced a legal settlement and its surrender to the First Amendment arguments July 10 made in a case brought by Cody Wilson, founder of Defense Distributed. Wilson, 25, created a ruckus in May 2013 when he announced his successful design of a plastic gun. In just two days, 100,000 copies of the handgun blueprint were downloaded from Wilson’s website.

The most downloads came from Spain, followed by the U.S., Brazil and Germany. The heavy downloading in Spain, Brazil and Germany likely reflected attempts to evade extremely restrictive handgun regulations in those countries.

People are going to download these files whether they're legal or not. As we've seen with movies, file sharing is unstoppable. The most pirated TV program in 2017 was the seventh season of “Game of Thrones,” with well over 10 million illegal downloads in most weeks.

Within days of the gun file being uploaded, the Obama State Department served Wilson with a letter threatening criminal prosecution for violating federal export controls. Wilson immediately complied with the order, but there was no way to stop further downloading.

Within a week of the initial uploading, the file could be downloaded on the Internet from over 4,000 different computers around the world.

The Justice Department’s recent settlement with Wilson is very favorable to him, allowing Wilson to provide the printing instructions “for public release (meaning unlimited distribution) in any form.” The government also compensated $40,000 of Wilson’s legal costs.

Someone has just as much right to release the instructions in a computer file as in a book or newspaper article. The groups that submitted arguments on Wilson's behalf were ideologically diverse, ranging from conservative self-defense advocacy groups to the Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press and Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Anyone with access to a metal 3D printer can make guns functionally and aesthetically indistinguishable from any gun that can be bought in a store. Such metal printers are available for less than $2,000.

How the government will stop people from obtaining these printers isn’t exactly obvious. Proposals to require background checks, mandatory serial numbers and even a registration process for printers are easily defeated. Even if printers are registered with the government, what is going to stop gangs from stealing them? And the designs for making your own printer have been available on the Internet for years.

3D printers make the already extremely difficult job of controlling access to guns practically impossible. The government is not going to be able to ban guns, and limits on the size of bullet magazines will be even more laughable than before. Many parts of a gun can be made on very inexpensive, plastic 3D printers or even from simple machine tools.

It will be even more difficult to impose background checks, which have proven quite useless anyway. The government has been no more effective at stopping criminals from getting guns than at stopping them from obtaining drugs. That isn’t too surprising, as drug gangs are the source of both illegal drugs and guns.

The goal of eliminating guns is ultimately a fool’s errand. Every place in the world that we have crime data for that has banned all guns or all handguns has seen a subsequent increase in murder rates. Even island nations such as Ireland and Jamaica – with coastlines that are more easily monitored and defended than land borders would be – have faced five- or six-fold increases in murder rates after guns were banned.

It is understandable that governments want to regulate 3D printing, but gutting the First Amendment is too high a cost. This settlement may bring some awareness to the futility of gun control regulations that only disarm the law-abiding.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a columnist for FoxNews.com. He is an economist and was formerly chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the Crime Prevention Research Center. He is the author of nine books including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies (August 1, 2016). Follow him on Twitter @johnrlottjr.

[Michaels153]

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-magazine-ruling-20180717-story.html
9th Circuit upholds injunction that temporarily halts California gun magazine law from going into effect
By Kristina Davis - Contact Reporter

Gun rights advocates on Tuesday won another round in the fight against a state law that aims to ban high-capacity gun magazines.

The California law restricting gun magazines to 10 bullets was set to go into effect last July, but U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego granted a preliminary injunction until a lawsuit by gun owners could be litigated further.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the preliminary injunction in a 2-1 ruling.

Meanwhile, the case — Duncan v. Becerra — has been moving through the district court. The ruling means the law won’t go into effect until the case can be litigated in full. The district judge is considering a motion for summary judgement, which is a major step that dictates if the case goes to trial.

..In deciding to grant the injunction, Benitez said “public safety interests may not eviscerate the Second Amendment” and that gun owners should be able to decide for themselves how many bullets are enough, depending on the situation.

How about that? Common sense being displayed in a ruling coming from the 9th circuit

[Michaels153]

http://komonews.com/news/local/nra-sues-seattle-over-recently-passed-safe-storage-gun-law
NRA sues Seattle over recently passed 'safe storage' gun law
by KOMO Staff - Friday, July 20th 2018

[quoteBELLEVUE, Wash. -- The Second Amendment Foundation and NRA have filed a lawsuit against the City of Seattle over the city's recently passed "safe storage" gun requirement, claiming it violates the state's preemption statute.]

..SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb expressed frustration that Seattle is once again trying to pass its own gun laws.

“Seattle seems to think it should be treated differently than any other local government when it comes to firearm regulation,” Gottlieb said. "We should not have to repeatedly remind Seattle that they are still part of Washington state and must obey the law.”

Joining SAF and the NRA in the lawsuit are two Seattle residents who both own guns.

Seattle's ordinance assesses fines of up to $10,000 against gun owners who do not safely store their firearms or report their misuse. The law would go into effect in January.

Among the changes enacted by the new law:

A gun owner must come to a police station or file a report quickly when a firearm is lost, stolen or used improperly by someone else. Failure to report a gun theft, loss or misuse could result in civil penalties.
Gun owners could be fined up to $500 for failure to store a firearm in a locked container or to render it unusable to anyone but the owner.
The fine would increase to $1,000 if a minor or prohibited person gets their hands on an unsecured weapon.
The fine would increase even more - up to $10,000 - if a minor or prohibited person uses an unsecured firearm to cause injury, death or commit a crime.

But the SAF and NRA suit claims state law prohibits cities, towns and counties or other municipalities from adopting gun regulations that exceed state authority.

"The state legislature has sole authority to adopt gun laws including, but not limited to, registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge and transportation of firearms," the SAF said in a press release announcing the suit.[/quote]

The argument between federal law and federalism has now turn to federal, state, and city, compounding the hierarchy of authority, and as a result, bad laws are sometimes passed that take time to be properly heard in the courts. This is a needless burden placed upon the courts. No city should be able to adopt laws that are contrary to their own state statutes.

[leftyg]

Micheals ended a recent post with the statement by an economist named Lott that:
The goal of eliminating guns is ultimately a fool’s errand. Every place in the world that we have crime data for that has banned all guns or all handguns has seen a subsequent increase in murder rates. Even island nations such as Ireland and Jamaica – with coastlines that are more easily monitored and defended than land borders would be – have faced five- or six-fold increases in murder rates after guns were banned.

What is wrong with this comment is that first it is a "straw man " argument. Nobody, serius, on the left is arguing that all guns should be banned, just guns whose only purpose is to kill mass numbers of people and that possess no self-defense purpose. So you and Lott started out wrong to begin with. Then you complicate it by not giving a source. When you make a radical claim to an audience or readership always back it up with sound evidence, and plenty of it. But instead I found that Lott must have been lying because Ireland has 5.46 murders per million which is nearly the lowest in the world http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf ... Per-capita

Meanwhile, the good ole gun toting USA has 42.01 murders per million, the highest in the advanced world http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf ... ion-people

So why should I believe a word Mr. Lott says when he lies so transparently?

On this subject a few lines of cogent evidence can overcome a mountain of right wing bullshit.

[Michaels153]

leftyg,
[/size] The focus of this thread is to discuss gun control ideas. Mr. Lott is not presenting a straw man with the inclusion of this comment at the end of his article.
What is wrong with this comment is that first it is a "straw man " argument. Nobody, serius,[serious] on the left is arguing that all guns should be banned, just guns whose only purpose is to kill mass numbers of people and that possess no self-defense purpose. Just hold that thought for a minute because I am not entirely convinced about that. Just for a historical review: 6/26/08 - District of Columbia vs. Heller. U.S. Supreme court ruled that the Second Amendment affirmed the rights of individuals to own firearms. THE RULING OVERTURNED A 32 YEAR OLD BAN ON THE SALE OR POSSESSION OF HANDGUNS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA., 6/28/10 - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's strict handgun laws. The court established that the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the sates., 11/9/17 - Senator Feinstein introduces Senate bill 2095 which she called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017. The 125 page firearms prohibition set out to ban AR-15's, a number of other semi-automatic rifles, and nearly 200 semi-automatic handguns. The bill was described "as perhaps the most far reaching gun ban ever introduced in Congress. 3/22/18 Oregon seeks to ban semi-automatic firearms (ALL OF THEM), and to mandate that current owners turn them over., 3/26/18 - Democrats introduce a bill requiring background checks for all ammo purchases., 4/5/18 - Chicago suburb bans AR-15s (and a lot of handguns)., 4/6/18 - Greensboro North Carolina introduces their proposal for a gun ban law. So you see Leftyg, inspite of earlier rulings, the gun control advocates haven't given up and often return to previous cities and try to reintroduce different gun bans. I gave the sources to the articles I cited. If you or anybody else wants to pursue what was discussed in the articles further, fine, we will discuss additional material here as you and I are doing now.So you and Lott started out wrong to begin with. Not true. But instead I found that Lott must have been lying because Ireland has 5.46 murders per million which is nearly the lowest in the world http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf ... Per-capita Now you are presenting a straw man.
Mr. Lott was not providing statistics showing murders per million. He presented a fact about what happens when guns or handguns are banned. We have seen further evidence of this in The United Kingdom, most notably in London where there has been a significant increase in murders there (by knives)

Your presenting the same type of statistics as you have previously, and they do not address the present issue being discussed

So why should I believe a word Mr. Lott says when he lies so transparently? Mr. Lott has not lied. And I would have been surprised if you did believe what Mr. Lott shared

On any subject, the only bull being thrown is lobbed by you and others from the left.[/quote]

[leftyg]

In my last post Michaels commented after I said this with a typo i made corrected. Anyway the red is Michaels; the rational stuff (in blue) is me:

What is wrong with this comment is that first it is a "straw man " argument. Nobody, serious,[serious] on the left is arguing that all guns should be banned, just guns whose only purpose is to kill mass numbers of people and that possess no self-defense purpose.

Just hold that thought for a minute because I am not entirely convinced about that. Just for a historical review: 6/26/08 - District of Columbia vs. Heller. U.S. Supreme court ruled that the Second Amendment affirmed the rights of individuals to own firearms. THE RULING OVERTURNED A 32 YEAR OLD BAN ON THE SALE OR POSSESSION OF HANDGUNS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA., 6/28/10 - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's strict handgun laws. The court established that the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the sates., 11/9/17 - Senator Feinstein introduces Senate bill 2095 which she called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017. The 125 page firearms prohibition set out to ban AR-15's, a number of other semi-automatic rifles, and nearly 200 semi-automatic handguns. The bill was described "as perhaps the most far reaching gun ban ever introduced in Congress. 3/22/18 Oregon seeks to ban semi-automatic firearms (ALL OF THEM), and to mandate that current owners turn them over., 3/26/18 - Democrats introduce a bill requiring background checks for all ammo purchases., 4/5/18 - Chicago suburb bans AR-15s (and a lot of handguns)., 4/6/18 - Greensboro North Carolina introduces their proposal for a gun ban law. So you see Leftyg, inspite of earlier rulings, the gun control advocates haven't given up and often return to previous cities and try to reintroduce different gun bans. I gave the sources to the articles I cited. If you or anybody else wants to pursue what was discussed in the articles further, fine, we will discuss additional material here as you and I are doing now. But instead I found that Lott must have been lying because Ireland has 5.46 murders per million which is nearly the lowest in the world http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf ... Per-capita

Now you shift to a non sequitur. Where did I say that progressives support eliminating guns. I did not. Then you go on to list several laws that were passed that the Supreme court overturned. I have no problem with banning AR 15s and semi-automatic guns and pistols. The second amendment is not an absolute the way you treat it.

Near the end of the long passage you do what you often do: you obfuscate who is talking by not breaking up your argument into separate statements for clarity: So when I say:

So you and Lott started out wrong to begin with

. your retort tersely

Not true

Then after I presented the factual information about Ireland, the statistics that Ireland had a murder rate of 5.46 per million http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf ... Per-capita

You say:

Now you are presenting a straw man.

He continues:

Mr. Lott was not providing statistics showing murders per million. He presented a fact about what happens when guns or handguns are banned. We have seen further evidence of this in The United Kingdom, most notably in London where there has been a significant increase in murders there (by knives)

The problem is Mr. Lott did not cite his source and according to Stephen Toulmin, the expert on argument, maybe the twentieth centuries preeminent expert on that subject, you have to cite a source if your claim is too extreme https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/sear ... ction=view (pay attention to 4:00- 4:45 minutes) Otherwise I will not believe it.

Michaels continues:

Your presenting the same type of statistics as you have previously, and they do not address the present issue being discussed

Of course I did and I always will. At the bottom this is a battle about empirical evidence, and I am not going to stoop to make fantastical claims I cannot back up. You and Lott have that square covered

Then I ask:

So why should I believe a word Mr. Lott says when he lies so transparently?

Then Michaels you respond:

Mr. Lott has not lied. And I would have been surprised if you did believe what Mr. Lott shared

Mr Lott made a fantastical calim and did not cite a single source. Why? because he probably does not have it and he only wrote that as fodder for the base; he never intended this for a skeptical audience, just folks that already believe.

[Michaels153]

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime/republic-of-ireland-is-deadliest-place-to-live-in-irish-and-british-isles-new-figures-34614775.html
Republic of Ireland is deadliest place to live in Irish and British Isles - new figures
'Ireland stands at the abyss' when it comes to violent murderous crimes - expert
originally published by Cathal McMahon - April 10 2016 5:52 PM
John O'Keeffe, Head of the School of Psychology & Criminology, City Colleges' Dublin, said An Garda Siochana has not been given the necessary tools to face dangerous crime gangs.
Mr O'Keeffe said it is time for people in Ireland to wake up to the reality of our gangland culture: "Dublin and Ireland prides itself on having a routinely unarmed police force while other EU countries look on in disbelief."
And in the parts of Ireland where the murder rate has gone down, nearly every other crime rate has gone up.
____________________

In 2005, Jamaica had 1,674 murders for a murder rate of 58 per 100,000 people. That year, Jamaica had the highest murder rate in the world.
Crime in Jamaica - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Jamaica

https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analysis/why-jamaica-homicide-rate-up-20-percent/
Why Jamaica’s Homicide Rate Is Up 20%
ANALYSISWritten by Mimi Yagoub - JUNE 20, 2017

[leftyg]

The difference is that your pieces are both opinion pieces. What I gave you was actual data that says we are doing it wrong and Europe is doing a better job. It is simple.
I am going to give you a simple common sense argument (and there are a bunch more from a guy named Paul Waldman):

3. If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.
If that were true, then how come it never happens? The truth is that in a chaotic situation, even highly trained police officers often kill bystanders. The idea that some accountant who spent a few hours at the range would suddenly turn into Jason Bourne and take out the killer without doing more harm than good has no basis in reality.

http://prospect.org/article/ten-argumen ... eyre-wrong
That ought to be enough of an argument against the opinions of your experts. On balance gun ownership is dangerous. But you do not want to believe in evidence, just in your Jason Bournesque fantasy.

[Michaels153]

The difference is that your pieces are both opinion pieces. What I gave you was actual data that says we are doing it wrong and Europe is doing a better job. It is simple.
I am going to give you a simple common sense argument (and there are a bunch more from a guy named Paul Waldman):

3. If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.
If that were true, then how come it never happens? The truth is that in a chaotic situation, even highly trained police officers often kill bystanders. The idea that some accountant who spent a few hours at the range would suddenly turn into Jason Bourne and take out the killer without doing more harm than good has no basis in reality.

http://prospect.org/article/ten-argumen ... eyre-wrong
That ought to be enough of an argument against the opinions of your experts. On balance gun ownership is dangerous. But you do not want to believe in evidence, just in your Jason Bournesque fantasy.

A disingenuous retort, a red herring, followed by infantile conjecture. Neither article was an opinion piece. Both articles appeared in the news section of their papers, not the editorial or the opinion sections. Both articles included data to substantiate their conclusions:
From "Republic of Ireland is deadliest place to live in Irish and British Isles - new figures";

The Republic of Ireland is the deadliest place to live in the Irish and British isles - startling new figures have confirmed.

An Independent.ie analysis of homicide rates over the last decade reveals that you are almost six times more likely to be shot and killed in the 26 counties as you are in England/Wales.

And, contrary to popular belief,([color=#FF0000](That means, contrary to OPINION) the gun homicide rate in the Irish Republic was more than double that of Northern Ireland for the ten years from 2005 to 2015.

Figures, Facts, NOT OPINIONS
From "Why Jamaica's Homicide Rate Is Up 20%";

Between January and June 10, 639 people were murdered in Jamaica, an average of four murders a day, police data revealed. This reportedly represents a 19 percent rise from last year, when the murder rate reached around 50 per 100,000, according to preliminary calculations by InSight Crime.

At the current rate, Jamaica could see around 1,450 murders by the end of the year, in a country with a similar population size to the city of Chicago (approximately 2.8 million). That would be 100 more than the number killed in 2016.

This year’s tally includes 45 multiple killings.

Figures, Facts, NOT OPINIONS
You whined about Mr. Lott not including a source for his comments on Ireland and Jamaica when the inclusion of that comment was secondary to the article's primary focus which was the end of gun control. Nevertheless, I provided data that supports Mr. Lott's "secondary comment" and you still whine, and immediately attempt to falsely dismiss my sources as opinion pieces, simply because they do not favor your position.
Next, your simple common sense argument does not address the article: "This marks the end of gun control.", it does not address your complaint of Mr. Lott's comment about Ireland and Jamaica, and it is not even a common sense argument. The fact is, ordinary citizens have stopped a mass killer from killing even more. I can think of a couple examples that I have already presented in other threads but I am not going to do so again, here. The fact that when an ordinary citizen does this is rare, is not an argument for gun control. It is also a fact that the police have about the same odds in preventing a mass killer from killing more than four or five people once he or she has started.
Finally, there is this:

But you do not want to believe in evidence, just in your Jason Bournesque fantasy.

Leftyg, I do believe in evidence. I have presented more than enough to support my positions when I feel they are necessary. And you are always mischaracterizing me, and because you do and have done so, there is no reason to explain myself to you.[/color]
Now, do you have any interest in actually addressing the conclusion that Mr. Lott has made regarding the court's rulings on the use of 3D printers that this effectively means the end of gun control?

[leftyg]

A disingenuous retort, a red herring, followed by infantile conjecture. Neither article was an opinion piece. Both articles appeared in the news section of their papers, not the editorial or the opinion sections. Both articles included data to substantiate their conclusions:
From "Republic of Ireland is deadliest place to live in Irish and British Isles - new figures";

You know Michaels, the only place you do not take your gun with you is when you argue with me. You bring a butter knife and I bring a bazooka(and it is not that I a smart or anything like that; I just use better information). My argument was not a red herring. Study logical fallacies so you can cut down on your usage of them. I give empirical evidence. This is what I found from Nationmaster: Ireland has 3.02 gun homicides per million as compared to 32.3 for the United States (almost 11 times as many)
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf ... ates/Crime
But I had to chuckle, because when I went to Wikipedia it said that Ireland did have for times the gun homicides of the United Kingdom (England,Wales and Scotland). Ireland had .25 per 100,000 and the United Kingdom had .006. So you have a point. BUT we have 4.62 which is over 18 times as many homicides as Ireland. And as I recall you think the United States is the ideal. Physician heal thyself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

That is the problem Michaels: you read one of these pro-gun articles and you get in a lather about what a good tool guns are, same as your views on health care. But you never put the data in context. You have to become a more discerning consumer of information, It is just as easy to say that we have 74 times the gun death rate as England and 18 times as much as Ireland . Our methods are the bad ones, and that is not a red herring; that is putting the argument in a fuller more useful context because I do not think you would be happy with the UKs gun laws either.

[Michaels153]

You know Michaels, the only place you do not take your gun with you is when you argue with me. You bring a butter knife and I bring a bazooka, At best you bring bazooka gum.
And I don't consider you to be dumb, but you cling on to some pretty dumb ideas some times. You use statistics more than common sense. We both know that statistics can be manipulated (like not stipulating that two thirds of gun deaths are suicides - at least here in the United States) I am not going to argue some statistics. Lets assume that the total number of gun homicides for the United States is the highest in the world.
With that information you don't offer a practical solution to change that. If we had armed guards and police to escort us everywhere, I may be willing to give up my guns. But that is not going to happen. Guns save more lives than are lost by guns. (see Larry Elder's article in my June 5th post here in this thread) Your statistics are not better information, it is just information. And I did not say your argument was a red herring. The red herring to your post was the inclusion of Paul Waldman (and it is not that I a smart or anything like that; I just use better information). My argument was not a red herring. Study logical fallacies so you can cut down on your usage of them. I give empirical evidence. This is what I found from Nationmaster: Ireland has 3.02 gun homicides per million as compared to 32.3 for the United States (almost 11 times as many) And this is the type of statistics that I will not argue with you. What I have always said is that inspite of those statisics gun control is not the answer. I am not saying that guns are the ideal choice to confront crime and criminals, but the necessary choice. But you said:

Code: Select all

What I gave you was actual data that says we are doing it wrong and Europe is doing a better job. It is simple

Question #1: Do you want our police to adopt the style of the Ireland police? You are saying that they are doing a better job than us, and you have your statistics. Now do you want the police in our country to be armed only with an extendable baton and pepper spray?
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf ... ates/Crime
But I had to chuckle, because when I went to Wikipedia it said that Ireland did have for times the gun homicides of the United Kingdom (England,Wales and Scotland). Ireland had .25 per 100,000 and the United Kingdom had .006. So you have a point. So Mr. Lott had a point.) BUT we have 4.62 which is over 18 times as many homicides as Ireland. And as I recall you think the United States is the ideal. Close, but not accurate. I think the United States has the the means and the best answers to their own problems, and one of those answers is not to have our police only armed with batons and pepper spray.Physician heal thyself. Now that was a punk retort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate
Question #2: How did Jamaica and not the United States, have the highest murder rate in the world in 2005?

That is the problem Michaels: you read one of these pro-gun articles and you get in a lather about what a good tool guns are, same as your views on health care. But you never put the data in context. You have to become a more discerning consumer of information, It is just as easy to say that we have 74 times the gun death rate as England and 18 times as much as Ireland . Our methods are the bad ones, and that is not a red herring; that is putting the argument in a fuller more useful context because I do not think you would be happy with the UKs gun laws either.

[color=#FF0000]I don't get lathered up from reading gun articles and I don't remember right now what you don't like about my "health care views". But I do not rush to a position without studying the issues fully. I do not believe that discerning information is your weakness either. People can choose to do things that go beyond common sense or a studied position. People can choose to smoke in spite of all the health care warnings and information available. You have chosen positions that you probably would never even consider changing, and that characterizes you as obstinate and not as a heroic crusader of causes.
You believe that nobody seriously wants to ban all guns, and that all they want to do is ban guns whose only purpose is mass killings. But then I showed you where we have had total gun bans in this country, and I reminded you of Senator Feinstein's gun' bill that included almost 200 handguns that she wanted to ban. Senator Feinstein's actions went past your claim of only banning guns that the only purpose was for mass killings. Now does that change your view of "serious people".

[leftyg]

At best you bring bazooka gum.

(funny, and a great comeback!)
And I don't consider you to be dumb, but you cling on to some pretty dumb ideas some times. You use statistics more than common sense. We both know that statistics can be manipulated (like not stipulating that two thirds of gun deaths are suicides - at least here in the United States) I am not going to argue some statistics. Lets assume that the total number of gun homicides for the United States is the highest in the world.
With that information you don't offer a practical solution to change that. If we had armed guards and police to escort us everywhere, I may be willing to give up my guns. But that is not going to happen. Guns save more lives than are lost by guns. (see Larry Elder's article in my June 5th post here in this thread) Your statistics are not better information, it is just information. And I did not say your argument was a red herring. The red herring to your post was the inclusion of Paul Waldman I have mentioned the number of suicides many times. But what I mentioned above was gun homicides in England, Ireland and The United States. I seriously doubt that guns save more lives than are lost. If that were true then we would have the lowest gun death rate in the western world and not the highest. So Larry Elder simply does not know what he is talking about In a speech printed in the New Review where he states that between 500 thousand and three million lives were saved by guns https://thenewrevere.com/2018/03/how-ma ... d-by-guns/ (what is this guy smoking, and does anybody with an IQ above room temperature actually believe that?). There were 11 thousand gun homicides in the United States in 2013 3.5 per 100, 000), but it is still lots more that occur in other countries like Ireland which has about 25 gun homicide or .5 per 100, 000. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gu ... countries/ It is hard for me to take Larry Elder seriously after he made that absurdist statement.

I have this solution: background checks, banning of any gun that would be used for any purpose other than recreational hunting or self defense. I might allow assault rifles if they were stored and kept at a gun club, the way a race car is kept at a race course. I would eliminate stand your ground laws and replace them with stand a trial if you kill a person you thought was a threat but turned out not to be laws. I would prosecute police officers who kill suspects needlessly and exonerate "good shoots;" I would have police enforce the law, but I would not put them above it.

[Michaels153]

Wow. Look at the progress here. Is this what detente is? I will take it!
First lets go over the points we find agreement with:1) Background checks. I am all for them, always have been. But there needs to be a way of alerting the authorities for changes to people who have already received their permits, and their weapons so that appropriate action can follow. And there needs to be a way of including emergency permits with gun registration number into the national database system as well. Emergency permits are granted when there is a call for protection and proof that there is a dire need for protection. This allows a person to gain a weapon without the waiting period.
2) banning of any gun that would be used for any purpose other than recreational hunting or self defense. Now the only thing that needs to be ironed out here is the definitions. If any gun means any semi-automatic weapon, then-No. And rifles can be stored at home. The assault weapon rifle being stored and kept at a gun club is pretty much what New Jersey (maybe others too) does. As long as people have a secondary gun at home that is not a problem. Also, there needs to be a faster way of returning a weapon to a gun owner after an incident, or at least an immediate pay voucher for the cost of the weapon so that the owner is not left defenseless. Too often, the weapon is stored until after an investigation or a trial is completed; even when the authorities do not believe that the shooter has violated any laws.

Next, 3) we have eliminating stand your ground laws to be replaced with a trial, if you kill a person you thought was a threat, but turned out not to be laws. This is difficult because you could keep the stand your ground laws, and just have a trial when you think that law or any law was violated. Under the law regarding the use of force, it is inconceivable that a person could make such a mistake as is suggested here. The police are held to different requirements based upon public safety and the type of change suggested here would most certainly put them in almost constant jeopardy with the similarities involved in shooting incidents.
4) I would prosecute police officers who kill suspects needlessly and exonerate "good shoots;" I would have police enforce the law, but I would not put them above it. I agree with you. In fact you don't sound basically any different than a conservative in these suggestions here.
I would say that I think that there needs to be an information campaign where the public can receive a better understanding of a police officer's expectation and duty to enforce public safety that sometimes results in tragic consequences which then erroneously become the basis of civil unrest an lawsuits. Responsible officers use pretty good judgment when deciding to chase a suspect on foot or in a vehicle, when to pursue and when to break off the chase. But these are also the types of incidents that lead to tragic consequences and sometimes to unintended consequences.

Now, under the old adage of don't kill the messenger, Larry Elder is just reporting the findings of the CDC and others on the defensive use of guns. This is not a new phenomenon here. It is just one that has begun to receive more attention in the last couple of years. I know it sounds fantastic to you but it really shouldn't since I am sure that you accept the under reporting of other events, as well as understanding some of the reasons behind some events that go under reported.
But as to

If that were true then we would have the lowest gun death rate in the western world and not the highest.

Here's the rub; though there are countless opportunities for gun holders to step up and intervene to stop or prevent crimes, many won't because they choose not to. There are many reasons for this, some chose to get or carry a weapon for their own protection or for their protection and those in their family. They did not intend to use their weapon to defend others because in every instance, whether it is for their own, their family, or for another person, they put themselves at risk. It is one thing to risk your life for the protection of your family, it is another thought to risk your life to protect someone other than your family and wonder what will happen to my family if I die to protect someone else? Then there is the prompting of the police to tell gun owners not to get involved in public incidents because they run the risks of becoming victims themselves when the police come on the scene and find them holding a gun and/or pointing a weapon at another. There is the real possibility of a civil lawsuit which can destroy a person and their family's financial resources even if they have some kind of insurance, and will destroy them if they don't have insurance. There is a fear of retaliation by friends or relatives of the victim shot or killed, especially if this incident may be tied to some kind of gang activity.

[leftyg]

This addresses the issue of the 500 thousand lives potentially saved by our gun laws. I mean I think that what Larry Elder said was really dumb. This from the LA Times:

Oh, and match those 259 justifiable homicides with the theft of about 232,000 guns each year, about 172,000 of them during burglaries. That's a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put in the hands of criminals.

Those 259 justifiable homicides also pale compared with, in the same year, 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings, according to the FBI's Supplemental Homicide Report. The ratio for 2012, per the Violence Policy Center, was one justifiable killing for every 32 murders, suicides or accidental deaths (the ratio increases to 38-1 over the five-year period ending in 2012). That's a heavy price to pay.

The center also dives into the thorny thicket of how often the presence of a gun stops a crime — either violent or against property, such as a burglary — from happening. The gun lobby trots out an annual figure of 2.5 million such instances. But an analysis of five years' worth of stats collected by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number much, much lower — about 67,740 times a year.

It's also useful, as the Violence Policy Center does, to dig into the relationships among the attackers and those who kill in self-defense. Over the five-year span ending in 2012, more than half — 56% — of the justifiable homicides involved strangers, and in 11% of the cases, the relationship was not reported. The rest were acquaintances (18.7%) such as neighbors and coworkers, and then a mishmash of relatives and personal relationships.

And those suicides? About half of all suicides are committed with guns, and seven in 10 by men, who also account for 74% of gun owners in the country.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion- ... tory.html#

[Michaels153]

This addresses the issue of the 500 thousand lives potentially saved by our gun laws. I mean I think that what Larry Elder said was really dumb. This from the LA Times:
Let's be clear here. Larry Elder reported on the findings of The Center for Disease Control Findings and the findings of Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck found. So when you say you think what Larry Elder said was really dumb, your actually saying you think the research findings by the CDC and Gary Kleck are really dumb.
Now lets start with your reference to what the LA Times wrote;

Oh, and match those 259 justifiable homicides with the theft of about 232,000 guns each year, about 172,000 of them during burglaries. That's a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put in the hands of criminals. We are going to use the 259 justifiable homicides further but the theft of "about"[/color] X number of guns and where they went and how they are used are all meaningless specutlation and will not be used here.

Those 259 justifiable homicides also pale compared with, in the same year, 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings, according to the FBI's Supplemental Homicide Report. The ratio for 2012, per the Violence Policy Center, was one justifiable killing for every 32 murders, suicides or accidental deaths (the ratio increases to 38-1 over the five-year period ending in 2012). That's a heavy price to pay. [color=#FF0000]Now we are going to add all of the homicides here from your reference[ 259 + 8,342 + 20,666 + 548 = 29,815.

The center also dives into the thorny thicket of how often the presence of a gun stops a crime — either violent or against property, such as a burglary — from happening. The gun lobby trots out an annual figure of 2.5 million such instances. But an analysis of five years' worth of stats collected by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number much, much lower — about 67,740 times a year. Now lets use the number from the analysis of five years' worth of stats collected by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey of "about 67,740. Now subtract 29, 815 from 67,740. 67,740 - 29, 815 = 37,925 That's 37,925 positive gun uses versus 29, 815 negative gun uses. And I allowed for you to keep the justifiable homicides and the suicides in your number. Now the LA Times are using a number that is very low compared to other studies that have been checked and approved, even refined from the original presentation.

The CDC's report also found that "defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence." Exact statistics are hard to find because the police are not always notified, so the number of defensive gun uses is likely understated because they're underreported. "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," wrote the CDC, "with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." The CDC noted one study of defensive gun users who believe that but for their own firearm they would have been killed.

Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes each year. One in six of that number, or 400,000, believe someone would have been dead but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms. Kleck points out that if only one-tenth of the people are right about saving a life, the number of people saved annually by guns would still be 40,000.
So using Criminologist Gary Kleck's very conservative number of people saved annually by guns as 40, 000, we have 40,000 - 29,815 = 10,185 That is 10,185 more people saved by a gun than the number of people who died by a gun.
So Leftyg, whatever statistic you want to use; whether it is the CDC numbers, Gary Kleck's numbers, or the numbers from the LA Times that you referenced, More people are saved by guns, than lives lost by guns.

It's also useful, as the Violence Policy Center does, to dig into the relationships among the attackers and those who kill in self-defense. Over the five-year span ending in 2012, more than half — 56% — of the justifiable homicides involved strangers, and in 11% of the cases, the relationship was not reported. The rest were acquaintances (18.7%) such as neighbors and coworkers, and then a mishmash of relatives and personal relationships. No this is not really useful at all. It is just a base of numbers that gun control advocates would try to use promote gun control, when the really useful numbers is knowing that more lives are saved by the use of guns, than lives lost by guns.

And those suicides? About half of all suicides are committed with guns, and seven in 10 by men, who also account for 74% of gun owners in the country. Again, these are more meaningless numbers used in their hope to shock the reader.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion- ... tory.html#

<- Opinion. and not worth much either.

You could Google Defensive Gun use and check in Wikipedia and find this information and more.

[leftyg]

We are going to use the 259 justifiable homicides further but the theft of "about" X number of guns and where they went and how they are used are all meaningless specutlation and will not be used here.[/color]

No Michaels it is not "meaningless." It is the number of guns compared with the justifiable homicides. It is not asserting that the stolen guns caused the homicides. what it is saying that owning guns creates more problems than it solves. It is kind of like saying "pouring tons of insecticide on your vegetables will kill all the bugs in your garden without mentioning that it might kill you. And that is what gun control advocates are saying. You are far more likely to kill another person with a gun than to protect yourself. And the notion of even 500 thousand people being protected is absurdist on its face. It just does not sound right, and it does not explain why so many bad guys got thru the cracks and killed innocent people.

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

Mathew 26:52.

All you have to do Michaels is look at the passion for guns in this country and compare it to the number of gun deaths. Jesus was right; Wayne Lapierre is wrong.

Graph-1.png (82.02 KiB) Viewed 6934 times

Yet you want to crawl inside the numbers and try to find a way to make your bad idea work, and it will not. We have more gun deaths, and yes we probably have more people saved with guns than other countries. BUT we have a hell of a lot more gun deaths.

[Michaels153]

We are going to use the 259 justifiable homicides further but the theft of "about" X number of guns and where they went and how they are used are all meaningless specutlation and will not be used here.[/color]

No Michaels it is not "meaningless." It is the number of guns compared with the justifiable homicides. It is not asserting that the stolen guns caused the homicides. what it is saying that owning guns creates more problems than it solves. The number is meaningless because even as it is used here for a comparison, it is still meaningless speculation.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/americas/operation-fast-and-furious-fast-facts/index.html

July 12, 2011 - Sources tell CNN that an estimated 1,400 weapons were lost by the ATF.

*('Two guns found at the scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry's death were identified as being part of the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal. As to the other guns. "Maybe" the serial numbers were filed down and they were sold to any number of "gun buy back programs." Cleveland Ohio has an annual gun buyback program. https://www.clevelandpolicefoundation.org/handgun-buyback/ Until law enforcement could actually identify the bullets and the guns found at the scene of Brian Terry's death, there was no accurate way to determine what had happened to these, of the "estimated 1,400 weapons lost by the ATF. And that remains to be said regarding the rest of the guns "lost."
It is kind of like saying "pouring tons of insecticide on your vegetables will kill all the bugs in your garden without mentioning that it might kill you. (And this absurd analogy comes from you. ->You said:

I want to make a final note, and that is that argument by analogy is inherently weak.

Re: The Gun Control Farce I and II; Aug. 5th, 2015.) And that is what gun control advocates are saying. You are far more likely to kill another person with a gun than to protect yourself. And the notion of even 500 thousand people being protected is absurdist on its face. It just does not sound right, and it does not explain why so many bad guys got thru the cracks and killed innocent people. But you told Butters on August 5th, 2015:

But in formulating whether guns are effective, statistics do matter. Statistics should rule when trying to figure if guns are effective

And as shown here by these statistics and your own reference guns are effective in saving more lives than are lost by them. They are also effective in stopping other crimes and as a deterrent to crime. It doesn't matter that it "just does not sound right" (to you). As to your comment:

does not explain why so many bad guys got thru the cracks and killed innocent people.

Part of the solution would be to abolish sanctuary cities and in building the border wall. This would make it harder for illegal aliens to gain entrance into this country and for those illegal aliens who are already in the country and commit violent crimes it would not provide a safe haven for them to hide in. Here are some statistics for you.
See Illegal Immigration and Crime By PETER KIRSANOW https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/crime-illegal-immigration/
January 20, 2018 4:49 PM

...

‐ Arizona: About 240 illegal aliens were imprisoned for homicide-related offenses. ...This yields a rate of 68.57 illegal aliens imprisoned for homicide offenses per 100,000 illegal aliens in Arizona,
...Using GAO’s 2008 estimate, there were approximately 2,430 illegal aliens imprisoned in California for homicide and related offenses.
,,,(In Florida)This yields an estimated rate of 54.85 illegal aliens imprisoned for murder and manslaughter per 100,000 illegal aliens,
...(In New York) This yields an estimated rate of 168.75 illegal aliens incarcerated for murder and related offenses per 100,000 illegal aliens,
...(In Texas) This yields a rate of 54.54 illegal aliens incarcerated for homicide per 100,000 illegal aliens,
...Taking the data only from these five states, and assuming that each person incarcerated for a homicide-related offense is responsible for only one death, yields 5,400 people killed by illegal aliens.

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

Mathew 26:52. Taken out of context. The Lord Jesus said this to his disciples when Judas betrayed him and had led the guards to arrest him. One who was with Jesus at that time drew his sword and took off the ear of the servant of the high priest. Jesus said this to save the life of that person and anybody else who may have been thinking about fighting against the guards. As I reminded you in another thread, David took Goliath's own sword and cut off Goliath's head with it, and David did not perish by the sword there.

All you have to do Michaels is look at the passion for guns in this country Okay, then show me the study and the statistics from that study that measured passion for guns in this country. and compare it to the number of gun deaths. Okay again, but then we will not include the number of justifiable homicides, nor the number of suicides by guns. Both Butters and I provided reasoned argumentation why suicides should not be included in statistics for gun deaths.\
Jesus is always right. And you have received another lesson showing you that quoting scripture without discernment and out of context does not help you. And Wayne Lapiere was right.

Graph-1.png

Yet you want to crawl inside the numbers and try to find a way to make your bad idea work,Leftyg, I don't have to try to find a way to show you that as long as guns are available, any gun problems can be helped more with the use of guns than by trying to solve the problems without them. The statistics already show you this. and it will not. We have more gun deaths, and yes we probably have more people saved with guns than other countries. BUT we have a hell of a lot more gun deaths. In this country, we have more people whose lives have been saved by guns than people who have lost their lives by guns.

[leftyg]

Mathew 26:52. Taken out of context. The Lord Jesus said this to his disciples when Judas betrayed him and had led the guards to arrest him. One who was with Jesus at that time drew his sword and took off the ear of the servant of the high priest. Jesus said this to save the life of that person and anybody else who may have been thinking about fighting against the guards. As I reminded you in another thread, David took Goliath's own sword and cut off Goliath's head with it, and David did not perish by the sword there.

You are taking it out of context. I cannot imagine a situation where Jesus would say it is alright to kill somebody with a gun or a sword. You know Michaels when guns are involved you renounce the Christian faith and take a much grimmer, practical and paranoid view. What Jesus said was for all-time true. You cannot solve the problem of guns with more guns anymore than in Christ's earthly day you cold solve the problem with more swords. Yeah countries win wars, and people sometimes defend themselves. But the beat goes on and people use weapons. The fact that our friends in western Europe, Oceania and Japan and South Korea in the orient have put reasonable limits on gun ownership should tell you something. They have much less gun homicides and gun crime

The evidence is clear, and yet you call it meaningless. No, you have to be utterly innumerate to believe that there are between 500 thousand and three million gun protections a year in the United States. I am nearly 70 years old and have never been in a situation where I needed a gun. Now I realize that others are, and I realize I potentially could be. What I do is stay away from people on the fringes, try to spend my money on a decent place to live in a safe neighborhood (understanding that that is not possible for everyone) and stay away from questionable situations.

I do not feel the need for a gun and have not wanted to play with one since I was about nine years old. I enjoyed shooting when I was a kid and, my father and grandfather taught me how to use guns, but after I shot a bird and hurt it, I never wanted to touch a gun again. What amazes me is you called my data meaningless when you completely believe one of these far right fantasy statistics that my article explains quite well. If what the number says is true, you would expect to hear about it everyday. The NRA would be shouting it from every channel on the dial.

The CDC report also said that:
Exact statistics are hard to find because the police are not always notified, so the number of defensive gun uses is likely understated because they're underreported. Then really do not use them. We know that we have a far higher murder rate than other advanced countries and most of it is done with guns as the stats clearly show. Why don't we adopt some of their methods? It is time that we recognized that the meaningful data suggests we have a problem; only crazy speculative data suggests we do not. But Michaels you are a true believer while I depend on available data.

[Michaels153]

You are taking it out of context. No Leftyg i am not taking it out of context. Simply summarized; Jesus said in John 8:58 "Before Abraham was, I am". and in John 10:30 "I and My Father are One." The same Jesus, as God, who told the man to put up his sword, blessed David, and allowed David to use Goliath's sword to cut off Goliath's head.I cannot imagine a situation where Jesus would say it is alright to kill somebody with a gun or a sword. And because you can't imagine it, it must not be true? There were countless examples in the Bible where God (Jesus, as part of the Holy Trinity, and God) instructed his people to go to war and to kill people. Many were killed by the sword. It doesn't really matter that you cannot imagine this. You know Michaels when guns are involved you renounce the Christian faith and take a much grimmer, practical and paranoid view. Leftyg, you are so ignorant of God and the bible. You are like a child who cannot discern spiritual truths, and out of your ignorance you make the assessment that I renounce my Christian faith when guns are involved. What Jesus said was for all-time true. Yes, what Jesus said was for all time true, but in this instance you did not interpret the meaning here. God said things for general and individual instruction. In Matthew 26:13, Jesus said that the woman who anointed his head would be remembered as a memorial to her, but he did not say the same about the woman who anointed his feet in Luke 7:37,38 You cannot solve the problem of guns with more guns anymore than in Christ's earthly day you cold solve the problem with more swords. Leftyg, that is too simplistic, and just wrong. You cannot solve problems, any problems without God's help and direction. John 15:5..."for without me, ye can do nothing."Yeah countries win wars, and people sometimes defend themselves. But the beat goes on and people use weapons. The fact that our friends in western Europe, Oceania and Japan and South Korea in the orient have put reasonable limits on gun ownership should tell you something. It tells me, that they have found some success for their country by doing things that they thought could be applied to their society. They have much less gun homicides and gun crime. I (I am happy for them. But other countries don't always have the answers either. Africa has perhaps the most traffic deaths per 100,000 people in the world. While I think we would agree that the United States have a lot of traffic deaths, our death rate in this area is fairly low compared to the rest of the world. And again, you did not answer my question to you about Jamaica. How could Jamaica, with a population roughly equal to Chicago, and a size that could probably completely fit into the state of Florida, have the highest murder rate in the world (2005 - 58 per 100,000 people)? ...Well? Butters talked to you about nuances. I am saying that your statistics do not explain all the variables and circumstances necessary for making policy choices regardless of what others have done in other countries. The biggest evidence of this is the political and economic choices made by various countries. The differences between China and the United States for example.

The evidence is clear, and yet you call it meaningless. Some evidence as you put it is meaningless. It is like the color of a shirt that a person wore when he or she killed somebody. That fact is great in the effort to locate the killer and in using it to help prosecute the killer at the trial. But for information in a national gun database as to the color of shirt worn by murderer's, yea that is practically meaningless.No, you have to be utterly innumerate to believe that there are between 500 thousand and three million gun protections a year in the United States. Your a blockhead that refuse to accept information of your own choosing. You don't believe scripture that does not agree to your sensibilities, and you reject data that does not conform to your ideas. I am nearly 70 years old and have never been in a situation where I needed a gun. And that is fine. And by your own words and your own example, your choice for your life and your success in this area does not mean that it will work for others. So if you can recognize that for yourself and others in the same area/country where you live, why can't you accept that in principle and apply it to other countries as well?Now I realize that others are, and I realize I potentially could be.
What amazes me is you called my data meaningless ( called the data that was meaningless, meaningless. I also said that there were some statistics that I would not argue with you about like if the United States had the highest murder rate in the world. But you appear to reject all the findings that I have presented just because you want to reject it.when you completely believe one of these far right fantasy statistics that my article explains quite well. It really didn't explain anything very well and some of what they wrote basically obfuscates the gun issue.If what the number says is true, you would expect to hear about it everyday. The numbers are true, but they are ignored by the mainstream press just as Wayne Lapierre was ignored during the Obama administration. The NRA would be shouting it from every channel on the dial. You could always donate to the NRA. I am sure that would help to get this and other information broadcast on more channels.

The CDC report also said that:
Exact statistics are hard to find because the police are not always notified, so the number of defensive gun uses is likely understated because they're underreported. Then really do not use them. That is not the proper way of looking at these statistics. We know that we have a far higher murder rate than other advanced countries and most of it is done with guns as the stats clearly show. Why don't we adopt some of their methods? If your going to propose that every classroom have their own bucket of stones, or that we pay certain people not to shoot guns at us, then lets just do the best that we can with what we are doing now and not add to our problems. It is time that we recognized that the meaningful data suggests we have a problem; People knew that we had a problem before this data was published. There is nothing in this data that is outright new to people. only crazy speculative data suggests we do not. But Michaels you are a true believer while I
depend on available data.[/quote] [color=#FF0000]As long as you ignore people who don't agree with you, depending on available data will never be enough, because you will not have the answers that you can't find from your statistics. You won't even know where to look for those answers.[/color]

[leftyg]

And because you can't imagine it, it must not be true? There were countless examples in the Bible where God (Jesus, as part of the Holy Trinity, and God) instructed his people to go to war and to kill people. Many were killed by the sword. It doesn't really matter that you cannot imagine this

That you can image it is disturbing. Quite a stretch Michaels, quite a stretch and may explain your curious form of Christianity. Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." Mathew 5:9 Jesus never said blessed are the warmongers or the stand your ground murderers. Rather he said to "turn the other cheek" and "vengeance is mine." Revenge and judgment belong to God alone, not to the f ing vigilante at the end of the street or on the radio.

Then you go on:

You cannot solve problems, any problems without God's help and direction. John 15:5..."for without me, ye can do nothing."

What stuns me is the look Jesus would give you when you told him that you spent a big portion of your waking hours defending a person's right to carry weapons which do impact on the number of homicides in this country. I am sure you will have a response.

Your [you're] a blockhead that refuse [s} to accept information of your own choosing. You don't believe scripture that does not agree to your sensibilities, and you reject data that does not conform to your ideas

I accept the most salient and important data. What the number of gun defenses in a year has to do with is the number of guns out there. If you understood how stats work you would know that, more guns result in more gun defenses

And that is fine. And by your own words and your own example, your choice for your life and your success in this area does not mean that it will work for others. So if you can recognize that for yourself and others in the same area/country where you live, why can't you accept that in principle and apply it to other countries as well

This makes little sense to me. Other countries have figured out how to have fewer gun deaths.

( called the data that was meaningless, meaningless. I also said that there were some statistics that I would not argue with you about like if the United States had the highest murder rate in the world. But you appear to reject all the findings that I have presented just because you want to reject it

The data I presented was meaningful: it was the deaths and gun deaths by country; that is highly meaningful. Speculation about the number of times a gun saved someone is at best speculation and at worst a statistical artifact of what you would expect from a country overrun with guns.

[Michaels153]

That you can image [imagine] it There is nothing to imagine in the Bible, all you have to do is to read it and accept it. You don't, and what you find disturbing, is when the truth is pointed out to you. Your reference from Matthew 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called Sons of God." Taken in isolation, that is using or referring to this scripture alone, and ignoring the rest of the bible does not explain God's actions that would appear contrary to making peace in the old and the new testaments. And Matthew 5:9 taken alone and in isolation from other scripture would not make sense to the examples given in the Bible under the command of God.
Deuteronomy chapter 2 beginning with verse 31"And the Lord said to me. "See, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to possess it, that you may inherit his land." Verse 32: "Then Sihon and all his people came out against us to fight at Jahaz." Verse 33: "And the Lord our God delivered him over to us; so we defeated him, his sons, and all his people. Verse 34"We took all his cities at that time, and we utterly destroyed the men, women, and little ones of every city; we left none remaining."...
Deuteronomy chapter 3 verse of 1: "Then we turned up the road to Bashan; and Og king Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei." Verse 2: "And the Lord said to me, 'Do not fear him, for I have delivered him and all his people and his land into your hand: you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt at Heshbron." Verse 3: "So the Lord our God also delivered into our hands Og king of Bashan, with all his people, and we attacked him until he had no survivors remaining."...verse 18: "And I commanded you at that time, saying: 'The Lord your God has given you this land to possess. All you men of valor shall cross over armed before your brethren, the children of Israel."
The Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers in Matthew chapter 21 verses 33-41. Verse 41:..He will destroy those wicked men miserably"
Revelation chapter 19 beginning with verse 11: "Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war.
...Verse 15: "Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword that with it He should strike the nations....Verse 21: "And the rest were killed with the sword..."
Malachi chapter 3 verse 6: "For I am the the Lord, I do not change."
Genesis chapter 1 verse 26: "Then God said, "Let Us make man in our image, according to Our likeness."
John chapter 1 verses 1 and 2: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2) He was in the beginning with God.
John chapter 10 verse 30: "I and My Father are one."
Revelation chapter 22 verse 13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."
Malachi chapter 3 verse 6 (printed again for emphasis): For I am the Lord, I do not change

So the same ("I do not change.") Lord Jesus Christ who said "Blessed are the peacemakers in Matthew 5:9, also said, "You shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites." And, "All you men of valor shall cross over armed."

[color=#FF0000]No stretch here Leftyg, I have never explained a personally distinct form of Christianity as you imply (

your curious form of Christianity)

. You prefer to quote basically from Matthew chapters 5 through 7; the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount. Did you notice that there were pages before and after those three chapters?

When Jesus looks at me, I believe that he will say: Matthew chapter 26:23. "Well done good and faithful servant" I believe Jesus will also say to me: Psalm 82:3 "You have defended the poor and the fatherless."

[leftyg]

Michaels, your version of Christianity is disturbing to me. How you can ignore the Sermon on the Mount and then intone the Old Testament crap about "smiting thy enemy" stuns me. And if Jesus, on the day of Armageddon, decide to dawn the garb of a warrior and descend from the skies and smite all the wicked, that is his business. But you cannot join him. You leave your little gun at home so nobody takes it from you and hurts you, and just hide because none of us know for whom the Good Lord is coming.

My version of God has more of a sense of humor than yours I sense. We all have a version of God in our minds; your problem is you confuse your imagining with the real thing, and it is to the detriment of the society in which we all live. I read the Bible and I see the joy of Christ and his love; you read the same book and see a universal gunslinger bent on revenge. You should think about that, but I know you will not. Unfortunately, you take the roll of the expert in our back and forth on this and other issues. The truth is neither of us are.

Also, I would like to hear a comment from you on Mrtazeman's (Real USA) thread on Fascism in America; it is much more a danger than communism or Islamic terrorism. It is the evil that will sneak up on us; it is the wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Michaels153]

Michaels, your version of Christianity is disturbing to me. It is easier for you to just paint me as the one who has a disturbing view of Christianity than to admit that you do not know the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and his mission. But you cannot defend your opinion of your characterization of me.
I quote the scripture in context while you only resort to it in your attempt to persuade others to your point of view. You can not even explain the scripture that you post, and that is not what you expect to do. You actually think that to place a scripture down in a post is the equivalent to any other reference you would use in any other thread. When your wrong admit it, learn from it, and move on. How you can ignore the whole Bible except the Sermon on the Mount is an admission of your ignorance and an admission of why you used the scripture for nothing more than a reference in the hopes of supporting your position. I am not sure what is more glaring, your ignorance or your arrogance.

I don't care what "your version" of God is. I care about knowing who he is. You don't understand that. You just keep demonstrating that you do not know him. Sometimes you throw out a name as if to convince yourself that you have an understanding of God and the Bible, but it is apparent that you don't. Some people wisely strive to know God and to faithfully follow His instructions. You do not. God expects me to do what I am doing while he hopes that your eyes will open to the hardness of your heart, and that you will turn to Him for guidance. The time for that is now. Tomorrow is promised to no one.

Also, I would like to hear a comment from you on Mrtazeman's (Real USA) thread on Fascism in America; Not interested. it is much more a danger than communism or Islamic terrorism. It is the evil that will sneak up on us; it is the wolf in sheep's clothing.

[leftyg]

It is easier for you to just paint me as the one who has a disturbing view of Christianity than to admit that you do not know the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and his mission. But you cannot defend your opinion of your characterization of me. I quote the scripture in context while you only resort to it in your attempt to persuade others to your point of view. You can not even explain the scripture that you post, and that is not what you expect to do. You actually think that to place a scripture down in a post is the equivalent to any other reference you would use in any other thread. When your wrong admit it, learn from it, and move on

Ditto that Michaels. You pretending to be the scholar and the teacher is funny like the title of this thread: Gun control ideas crumble when researched. All you do is bluster and pontificate and use a string of capital letters to beat the band, while I cite study after study that shows guns are not a deterrent. And the fact that you believe a fanciful stat that guns, in a country with lots of guns, will more frequently deter crime shouldn't surprise anybody. It is a simple artifact of methodology like a goalie on a hockey team with a terrible defense is likely to have more saves than a goalie on a team with a strong defense. You do not realize it I guess, though you should, and you go on pontificating when a person with training in scientific method would know better.

But what you do is precious here. You cite examples of when the Bible supports vicious vengeful people and that offsets what Jesus says in the beatitudes or what Pope Francis said today about eliminating all capital punishment. No Micheals, I can explain the scriptures I quote; you can't. You see everything thru the prism of your far right gun toting culture which on a good day is probably anathema to the guy upstairs. Notice I said "probably." I am just betting. My number one problem in life are people who try to fascistize (made up a new word) the Christian religion the way Islamic extremist have radicalized some Muslims. The good religions are the ones that believe in love and in turning the other cheek, not the ones that self-righteously only want to serve people they like or judge others. I am even on thin ice myself having this conversation with you because it is way too judgmental on my part. But sometimes you are like a guy who thinks that 2+2=5 and is all arrogant about it, telling someone who can add that they, the person who can add, is enumerate.

[Michaels153]

All I do is point out facts that more often than not counter your position papers. You cite studies, some of which are current and applicable to contemporary society, some are not. You post studies and stats hoping they will sell your position so that you are not placed in the uncomfortable position of trying to explain what you post. When I post a statistic, fanciful or not, at least accept it instead of being the hypocrite about demanding statistics, but then rejecting those that you don't like. I could post other statistics that to you would be fanciful and frustrating, but I choose to post statistics that are relevant to the current discussion and not just entertainment for a game a Jeopardy or Trivia Pursuit. Whatever training in the scientific method you thought you received didn't manifest in your posts on Evolution.
'

Leftyg You cite examples of when the Bible supports vicious vengeful people and that offsets what Jesus says in the beatitudes

Hey mouth, just prove what you just said from the scriptures I just posted when I tried to explain to you the Lord God does not change. I couldn't have been any clearer to a rational thinking person, so it is clear that you are not a rational thinking person. So go get some help, and prove what you just claimed here.
You prove that I cited examples of the Bible supporting vicious vengeful people that offsets what Jesus says in the beatitudes. Were all waiting. And if you try, I will respond and show everybody once again how ignorant you are about God and the Bible. Usually when your wrong about something you just come out as you did here and move on. And many times people don't call you out on it. Well, I am calling you out on this. Here is an opportunity for you to demonstrate to everybody here, both regulars and visitors to this forum of your mastery of argumentation and rhetoric.

[leftyg]

All I do is point out facts that more often than not counter your position papers. You cite studies, some of which are current and applicable to contemporary society, some are not. You post studies and stats hoping they will sell your position so that you are not placed in the uncomfortable position of trying to explain what you post. When I post a statistic, fanciful or not, at least accept it instead of being the hypocrite about demanding statistics, but then rejecting those that you don't like. I could post other statistics that to you would be fanciful and frustrating, but I choose to post statistics that are relevant to the current discussion and not just entertainment for a game a Jeopardy or Trivia Pursuit. Whatever training in the scientific method you thought you received didn't manifest in your posts on Evolution.

No Michaels you post non-scientific gobbledegook. I post academic studies like this one from Live Science which asserts guns do not deter crime. It says:

"We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime," said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. "Instead, we found the opposite."

https://www.livescience.com/51446-guns- ... crime.html

This study goes on to say:

More guns, more gun crime
Numerous studies have found that gun ownership correlates with gun homicide, and homicide by gun is the most common type of homicide in the United States. In 2013, for example, there were 16,121 total homicides in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and 11,208 of those were carried out with a firearm. (Gun suicides outpace gun homicides by far; in 2013, the CDC recorded 21,175 suicides by firearm, about half of all suicides that year. Contrary to popular belief, suicide is typically an impulsive act, psychiatrists say. Ninety percent of people who attempt suicide once will not go on to complete a suicide later, but a suicide attempt using a gun is far more lethal than other methods.)

https://www.livescience.com/51446-guns- ... crime.html

Other researchers have tried to explore this question in different ways. Boston University researcher Michael Siegel and colleagues found in a 2013 study published in the American Journal of Public Health that over 30 years, gun ownership levels correlated with firearm homicides, such that the higher the gun ownership rate, the higher the firearm homicide rate.

In the the 30 year study from 1981-2010 Siegel found:

Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/a ... 013.301409

Now before you pounce on the last sentence, remember that nothing can be proved in social science. That is axiomatic. You certainly have given no evidence that guns help, except easily refutable anecdotes that simply do not hold up. As a matter of fact they are considered logical fallacies at worst, weak arguments at best.

Now I can repeat everything I have put up on the subject which, incidentally, I am not that interested in except when little kids and young people get killed. But anyone with a modicum of reason who is not just a gun loving fanatic should realize this stuff: that guns enhance homicide . I have shown the evidence ad nauseum on here to absolutely no response from you except some anecdote or a long convoluted post that is unrelated to the issue.

You wrote and I repeat:

Whatever training in the scientific method you thought you received didn't manifest in your posts on Evolution.

One reason that conservatives like you survive as long as they have in arguments like these is their utter ignorance of the scientific method. First, virtually all scientists (99.85%) believes that some evolutionary process took place. https://www.livescience.com/51446-guns- ... crime.html Now I realize that is a bandwagon argument. But the scientific method says that to be scientific a study must be falsifiable, testable and repeatable. AND you cannot do it by testing another theory which is what creationists often do. They test evolution for flaws and nobody who studies creationism is likely to be willing to find it falsifiable; they want to prove it which is scientific silliness to begin with because it is virtually impossible in science to prove anything. And to be a creationist it means you must study creation theories exclusively.

And a little note on this last little snide comment you made about my scientific training: you gave nothing specific because my guess is you do not understand the scientific method. Anybody can tell another person what you told me. The difference between us is I can tell you why you are wrong. All you can do, and my guess is you will do it now is make a snide comment.

What keeps conservatism alive is that the people who believe it do not need reasons and think they have the truth. People like me do not have the truth and know that you don't either, but our lack of confidence (in an area of life where no one should have too much confidence) is a downfall against those who believe they have the truth.

Bertrand Russel wrote in the 1930s:

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.

https://www.azquotes.com/quote/254901


Now I know your response will not address this because you cannot address this. It is either too sacred or too arcane for you.

[leftyg]

Hey mouth, just prove what you just said from the scriptures I just posted when I tried to explain to you the Lord God does not change. I couldn't have been any clearer to a rational thinking person, so it is clear that you are not a rational thinking person. So go get some help, and prove what you just claimed here.
You prove that I cited examples of the Bible supporting vicious vengeful people that offsets what Jesus says in the beatitudes. Were all waiting. And if you try, I will respond and show everybody once again how ignorant you are about God and the Bible. Usually when your wrong about something you just come out as you did here and move on. And many times people don't call you out on it. Well, I am calling you out on this. Here is an opportunity for you to demonstrate to everybody here, both regulars and visitors to this forum of your mastery of argumentation and rhetoric.

I guess I was wrong; you do understand. And you like the parts of the Bible that are hateful over the parts that show God's love.

You are confronted with a kind Jesus, and you say, there is another side. OK. It is obvious that you seem to prefer hate to Christian love. To guys like you and Bob Frantz, kindness is weakness.

I know there were spots in the Old Testament where the Israelites smote this one and that one. Remember, Michaels I was raised on that stuff. Any day I expected a stern and wrathful Jehovah to send one of his agents down from heaven to send my ass straight to hell. I grew up in fear of people a lot more scary than you. I read the Bible, and did what I could, but I was scared of the Great Day of God the Almighty and pretty sure that, despite my best efforts, my family and I were screwed.

That is why when I meant priests at a Catholic college I attended and heard the message of love they shared in classes like Sacred Script it appealed to me

And remember that in the Old Testament Elisha sent a bear to murder 42 children who were taunting him (2 Kings 2:23-25) I can tell you where I was at that day 5 7 or so years ago. I was staring at a book shelf in my house when our congregation servant was conducting a Bible study at our home. I just now went back and located the verse, but for 57 years I have thought that Elisha was an ass hole.

And lets not forget Lot who got drunk and screwed his own daughters Genesis 19:33

Now I could go on, but when I hear some vicious act like Elisha's hit on 42 children, it makes me want to ask if 42 children were gunned down by a shooter defending a Christian preacher would you justify it?

You see it seems to me that you can justify anything with some biblical verse. And nothing, you can ever concoct will make me believe that it is OK to murder children.

You begin and I will end with this silliness that God does not change. How can you say that? Did s/he authorize the murder of those children? But that aside, saying God does not change is limiting his or her power.

[Michaels153]

[/color] No Michaels you post non-scientific gobbledegook. So now according to you the CDC findings that I referenced is gobbledegook. But when you reference the CDC it is not gobbledegook?I post academic studies like this one from Live Science which asserts guns do not deter crime. Lets note that your article from Live Science, written by Stephanie Pappas, was published in July of 2015 And it did not study Defensive Gun Uses. It said:

Monuteaux and his colleagues wanted to test whether increased gun ownership had any effect on gun homicides, overall homicides and violent gun crimes.

The article later went on to say:

Another recent study highlighted just how little researchers know. In July 2013, researchers published a paper in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, attempting to mathematically model the trade-off between increased gun crimes with gun ownership and gun use for self-protection. The study that Monuteaux conduted did not study Defensive Gun use, which as explained from Wikipedia is:

Defensive gun use (DGU) is the use or presentation of a firearm for self-defense, defense of others or in some cases, protecting property.

Monuteaux said "because the available data isn't comprehensive enough, the researchers weren't able to make specific policy recommendations

It says:

"We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime," said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. "Instead, we found the opposite."

https://www.livescience.com/51446-guns- ... crime.html So Monuteaux, who is not an expert in Criminology, who is not an expert in gun usage, conducts a study of correlations, does not study Defensive Gun Uses, and from the data that he produced, in his correlations, said that they found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime. [* When your not looking for something, you are not going to find it, whatever it happens to be.]
Now lets look at actual studies that looked at Defensive Gun Use and not statistics to correlate homicidal rates.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#46fe370b299a
That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses
By Paul Hsieh Apr 30, 2018,

In particular, a 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

From Wikipedia:

A commonly cited 1995 study by Kleck and Gertz estimated that between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs occur in the United States each year.[1]:64–65[7][10] After Kleck and Gertz accounted for telescoping, their estimate was reduced to 2.1 million DGU per year.[7] Kleck and Gertz conducted this survey in 1992, and Kleck began publicizing the 2.5 million DGU per year estimate in 1993.[11] By 1997, the 2.5 million per year number from Kleck & Gertz' study had been cited as fact by news articles, editorial writers, and the Congressional Research Service.[12] Besides the NSDS and NCVS surveys, ten national and three state surveys summarized by Kleck and Gertz gave 764 thousand to 3.6 million DGU per year.[7] In the report "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms" by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, projected 4.7 million DGU which Cook and Ludwig explained by pointing out all of the NSPOF sample were asked the DGU question.

*

Marvin Wolfgang, who was acknowledged in 1994 by the British Journal of Criminology as ″the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world″,[17] commented on Kleck's research concerning defensive gun use: "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. [...] The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."[18]

A 1994 study examined NCVS data and concluded that between 1987 and 1990, there were approximately 258,460 incidents in which firearms were used defensively in the United States, for an annual average of 64,615.[21] An article published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, drawing its DGU from the NCVS, said: "In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes ... On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property.

A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation found that defensive gun uses occur an average of 67,740 times per year.[35]

Leftyg, your LiveScience article from 2015 also said of their research:

The results do need to be interpreted with caution — this study method proves that more guns are linked to more gun crime and overall homicide, but not that access to guns directly causes this criminal uptick, said study researcher David Hemenway, the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

. So, accepting the note of caution let me just take a stab at a "possible interpretation;" A group of people in a city lets say a gang has access to a large number of guns that they use to commit a large number of crimes and homicides in that city. A larger group of people who are not in that gang, also own a gun or guns. These people live throughout the city and have a total of more guns than the gang does. These people are not committing the type of crimes that the gang are committing. And they are not using their guns for the same purposes that the gang members are doing. These people do on occasion use their guns to defend themselves, their property or someone else. They may only need to pull out their weapon and not even fire it to defend themselves, or someone else, and because no crime is committed, it is not reported and/or not normally publicized by the local media. And as a result, these Defensive gun uses are under reported, which means that the crimes that did not happen because they pulled out their weapon and stopped from happening (that is called deterrence) are not noted statistically. I would say that that is a reasonable interpretation.

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides. How about just looking at large cities or large areas with a high population and compare them to smaller cities. Don't you believe that even without looking at the actual data, you will find more crime in areas with larger populations? You know you want to use the statistic of number of homicides per 100,000 people. You could use the number of homicides from Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and I am sure I could find cities with 100,000 people that have fewer or zero homicides and that would throw a wrench into your correlations.
________

You wrote and I repeat:

Whatever training in the scientific method you thought you received didn't manifest in your posts on Evolution.

One reason that conservatives like you survive as long as they have in arguments like these is their utter ignorance of the scientific method. Your always arguing that your opponent does not know what they are talking about. But I will remind you, and the readers here of what I told you about the scientific method:
From my February 24, 2014 post in Texas Public Schools Teaching Creationism:

As a matter of review: The Scientific Method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the Scientific Method are to; ask a question, do background research, construct a hypothesis, test your hypothesis by doing an experiment, analyze your data and draw a conclusion, and communicate your results.

From my February 26 post of the same thread:

leftyg wrote:
That was 1874 Michaels, 140 years ago. A lot has changed.
What has changed Leftyg? What scientist has used the scientific method to confirm a hypothesis of the evolution of species from one species to another?
Answer...waiting....waiting....waiting...Oh that's right, none!

- And you did not respond to that post.

First, virtually all scientists (99.85%) believes that some evolutionary process took place. Ben Stein showed his interviews with numerous professors regarding Evolution in his movie Expelled.
In that movie he showed what happens to professors who spoke out against Evolution, and that there are many who publicly state their belief in Evolution to keep their jobs and for the money. In the thread I exposed Stephen Gould who said that Haeckel (who invented the discredited Ontrology recapitulates phylogeny theory) used fake drawings to promote his theory. Stephen Gould went on to write a book on the subject of Ontology recapitulate phylogeny, and made money off of it. But the scientific method says that to be scientific a study must be falsifiable, [color=#FF0000]Yes that is right, and I presented an experiment by Dr Thornton who tried in his own words:

Thornton wanted to delve deeper into the puzzle of how complex systems with tightly interacting molecular parts evolve. It was a long standing conundrum. As Charles Darwin wrote in n the Origins of Species, if it could be demonstrated that ANY complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

Dr. Thornton's experiment - Theoretically, if an organism evolved along a certain natural path of acquiring new features and abilities, then it should be able to retrace their supposed evolutionary history.
The proteins in question help vertebrate tissues recognize the stress hormone cortisol. Three researchers synthesized and characterized the various hypothetical evolutionary incarnations of the proteins. Each version had the mutational changes that were theorized to have taken place if the protein had evolved from an earlier form. Given the sequence and structure of the versions known today, the scientists wanted to see what biological functions the transitional proteins would have if the modern form were to evolve back to its supposedly original version.
The scientists found that none of the transitional proteins functioned at all
Since none of the theoretical "backward" transitions produced functionality, this begs the question of whether evolution ever crossed the bridge going forward in the first place.
And how did Joseph Thornton describe these findings? He told New Scientist:
Effectively, the five mutations burn the bridge evolution had just crossed.[/color] testable and repeatable. Dr. Thornton conducted his experiment and it failed. It Failed by Charles Darwin's own standards. The experiment falsified Charles Darwin. And Dr. Richard Feynman, University of Cornell Physicist, said in a lecture on the Scientific Method, "Theories that failed the test of data or experiment are falsified ("wrong") and must be discarded."
See the 9 minute and 59 second video on You Tube, from Cornell University, (1964).
The very last post of that thread was addressed to you:

Leftyg:
And now it is your turn to review your comments made prior to the presented material on the predictions of the Evolution and the Creationism models.
Remember, you said: "“I was trained in the scientific method in a rather rigorous program in grad school....."
You also said: "Remember you cannot prove evolution,"
And,: "NOBODY has proven the exact theory behind evolution. I will give you that."

But after these statements, your "training" and knowledge really comes into question. Because you also said

"But the record is very clear that humans evolved in some way, probably over millions of years."

And:
“Now back to creationism. Evolution is suggested by science and every scientist except a few faith-based crackpots thinks it exists in some manner. Why? Because of the available evidence."

Now I presented a lot of evidence in the material comparing the predictions of both models,(most of which was furnished by scientists who consider themselves to be evolutionists) that the "so-called" evidence for evolution does not exist. And although you did not offer any "evidence" to support your statement - "The record is very clear that humans evolved in some way", perhaps you care to do so now.
And regarding the predictions of the evolution model you said:

"And evolution is probably the best predictive model.. So what is your point? Michaels it boggles my mind that you do not understand that absolute certainty is part of the scientific method. Evolution is testable, falsifiable and it can be predicted.”

You said:
"“hmmmm, my comment was a general comment about how conservatives ignore evidence, that's all. It could be about creationism where they ignore evidence or science,”

Leftyg, did you review the evidence presented here in this thread on the predictions of the Evolution and the Creationism models or are you ignoring it as you claim conservatives do?

I have presented the Scientific Definitions of a Scientific Theory and the Scientific Method.
After reviewing all of the presented material, which includes statements made by evolutionists referring to the Scientific Method, has 1) The Scientific Method been used (through observation and experimentation) to corroborate a hypothesis of Evolution? And 2) According to the stated definition set by Science, does Evolution fulfill the requirements set forth to be classified as a Scientific Theory?

Well?... [* Again, you never responded.}
But now your back again in your latest post acting like this never happened. You said:

One reason that conservatives like you survive as long as they have in arguments like these is their utter ignorance of the scientific method.

BOOM!

Leftyg: Now I know your response will not address this because you cannot address this. It is either too sacred or too arcane for you.

BOOM!

[leftyg]

Michaels, if you cannot construct a sound comprehensible argument based on simple evidence, baffle 'em with bullshit.

Look I said after the Siegel article that:

Now before you pounce on the last sentence, remember that nothing can be proved in social science. That is axiomatic. You certainly have given no evidence that guns help, except easily refutable anecdotes that simply do not hold up. As a matter of fact they are considered logical fallacies at worst, weak arguments at best.

Now you jumped right on that in you mass of words. I figured you would. And you give me smack about evolution when creationism is your theory. That is a scientific waste of time. You do not prove one theory by testing another. Like with guns, I really do not care about either creationism or evolution. But you cannot prove anything, more-less the origin of the species or the etiology of crime or homicide.

And please quit with the BOOM and all that. I view it as a form of ignorance. He who shouts loudest generally knows the least.

A little secret: I do not know the truth, and neither do you. I gave you two perfectly good studies on guns and gun deaths, and you stood them on their heads and just got so convoluted that your comments were hard to read. There are generally simple, comprehensible responses to almost any querry, especially if we understand the limits of our understanding.

Now here is a simple fact: a country with lots of guns will have more gum defenses. I do not know where your numbers on the millions of gun defenses come from until I looked and found that it came from a 1992 study by Kleck and Getz:

In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

But here is what the Gun Violence Archive found:

Brand new data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan organization devoted to collecting gun violence data, further confirms Hemenway’s suspicion that Kleck and Getz’s findings are absurd. The archive found that for all of 2014 there were fewer than 1,600 verified defensive guns uses, meaning a police report was filed. This total includes all outcomes and types of defensive uses with a police report—a far cry from the millions that Kleck and Getz estimated.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunkin ... -use-myth/

This very good articles points out that the numbers of Kleck and Getz are absurd, and would point to a nation full of irresponsible gun users. And this from Huffington Post:

The study, released Wednesday by the Violence Policy Center, found there were 258 justifiable homicides involving civilians using firearms in 2012, compared with 8,342 murders by gun. Even if a criminal isn’t shot down, the study found that civilians rarely use guns to protect themselves. “Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior with a firearm” only 0.1 percent of the times they were targeted by a crook.

A little advice, when you hear an absurd number question it. I will give you an example: Bob Frantz said that Trump won 3084 counties in the 2016 election and that Hillary won only 57. Now that is absurd because Hillary won the popular vote by almost three million. I thought he was lying, and I went to Snopes.com and sure enough he was lying https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump ... on-won-57/ Snopes showed with simple data that he was lying, yet the legend made the rounds.

On its face your argument sounds the same: it just does not make any sense. I know that you will not change because you are too proud and pig-headed to. I would never buy anything like that on its base, but you want to believe it. And it still leaves this fact undisturbed: we have more gun homicides than any other advanced nation in the world. Guns do not seem to be a large deterrent no mater how much you want them to be. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gu ... countries/

[Michaels153]

Michaels, if you cannot construct a sound comprehensible argument based on simple evidence, baffle 'em with bullshit. Your rewrite of W.C. fields line doesn't work.

Look I said after the Siegel article that:

Now before you pounce on the last sentence, remember that nothing can be proved in social science. That is axiomatic. You certainly have given no evidence that guns help, except easily refutable anecdotes that simply do not hold up. As a matter of fact they are considered logical fallacies at worst, weak arguments at best.

Yes you said that. Your go to comment that nothing can be proven is almost as ridiculous as you are. I clearly responded to your lies of providing no evidence with additional evidence.
Wikipedia and the references that I used were not anecdotal, they were not logical fallacies, and they were not weak arguments. All of this are more lies from you.

Now you jumped right on that in you mass of words. I figured you would. And you give me smack about evolution when creationism is your theory. That is a scientific waste of time. You do not prove one theory by testing another. Like with guns, I really do not care about either creationism or evolution. But you cannot prove anything, more-less the origin of the species or the etiology of crime or homicide.
As is your history, I knew you would resort to your lies. I gave you "smack" about evolution? I gave you evidence from Evolutionists, that Evolution is not a scientific theory, is not even science, and that it is false based on the standards of science, and based upon the definition that Darwin provided that would disprove the theory of Evolution ascribed to him. I proved that Evolution is false. I don't care about your comment that you cant prove one theory by testing another. It was you, JuicedTruth, and Wobbly who were in agreement with each other about not having Creationism being taught in school as science. You three geniuses all stated that Evolution should be taught in science class. I challenged you to compare the claims of Evolution side by side with Creationism. And in the process of comparing both I exposed the lies you had been led to accept about Evolution and never even questioned. I provided evidence that Evolution was false. Evidence, not smack. But the three of you were initially not shy about insulting Creationism. The three of you went from insulting to absolute silence after I presented all of the evidence against Evolution.

And please quit with the BOOM and all that. I view it as a form of ignorance. He who shouts loudest generally knows the least. You didn't mind using it when you thought you made a point. I am not going to ask anything of you from your posts because it is a waste of time.

A little secret: I do not know the truth, and neither do you. I gave you two perfectly good studies on guns and gun deaths, and you stood them on their heads and just got so convoluted that your comments were hard to read. There are generally simple, comprehensible responses to almost any querry, especially if we understand the limits of our understanding.
Leftyg, it is no secret that you do not know the truth. And it is even clearer that I have a good understanding of the positions that I am on. There probably are simple and comprehensible responses to our discourses. Describing each other positions, and what we disagree with, is more constructive than maligning the messenger.

Now here is a simple fact: a country with lots of guns will have more gum defenses. Accepted.I do not know where your numbers on the millions of gun defenses come from until I looked and found that it came from a 1992 study by Kleck and Getz: Look at my references again and you will see that the Highest numbers came from the report "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, that projected 4.7 DGU.

In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

After Kleck and Gertz accounted for telescoping, their estimate was reduced to 2.1 million DGU per year.In particular, a 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, So Leftyg, you are not accurately stating my references. You are only focusing on Kleck and Getz.

But here is what the Gun Violence Archive found:

Brand new data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan organization devoted to collecting gun violence data, further confirms Hemenway’s suspicion that Kleck and Getz’s findings are absurd. The archive found that for all of 2014 there were fewer than 1,600 verified defensive guns uses, meaning a police report was filed. This total includes all outcomes and types of defensive uses with a police report—a far cry from the millions that Kleck and Getz estimated.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunkin ... -use-myth/ Hemenway did express some valid concern's regarding the false positives, but then created their own false positives, from their review of their findings. One of the problems in any investigation is the finding of different results when an attempt is made to replicate the original investigation. Maintaining methodological consistency in this process can still result in slight differences due to the reasonable adjustments made to some of the variables studied. Another problem that occurs is when gun control advocates only focus on incidents of a gun owners drawing their weapon to protect themselves as the definition of DGU, when other studies include the drawing of a weapon to protect others, and the drawing of a weapon to protect property. When you focus only on a third of the definition, you are going to have lower numbers than studies that use all three as the definition of DGU. Another reason for low numbers is to accept only incidents of DGU that are included in a police report. When a gun owner uses his weapon for a DGU, he or she does not necessarily have to fire the weapon which would force a police report. The attempted burglar, car hijacker, purse snatcher, etc. who takes off when they see the weapon are not going to go to the police station to file a police report. And the gun owner may not report the incident for different reasons, including the fact that they did not experience any loss.

This very good articles points out that the numbers of Kleck and Getz are absurd, and would point to a nation full of irresponsible gun users. No, that is an incorrect conclusion based most likely from a biased position which is why I included the comment made by Marvin Wolfgang:

Marvin Wolfgang, who was acknowledged in 1994 by the British Journal of Criminology as ″the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world″,[17] commented on Kleck's research concerning defensive gun use: "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. [...] The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.

And this from Huffington Post:

The study, released Wednesday by the Violence Policy Center, found there were 258 justifiable homicides involving civilians using firearms in 2012, compared with 8,342 murders by gun. Even if a criminal isn’t shot down, the study found that civilians rarely use guns to protect themselves. “Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior with a firearm” only 0.1 percent of the times they were targeted by a crook.

What Huffington Post printed about what the Violence Policy Center found is interesting and certainly valid. When a gun owner chooses to use his or her weapon in a DGU should not be the focus nor a point to be used as a justification to minimize the existence of and the variety of DGU's. 258 justifiable homicides is one type of DGU, and there is a record of it because there has to be a police report on the finding of a dead body. Choosing not to use a gun for other DGU's may not be recorded our at least under reported because it does not have to be recorded. Legitimate incidents of DGU that are not reported do not allow for accurate survey's and this can result in speculation and unwarranted conclusions based upon personal assumptions.

A little advice, when you hear an absurd number question it. I will give you an example: Bob Frantz said that Trump won 3084 counties in the 2016 election and that Hillary won only 57. Now that is absurd because Hillary won the popular vote by almost three million. I thought he was lying, and I went to Snopes.com and sure enough he was lying https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump ... on-won-57/ Snopes showed with simple data that he was lying, yet the legend made the rounds. Uh Leftyg, Look again at what you just posted. 3141 counties minus 3084 countines equal 57 counties. Snopes said: "We were unable to substantiate the “57 counties” number by any mathematical means.: What Snopes attempted to do was to look at one state - New York, and then imply that based upon that one state, it did not seem probable that Clinton only won 57 counties in the election. Maybe Clinton won less than 57 counties? The fact that she won less counties but still won the popular vote should not seem incongruous. The main population of Clinton's voters was said to come from the large cities like Los Angeles and New York, which have large counties.

On its face your argument sounds the same: it just does not make any sense. I know that you will not change because you are too proud and pig-headed to. That is an unfounded characterizationI would never buy anything like that on its base, but you want to believe it. I believe things based on their merit unless I am shown or personally experience a reason not to believe in something that I formerly did. And it still leaves this fact undisturbed: we have more gun homicides than any other advanced nation in the world. Guns do not seem to be a large deterrent no mater how much you want them to be. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gu ... countries/

Guns remain as a tool that statistically has been shown to provide more positive uses than negative uses. People do not need statistics that debate on the global impact on something to decide what is best for them. Gun control advocates who want the world to know that most gun users do not use their own guns for self protection, will not stop people from carrying a weapon to protect themselves if that is what they feel they must do to be reasonably safe in their average day to day activities.

[leftyg]

I wrote:

Michaels, if you cannot construct a sound comprehensible argument based on simple evidence, baffle 'em with bullshit

.
You respond: Michaels,

Your rewrite of W.C. fields line doesn't work

.
First that is not much of a response because that is what you do. You comment on everything and you do not break up the comment.Hint: use the quotes button. You see Michaels we are both old, probably doddering if the truth be told, and we do stuff like that. Good journalistic style demands clear delineation, not long-winded bombast.

I wrote:

Look I said after the Siegel article that:
Now before you pounce on the last sentence, remember that nothing can be proved in social science. That is axiomatic. You certainly have given no evidence that guns help, except easily refutable anecdotes that simply do not hold up. As a matter of fact they are considered logical fallacies at worst, weak arguments at best.

You respond with:

Yes you said that. Your go to comment that nothing can be proven is almost as ridiculous as you are. I clearly responded to your lies of providing no evidence with additional evidence. Wikipedia and the references that I used were not anecdotal, they were not logical fallacies, and they were not weak arguments. All of this are more lies from you.

Micheals anybody with real training in social science knows you cannot prove anything: there is a vehicle, but it is intellectually insurmountable. Your tiny little study was not much as it stands in the face of a mountain of evidence that says differently and which appeals to the reality I see in the world around me. And if numbers seem bizarre, they usually are.

The truth is only 1600 gun defenses were reported to police and only 258 defensive homicides compared to 8342 criminal homicides. So the 1-2.5 million number really needs more defense then you gave it.

That is why I went to the "mass of words comment: Now you jumped right on that in you mass of words. I figured you would. And you give me smack about evolution when creationism is your theory. That is a scientific waste of time. You do not prove one theory by testing another. Like with guns, I really do not care about either creationism or evolution. But you cannot prove anything, more-less the origin of the species or the etiology of crime or homicide.


You responded with this almost unrelated comment:

As is your history, I knew you would resort to your lies. I gave you "smack" about evolution? I gave you evidence from Evolutionists, that Evolution is not a scientific theory, is not even science, and that it is false based on the standards of science, and based upon the definition that Darwin provided that would disprove the theory of Evolution ascribed to him. I proved that Evolution is false. I don't care about your comment that you cant prove one theory by testing another. It was you, JuicedTruth, and Wobbly who were in agreement with each other about not having Creationism being taught in school as science. You three geniuses all stated that Evolution should be taught in science class. I challenged you to compare the claims of Evolution side by side with Creationism. And in the process of comparing both I exposed the lies you had been led to accept about Evolution and never even questioned. I provided evidence that Evolution was false. Evidence, not smack. But the three of you were initially not shy about insulting Creationism. The three of you went from insulting to absolute silence after I presented all of the evidence against Evolution.

Michaels, you cannot prove something like creationism, and it should not be taught in schools as science because it is not science. You cannot prove Creationism by attacking Evolution. It is not scientific; it is critical thinking, political, religious discourse and does not belong in a science class because Creationism is not falsifiable or even testable or repeatable. Like most conservative your bottom line is content, not process.

I then said:

A little secret: I do not know the truth, and neither do you. I gave you two perfectly good studies on guns and gun deaths, and you stood them on their heads and just got so convoluted that your comments were hard to read. There are generally simple, comprehensible responses to almost any querry, especially if we understand the limits of our understanding.

Next you make a very revealing statement:

Leftyg, it is no secret that you do not know the truth. And it is even clearer that I have a good understanding of the positions that I am on. There probably are simple and comprehensible responses to our discourses. Describing each other positions, and what we disagree with, is more constructive than maligning the messenger.

As long as we know this we are fine. This is where the real problems emerge.

Then we get into the stuff about Kleck and Getz where you take their study at face value and others find their assumptions fantastical. We know that there were 1600 total gun defenses reported to police in the United states; that is far less than even one million. And the number of gun death from defensive action, 258, is a lot fewer than what you would expect if the number were, again, even one million.

I give my example from Bob Frantz's show in December 2016 when he claimed Trump won 3084 to Hilary's 57

You wrote

Uh Leftyg, Look again at what you just posted. 3141 counties minus 3084 counties equal 57 counties. Snopes said: "We were unable to substantiate the “57 counties” number by any mathematical means.

Exactly which is my point. It is fantastical. If you looked at the article you would know that:

The 52 of 57 counties Clinton purportedly won were in just ten states and the District of Columbia. Not mentioned in this list was the state of Alabama, where Clinton won 12 of the 67 counties, already bringing Clinton’s total to 64 counties total. Arizona (where Clinton won four of 15 counties) was also omitted from the list. Clinton won eight counties in Arkansas, and 23 in the state of Colorado (which she won). She also took Delaware, despite winning one of three counties, and lost Florida with the exception of nine counties. And while Clinton lost Georgia, she did win over 30 of its 159 counties. Skipping to Texas, Clinton went home with 27 of its 254 counties.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump ... on-won-57/

If you do the math that is 187. So they did there work.
You close, mirroring my close:
Guns remain as a tool that sta

tistically has been shown to provide more positive uses than negative uses. People do not need statistics that debate on the global impact on something to decide what is best for them. Gun control advocates who want the world to know that most gun users do not use their own guns for self protection, will not stop people from carrying a weapon to protect themselves if that is what they feel they must do to be reasonably safe in their average day to day activities.

[Michaels153]

I guess I was wrong; you do understand. And you like the parts of the Bible that are hateful over the parts that show God's love.
You were wrong and there was no guessing about it. And where do you get off concluding that 1) Parts of the Bible are hateful, and 2) That I like parts of the Bible that you call hateful over the parts that show God's love? The reason that I provided the scriptures that I posted was in response to your ignorance of God and the Bible, and because, as I demonstrated in my thread: "The true Biblical Response to illegal immigration and dreamers" you use religion as more of a strategy to weaponize religion so as to manipulate people of a certain faith to agree to a certain position?.

You are confronted with a kind Jesus, and you say, there is another side. OK. It is obvious that you seem to prefer hate to Christian love.
It is obvious to who that I prefer hate to Christian love? Is that what you really believe, or what you want to believe. I was not always a Christian. I became a Christian after reading the Bible for myself and believing in it. I was attracted to the following of Jesus Christ because of His love and His mercy.
To guys like you and Bob Frantz, kindness is weakness.
I do not know what Bob Frantz thinks about kindness. I do not think kindness is a weakness

I know there were spots in the Old Testament where the Israelites smote this one and that one. Then how come you missed the meaning behind what Jesus said about the Peacemakers?Remember, Michaels I was raised on that stuff. You were raised "on that stuff." How did that help you?Any day I expected a stern and wrathful Jehovah to send one of his agents down from heaven to send my ass straight to hell. I grew up in fear of people a lot more scary than you. I read the Bible, and did what I could, but I was scared of the Great Day of God the Almighty and pretty sure that, despite my best efforts, my family and I were screwed.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Psalm 111 verse 10
John 3:16, 17: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

That is why when I meant priests at a Catholic college I attended and heard the message of love they shared in classes like Sacred Script it appealed to me

And remember that in the Old Testament Elisha sent a bear to murder 42 children who were taunting him (2 Kings 2:23-25) I can tell you where I was at that day 5 7 or so years ago. I was staring at a book shelf in my house when our congregation servant was conducting a Bible study at our home. I just now went back and located the verse, but for 57 years I have thought that Elisha was an ass hole.

And lets not forget Lot who got drunk and screwed his own daughters Genesis 19:33

Now I could go on, but when I hear some vicious act like Elisha's hit on 42 children, it makes me want to ask if 42 children were gunned down by a shooter defending a Christian preacher would you justify it?
Lets not forget Job chapters 38, 39, 40, and 41.

You see it seems to me that you can justify anything with some biblical verse. Nobody can justify anything with some biblical verse. I don't try. But you do.And nothing, you can ever concoct will make me believe that it is OK to murder children.I have never tried to concoct any justification for the murder of children. I am the one who has consistently said that Abortion is wrong, that there is no justification for Abortion, and that Abortion should be abolished. You have not

You begin and I will end with this silliness that God does not change. Why should you believe that? Why should you find that God does not change to be silly? How can you say that? I was not the one who originated that scripture. That came from Malachi chapter 3 verse 6. The theological understanding that God does not change allows for people to trust Him and to count on His Word. If God was not constant we could not be confident in His message of Salvation. Did s/he authorize the murder of those children? This very question demonstrates your lack of knowledge and understanding of God. Have you lost the ability to read and comprehend as well? Go back and read the scriptures that I posted.But that aside, saying God does not change is limiting his or her power.
[/size][/quote] To acknowledge that God does not change is not equivalent to suggesting or limiting Him of the ability to do something. When you begin with the understanding that God is all powerful, then your position is that He can do anythig just as He said in Genesis 18:14 "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" So then if it is accepted and understood that there are no limits as to what God can do we then look at the actions that have been revealed to us in the Bible, and we find examples of God choosing to do some things but not others. We see The Lord Jesus healing two blind men in Matthew chapter 9 verses 27-30, But when the disciple Paul pleaded with the The Lord to remove the thorn in his flesh, God would not remove the thorn but instead told Paul: "My Grace is sufficient for you." It was not that God could not heal Paul, it was that God chose not to. In Luke chapter 4 we read of Jesus being tempted of the devil in the wilderness for forty days and in those days He ate nothing. Luke 4:2. In John chapter 6 Jesus feeds the five thousand. In Mark chapter 11 Jesus was hungry and finds a fig tree. When he found nothing but leaves on it; Mark 11:13, Jesus said: "Let no one eat fruit from you ever again." (Mark 11:14) Now Jesus as God, goes for forty days in the desert without eating. He performs the miracle of feeding the five thousand, but when He found no figs on the fig tree, He cursed it Mark 11:21 instead of just creating food for himself. What we see from this and other examples is that God is limitless in His power, but He Himself limits what He does with His own power and He uses His own power to carry out His will.

[Michaels153]

Leftyg,
You are correct about the snopes count. I went back and read the explanation again. I did not understand the 57 counties comment before, now I do. Thank you for clearing that up.

[Michaels153]

Leftyg: "Michaels, you cannot prove something like creationism, and it should not be taught in schools as science because it is not science. You cannot prove Creationism by attacking Evolution. It is not scientific; it is critical thinking, political, religious discourse and does not belong in a science class because Creationism is not falsifiable or even testable or repeatable. Like most conservative your bottom line is content, not process.

For the readers here today, Leftyg said the exact same thing in the thread "Texas Public Schools Teach Creationism" I responded:

I am not trying to prove creationism by disproving evolution. Not everything that I discuss here has to do with Christianity. I have been very consistent when it comes to science. That should have been clearly seen and understood by my thread Real Science Advances. (2/25/14)

e
To summarize what I explained back then, that still stands today, To argue that Evolution should be taught in schools as science because it is science is circular reasoning which is a logical fallacy. The only defense against this fallacy is to provide proof that Evolution is science. And by Scientific standards, Evolution does not meet the definition of a scientific theory, and there is no scientific evidence supporting any hypothesis of evolution, none.
I challenged Leftyg and others back then and set up two models to compare the claims of evolution versus the claims of Creationism, and I used only science to prove or in the case of Evolution, to disprove. I did not try to prove Creationism by disproving Evolution. What I did was disprove Evolution. I proved that Evolution was not science. Evolution was never founded on science.
But you can be sure, that instead of trying to find evidence that Evolution is science, that is that there is any scientific evidence that supports the claims of any hypothesis of evolution, instead of doing that, Leftyg will repeat once again that I cannot prove Creationism by disproving evolution.

[Michaels153]

And this from Huffington Post:
The study, released Wednesday by the Violence Policy Center, found there were 258 justifiable homicides involving civilians using firearms in 2012, compared with 8,342 murders by gun. Even if a criminal isn’t shot down, the study found that civilians rarely use guns to protect themselves. “

I hope the Huffington Post sends a reporter to interview the people present at the Issac Campbell Park shooting. Here is a recent example of a defensive gun use. DGU
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/06/florida-armed-bystander-stops-gunman-at-crowded-back-to-school-event-at-park-police-say.html
DRAMATIC VIDEO: Gun-toting bystander stops potential mass shooting at back-to-school cookout
Local police said the gunman was involved in a fistfight with another person at the Issac Campbell Park and left - only to return with a gun minutes later and start shooting.

An armed bystander shot a man who opened fire at a Florida park filled with over 100 people -- including children -- for a Saturday back-to-school cookout, officials said.
The Titusville Police Department said in a news release the man was involved in a fistfight with another person at the Issac Campbell Park and left around 5:20 p.m. -- only to return with a gun minutes later and start shooting. A bystander, who was lawfully licensed to carry a firearm, then shot the gunman.
“We are extremely grateful that nobody else was injured in this incident,” Deputy Chief Todd Hutchinson said in a statement. “This suspect opened fire at a crowded public park. This could have been so much worse.” The gunman, whose firearm was recovered at the scene, was airlifted to a local hospital with life-threatening injuries. No one else was injured during the shootout.
A DJ whose family organized the event at the park told Florida Today he was standing under a pavilion when he heard at least a dozen shots ring out.
Dwight Harvey was streaming the event live on his Facebook page when the shooting started. Children and parents could be seen in the video going through supplies when the shots suddenly rang out, WFTV reported.

[leftyg]

I wrote this from Huuington post:

The study, released Wednesday by the Violence Policy Center, found there were 258 justifiable homicides involving civilians using firearms in 2012, compared with 8,342 murders by gun. Even if a criminal isn’t shot down, the study found that civilians rarely use guns to protect themselves. “

BTW I got the info here. I forgot to add the link in the original post https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/ ... 08350.html
You responded in your latest post that:

I hope the Huffington Post sends a reporter to interview the people present at the Issac Campbell Park shooting. Here is a recent example of a defensive gun use. DGU

The problem is that that does nothing for your argument. I wrote in the same post that:

Brand new data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan organization devoted to collecting gun violence data, further confirms Hemenway’s suspicion that Kleck and Getz’s findings are absurd. The archive found that for all of 2014 there were fewer than 1,600 verified defensive guns uses, meaning a police report was filed. This total includes all outcomes and types of defensive uses with a police report—a far cry from the millions that Kleck and Getz estimated.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunkin ... -use-myth/

So your anecdote from Fox (remember what JT and I have told you about anecdotes) does not mean that this DGU was not one of the 1600 gun uses; it just means that that DGU happened; it does nothing to prove that there were between 1 and 2.5 million DGUs in this country in 2014.

[Michaels153]

[/color]

BTW I got the info here. I forgot to add the link in the original post https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/ ... 08350.html. Thank you.
You responded in your latest post that:

I hope the Huffington Post sends a reporter to interview the people present at the Issac Campbell Park shooting. Here is a recent example of a defensive gun use. DGU

The problem is that that does nothing for your argument. I should have been clearer about what i was trying to point out. The Huffington Post pointed out that gun owners are not prone to use their weapon for their own defense.
I was thinking that the people in that park were probably very grateful that this gun owner pulled his weapon out and used it to protect them. I don't think this crowd (if interviewed) were concerned about that gun owners are not prone to pull their weapon to protect themselves. I also would have liked a reporter to report what kind of weapon was used to defend those people in the park! I would then like to use that information to compare it to Senator Feinstein's proposed list of guns to ban. The Left always reports on what kind of weapon was used in a deadly shooting. But why is it so hard to find out what weapon was used to protect and save lives? police report was filed.
Again i find it interesting your sole focus on Kleck and Getz while you ignore all the other studies, including the CDC which you quoted from. And some of those studies had higher numbers.

So your anecdote from Fox (remember what JT and I have told you about anecdotes) does not mean that this DGU was not one of the 1600 gun uses; it just means that that DGU happened; it does nothing to prove that there were between 1 and 2.5 million DGUs in this country in 2014.[/quote]

My anecdote was just a timely piece of evidence for our recent discussions on DGU's. I am not trying to prove what i and countless others including the CDC have accepted as fact.
It is you and Hemenway who question their findings.
But to reasonable people who see that the findings of Kleck and Getz are supported in other studies, i dont have a problem with it.

[leftyg]

My anecdote was just a timely piece of evidence for our recent discussions on DGU's. I am not trying to prove what i and countless others including the CDC have accepted as fact.
It is you and Hemenway who question their findings.
But to reasonable people who see that the findings of Kleck and Getz are supported in other studies, i dont have a problem with it.

It was a good anecdote and it shows that guns can work in the right hands. But it does not show that there were between 1-2,5 million DGU's a year in the United States. It proved that guy at a park used a gun and that evidently he knew how to use it.

The fact remains that the best actual numbers on DGU's are about 1600 a year and this well could be one of them.

[Michaels153]

With less than 1/6th the population of the United States, South Africa has both a higher intentional homicide rate, and more intentional homicides than the United States. The following article brings up some more interesting statistics and issues .

https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2018/08/10/you-wont-believe-what-obama-did-in-south-africa-n2508429
You Won't Believe What Obama Did in South Africa
By Wayne Allyn Root - August 10, 2018

Do you know what Obama did in South Africa? ...
This is (as Obama would say) a "teachable moment."

Ninety-plus percent of President Trump’s coverage by the U.S. mainstream media is negative. Terribly negative. Horribly negative. Remarkably negative. That same media adores and idolizes former President Obama. The difference in the way they are treated is remarkable.

Remember it was Obama who first separated illegal alien parents from children. The media said nothing. JuicedTruth, did you consider this to be "divisive" when President Obama did this? When Trump did it, he was a “Nazi” and racist. Suddenly it was compared to the Holocaust.

Remember when Obama used the IRS to go after conservative groups and conservative critics? JuicedTruth, did you consider this to be "divisive" when President Obama did this? I'm a witness. Obama's IRS tried to destroy my life. Judicial Watch proved it was a political witch-hunt based on my conservative political beliefs. I was targeted, intimidated and persecuted because I'm a conservative. Judicial Watch can prove it. The mainstream media didn't care. They refused to cover the story.

Can you even imagine if President Trump used the IRS to go after liberal critics, liberal groups, Black Lives Matter, or the NAACP? I can’t even imagine the protests, rioting, Million Man Marches and screams for the impeachment and prosecution of Trump. JuicedTruth, do you consider Black Lives Matter, the NAACP, ANTIFA to be "divisive"?

That brings me to one of the most incredible examples in the history of the U.S. media. It happened in South Africa two weeks ago. You're won't believe what Obama did. Nor will you believe the mainstream medias has chosen to cover it up. But they did.

Anyone remember apartheid? That was the political and economic system of South Africa that saw blacks purposely kept in misery and poverty by the white minority. It was illegal for blacks to own property. This was a horrible, inhumane, evil system. Americans of all races and political ideologies should have been offended and outraged by apartheid.

But are you aware South Africa has a new version of apartheid? I’ll bet you’re not. No one in the U.S. media has covered it. No headlines this time around. As a matter of fact, not a word. To my knowledge, only one national TV or radio host in the country has been exposing this terrible new apartheid for months on end- yours trulyOnly because in my second career as a business speaker, I’ve lectured on entrepreneurship all around the world. I’ve spoken a half dozen times in South Africa. I’ve given speeches in front of thousands in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durbin. I’ve gotten to know the people of South Africa. I’ve made many wonderful friends for life.

That’s why I’ve been aware for months of this new apartheid. But this time it’s human rights and civil rights violations by the black majority in South Africa. This time it’s blatant discrimination, racism, and hate crimes by the black majority. This time it’s legal for blacks to steal the land of whites. This time it’s blacks murdering whites with impunity.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and his ruling ANC (African National Congress) have made it legal to forcibly take land from white farmers and property owners. That was the first step.

Now comes the next radical step. The president and his Congress are changing the Constitution to allow the South African government to forcibly take any white person’s land, this time without any compensation. Pure theft. Because of the color of their skin, white families are left in poverty. Left homeless. Left without a livelihood.


Worse, the president and several of his political allies have threatened to murder white property owners who refuse to hand over their property. They actually said they have no plans at the moment for a “genocide.” The inference being that if white farmers and property owners put up a fight, the next step will be a genocide.

An emboldened citizenry is already taking matters into its own hands. A UK newspaper reports one white farmer is murdered every five days in South Africa. Hundreds of white land owners have been killed or badly injured in mob attacks since 2016.

Yet the world says nothing. The media says nothing. Politicians say nothing. Hollywood celebrities say nothing. There are no protests, or calls for boycotts. Hard to believe.

Enter Obama. The former U.S. president recently accepted a speech in South Africa. He undoubtedly collected a fortune for that speech. That's called "blood money." Obama was paid with money tainted by racism, theft and murder. How badly does an ex-president need money? Why would he accept this money?

Worse, he didn’t use that platform to say a word about the new apartheid. [color=#FF0000]President Trump was supposed to use Helsinki as his platform to run down Putin, But Obama can ignore the new apartheid in South Africa which has a higher intentional homicide rate and a higher homicide count (including one White farmer every five days), than the United States.

Worse yet, he stood on that stage next to the president of South Africa, lending him credibility.

Then, worst of all, he praised the president who presides over a country stealing white-owned land, murdering whites and threatening genocide.

This could be the most disgraceful speech ever by a former U.S. president. Yet the media said nothing.

President Trump calls Don Lemon of CNN "dumb" on Twitter. (or he responds to Lebron James) It creates a media firestorm. Trump "must be a racist."

Obama praises the president of a nation murdering and robbing white people because of their race. No one says a word.

What Obama did in South Africa should the biggest news in America. The fact that you never even heard about it tells you everything about the fraud, deceit and fake news of the mainstream media.

[leftyg]

The problem with South Africa is intense poverty of a kind we cannot even fathom. They have the highest income inequality of any country on the planet https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indica ... I/rankings Chances are these murdered white farmers are merely expressions of that. If you notice, South Africa also has a much higher murder rate that we have 34.27 to 4.88 https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/mur ... untry.html

Anyone who denies that great income inequality is behind the deaths of these farmers and others is just kidding themselves. It is not the only factor, but it is a major player. Notice the low gini index countries, nations with the least income inequality have virtually no murders. Look at the two lists before you comment back to me. I will tell you this: compared to poverty and hopelessness, actually having a gun is a relatively small driver of violence. But unless you just look at the lists first and notice the same countries at the top, you are being dishonest with yourself. It is not black racism that is driving these killings; it is hopeless and grinding poverty.

[Michaels153]

The problem with South Africa is intense poverty of a kind we cannot even fathom. They have the highest income inequality of any country on the planet https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indica ... I/rankings Chances are these murdered white farmers are merely expressions of that. If you notice, South Africa also has a much higher murder rate that we have 34.27 to 4.88 https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/mur ... untry.html

Anyone who denies that great income inequality is behind the deaths of these farmers and others is just kidding themselves. It is not the only factor, but it is a major player. Notice the low gini index countries, nations with the least income inequality have virtually no murders. Look at the two lists before you comment back to me. I will tell you this: compared to poverty and hopelessness, actually having a gun is a relatively small driver of violence. But unless you just look at the lists first and notice the same countries at the top, you are being dishonest with yourself. It is not black racism that is driving these killings; it is hopeless and grinding poverty.

I agree with you Leftyg. Poverty and hoplessness outweigh the racist nature of South Africa. We have seen this pattern before in Zimbabwe. And the desperation of the poor has led to the shrinking of the rain forests where farmers seek Arable land. But not to dismiss any of this, there are issues here that since we have seen before should not be ignored as Obama just did. While you can acknowledge levels of poverty and crime you cannot ignore the fact that there are poor countries that do not have the same levels of crime. The gini index can be low at both extremes. A relatively poor country can have low income inequality because basically the mass of people living there have had very little income. The paradox here is when comparing a poor to a rich country with both low gini index rankings we ask ourselves what is the value of such an index. While in a country that has a higher gini index, the truth is that within that level of income inequality there are also (generally) greater resources within that country to help the poor and struggling. Which would suggest that a larger gini index is more beneficial than a lower one where "equality" is not necessary beneficial.
Along with these benchmarks, population density is also a "major player' in addressing crime. When it is apparent that there are more crimes in large cities, liberal policies exacerbate crime levels with unrestricted "open door" immigration policies, sanctuary cities and when enacting or maintaining strict gun control laws (Chicago)
While working on addressing poverty, remember what you just said about South Africa and what we have seen before most notably in Zimbabwe. Allow people to legally choose what they consider to be the best means for themselves to protect them and their families. All of the gun control advocates have gotten everything they asked for in Chicago, and it is not working.
Those were two good sources that you provided.

[leftyg]

agree with you Leftyg. Poverty and hoplessness outweigh the racist nature of South Africa. We have seen this pattern before in Zimbabwe. And the desperation of the poor has led to the shrinking of the rain forests where farmers seek Arable land. But not to dismiss any of this, there are issues here that since we have seen before should not be ignored as Obama just did. While you can acknowledge levels of poverty and crime you cannot ignore the fact that there are poor countries that do not have the same levels of crime. The gini index can be low at both extremes. A relatively poor country can have low income inequality because basically the mass of people living there have had very little income. The paradox here is when comparing a poor to a rich country with both low gini index rankings we ask ourselves what is the value of such an index. While in a country that has a higher gini index, the truth is that within that level of income inequality there are also (generally) greater resources within that country to help the poor and struggling. Which would suggest that a larger gini index is more beneficial than a lower one where "equality" is not necessary beneficial.
Along with these benchmarks, population density is also a "major player' in addressing crime. When it is apparent that there are more crimes in large cities, liberal policies exacerbate crime levels with unrestricted "open door" immigration policies, sanctuary cities and when enacting or maintaining strict gun control laws (Chicago)
While working on addressing poverty, remember what you just said about South Africa and what we have seen before most notably in Zimbabwe. Allow people to legally choose what they consider to be the best means for themselves to protect them and their families. All of the gun control advocates have gotten everything they asked for in Chicago, and it is not working.
Those were two good sources that you provided.

I think you are right. Again it is not so much guns: they make a difference when you get rid of the other problems, chief among them probably being poverty.

But back to income inequality, you are absolutely right: a very poor country can have a very low gini index because everybody is broke. Most rich countries have gini idexes between 25-40. Oligarchies and plutocracies have gini indexes in the high 40s to low 60s, like South Africa. I think it is angry revolutionaries who are killing these farmers even though I do not know for sure.
If you look at Mexico, Honduras, Colombia, Venezuela, they all have really high gini idexes and really high murder rates.

Remember when I told you that you "cannot prove anything in social science." That is true simply because there are so many things that impact any outcome, it is impossible to cite one thing as the cause. That is why getting bogged down in the gun issue is a problem. I believe it is a cause, but not like grinding poverty and other causes that would turn this post into a book. But our murder rate, as a country, is high compared to the twenty so nations on earth that have comparable economic development to ours but who generally have stricter gun laws. Remember we have 4.88 murders per 100 thousand: those countries range from 1.95 in Belgium to .31 in Japan. Ours is hardly the 108 per 100 thousand in El Salvador.

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2018/08/15/enoughs-enough-n2509315
Enough's Enough
By Walter E. Williams |Posted: Aug 15, 2018

During the weekend of Aug. 4-5 (and the preceding Friday night), 12 Chicagoans were shot dead, and 62 others were shot and wounded, the Chicago Tribune reported. Before last week's mayhem, 1,718 Chicagoans had been shot since the beginning of the year, and 306 had been murdered. Adding to this tragedy is the fact that Chicago's clearance rate is less than 15 percent. That means that in more than 85 percent of Chicago's homicides, no suspect is charged. Chicago is by no means unique in this lawlessness. Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, St. Louis and some other major cities share high rates of homicides.

It's not just shootings and homicides that negatively impact the overwhelmingly law-abiding black residents of these cities. In addition, there are sky-high rates of burglaries, rapes and property destruction. The schools are notoriously bad. City budgets face shortfalls. Residents deal with deteriorating city services. All of this causes mass exoduses from these cities by their most capable people. And passing another lifetime mortgage tax to pay for just one unfunded pension plan for the unions didn't help slow down the mass exodus from the state.

Ordinary decency demands that something be done to address the horrible conditions under which so many black Americans live. White liberals, black politicians and sports figures focus most of their attention on what the police do, but how relevant is that to the overall tragedy? According to Washington Post data, as of July 9, 626 people had been shot and killed by police this year. Of that number, 114 were black. Last year, 987 people were shot and killed by police, of which 223 were black. To put police shootings in a bit of perspective, in Chicago alone in 2017, there were 674 homicides, almost 80 percent of whose victims were black. It would appear that if one is truly concerned about black deaths, shootings by police should figure way down on one's list -- which is not to excuse bad behavior by some police officers.Would getting more blacks and Democrats in political office help? It turns out that of the Chicago City Council's 50 aldermen, only one is Republican. One is an independent. Forty-eight aldermen are Democrats, and 19 are black. In fact, most of the cities where large segments of their black citizenry live under horrible conditions have been controlled by Democrats for nearly a half-century, and there are many blacks on the instruments of control, such as chiefs of police, superintendents of schools and members of city councils. If Democratic and black control meant anything, these cities would be paradises. But the problem here is that there is one Republican on Chicago's City Council. That is the thorn in the city's side. That is what is holding this city back from reaching Utopia.
Just as long as Chicago does not listen to people like Wayne LaPierre, or Lt. Colonel Oliver North, they will be all right. Just keep Rahm there, And pass the next gun control law that says that guns will not be used for killing with two exclamation points at the end of the law, then they will get everything under control.

How helpful to these desperate black communities are the efforts of so many black politicians to focus on allegations about President Donald Trump's ties to Russia? Maxine Waters will tell you that the only problem facing the United States today is President Trump. As long as Democrats keep sending in their money to the DNC, everything will be okay. Just ask Maxine and the rest of the DNC if you don't believe me. They will tell you. Go ahead and ask them.The leader of the movement to impeach Trump is Rep. Maxine Waters. Her congressional district suffers from high crime rates and failing schools. She, like most other black politicians, claims that she is helping her constituency by doing all she can to fight to get more taxpayer money to her district.

More money from taxpayers could not fix the problems of these communities. Over the past 50 years, more than $16 trillion has been spent on poverty programs. The majority of those programs have simply made poverty more comfortable by giving poor people more food, health care, housing, etc. What's needed most is to get poor people to change their behavior. Chief among the modifications is reducing female-headed households. Female-headed households produce most of our prison inmates, the highest crime rates and disproportionate numbers of high school dropouts and suicides. These devastating factors are far beyond the capacity of Washington to fix.The only people who can fix these problems are black people themselves. Black athletes could be far more productive by going to schools and community centers to encourage constructive behavior and shaming self-destructive behavior. Support should be given to police to stop criminals from preying on communities. Nongovernmental local groups should be encouraged to play greater roles.

It's a challenge, but keep in mind that black people had the intestinal fortitude to lead the world's greatest civil rights movement through some very dark days from 1865 to 1965. I believe that we're up to the challenge. What would help is to have another great conservative Republican leader like Martin Luther King Jr.organizing the people to overcome these challenges. Maybe someone like J.C. Watts Jr.

If we wait for Washington to solve our problems, we'll be waiting for a long time. [color=#FF0000]And if Chicago waits for Liberal Democrats to fix this problem, it will never get fixed.[/color]

[Michaels153]

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/13/former-gun-control-candidate-charged-shooting-campaign-treasurer/
Former Gun Control Candidate Charged With Shooting Her Campaign Treasurer
The former pro-gun control candidate has been charged with murdering her campaign treasurer with a gun.
AUGUST 13, 2018 By Juliana Knot

Kellie Collins, a former congressional candidate in Georgia’s 10th District, was charged with the murder of her former campaign treasurer, Curtis Cain. The allegations of murder follow Collins’ advocacy for “responsible” gun control laws during her campaign. WSB-TV reports that she argued for stricter legislation “to protect the community.”

Police found Cain’s body in Collins’s apartment with a gunshot wound. Cain did not come in to work last Tuesday, prompting deputies to check in on him. Police estimated that he was dead for roughly a week.

Collins turned herself in to police on Saturday, shortly after the body was found. The two were reportedly living together and may have been married.

Collins ran as a Democrat against Republican incumbent Rep. Jody Hice. In an interview, Collins said, “The GOP is targeting all women, minorities, members of the LGBT community and disabled people as lesser sections of society and you can see it in the bills they have passed and are attempting to pass so far in 2017.”

Collins also called President Trump an “unqualified demagogue” and was a proponent of socialized health care.

Collins dropped out of the race in 2017, a year before the charges, citing personal reasons. In addition to murder charges, police charged Collins with grand larceny after Cain’s Subaru Legacy was reported missing.

[leftyg]

Michaels you do realize that you have offered a perfect argument against guns. I mean if a person who is an advocate for gun control kills somebody, what hope is there for a right wing gunslinger who wants to kill a brigand standing his ground, a thug like George Zimmerman.

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/08/18/judge-rules-in-favor-of-gun-rights-groups-tosses-out-controversial-ballot-initiative-n2510847
Judge Rules In Favor of Gun Rights Groups, Tosses Out Controversial Ballot Initiative
By Beth Bauman - August 18,2018

Gun rights groups in Washington State have spent the last few months fighting gun control ballot initiative I-1639 which would create stricter gun laws. A Thurston County Superior Court judge on Friday, however, ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The judge ordered a writ of mandamus to prevent I-1639 from appearing on the November ballot.

...

SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb previously told Townhall that I-1639's signature petitions "failed to underline new law and strike through removed law so that the reader could not know the current law, added law and subtracted law."

Judge James Dixon, who ruled in the case, was very clear about his position. “Frankly, this court does not struggle with this issue,” Dixon said. The law, he said, requires that petitions “must have a readable, full, true, correct copy of the proposed measure.”

[Michaels153]

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/08/17/courts-smack-challenge-georgias-campus-carry-law/
Courts Smack Down Challenge Of Georgia’s Campus Carry Law
Posted at 8:30 am on August 17, 2018 by Tom Knighton

School campuses have been gun-free zones in most states for years now. Despite that status–or because of it–college campuses have been the target of shootings more than once. It seems that gun-free status doesn’t stop attacks from happening, it just disarms people who might be able to prevent them.

Additionally, disarming students means they’re disarmed too and from school as well, and that makes them prime targets for criminals. Especially when they know those students can’t be armed.

Because of all these factors, among others, many states have been repealing their laws banning guns on school campuses. One of those states is my home state of Georgia.

Now, the Georgia law has survived its first real legal challenge.

Fulton County Judge Kimberly Esmond Adams last week denied an injunction requested by the educators in a challenge that has been pending in the court for almost a year. Going against arguments voiced by the professors that they should be able to bar guns from their classes for various reasons, Adams rejected the case citing the defendants

[leftyg]

If only the first amendment had half the cache with conservatives the second amendment had.

And I still do not understand how a person who claims to be a Christian loves guns so damn much.

[NewtonLan]

To be fair, loving guns and being a Christian isn't mutually exclusive. You can have a gun and not violate any of the commandments. But I can see your point to a degree.

[Michaels153]

Welcome to the discussion NewtonLan. Your very diplomatic. Your point is correct. Leftyg never thought that the two do not need to be mutually exclusive. My posts here support the theme of this thread.
I do not love my weapons. As far as inanimate material objects are concerned, it would be more accurate to say that I love my television (if you had to use the word love in the description). I certainly get more use out of my television, and it does not require anywhere near the maintenance of my weapons.

[JuicedTruth]

I took CCW classes a few years ago. Even though the instructors try and teach responsible ownership, the number of people in my class who were almost hoping for someone to break into their house so they could shoot them was disturbing. I don't know what the makeup is, as I certainly know plenty of people who are more concerned with their lives than shooting people, but there seems to be a segment of gun nuts who REALLY want to shoot someone.

[leftyg]

To be fair, loving guns and being a Christian isn't mutually exclusive. You can have a gun and not violate any of the commandments. But I can see your point to a degree.

You are absolutely right. I ws just trying to bait Michaels into a response I consider him my best frenemy. Without him to violate all the rules of my world, I don't know what I would do. And by the way it is very nice to hear from a new voice. Don't be shy about commenting .

[Michaels153]

I took CCW classes a few years ago. Even though the instructors try and teach responsible ownership, the number of people in my class who were almost hoping for someone to break into their house so they could shoot them was disturbing. I don't know what the makeup is, as I certainly know plenty of people who are more concerned with their lives than shooting people, but there seems to be a segment of gun nuts who REALLY want to shoot someone.

Can't disagree with you here JuicedTruth. I don't try to keep a mental log of how many people I have come across at ranges or classes who make comments like that. I remember brushing off the comments to some naivete or immaturity, even false bravado. But it doesn't seem to stop. It seems like there are replacements for every generation, and that is disturbing.
What is also disturbing is the number of people in these beginner classes or seeking proficiency at a range so they can get an armed security job. Now I am not talking about Police or security who have to requalify because they do have to practice to maintain their proficiency. I am referring to conversations of people who are just seeking to make more money and this seems to them to be an easy way, or worse, there are some people who just want a job so they can carry a gun with them all the time.

[leftyg]

A couple of weeks ago Michaels, you put up a dangerous meme about South Africa on this thread. The gist of it was in this statement in caps:
An emboldened citizenry is already taking matters into its own hands. A UK newspaper reports one white farmer is murdered every five days in South Africa. Hundreds of white land owners have been killed or badly injured in mob attacks since 2016.


Snopes writes

On 22 August 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted criticism of the South African government for their plans to redistribute land to black South Africans who were institutionally disenfranchised under that country’s apartheid system:

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump

I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers. “South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.” @TuckerCarlson @FoxNews

10:28 PM - Aug 22, 2018
131K
91.7K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Snopes calss this [color=#BF0000]false X
[/color]https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-farmers-south-africa/

Snopes explains that:

The “large scale killings” phrase included in Trump’s tweet was an invocation of “white genocide,” a conspiracy theory popular among white supremacists who have for years been attempting to advance the baseless claim that white South African farmers are being systematically murdered en masse. It is an idea that until now has existed mainly on the fringes, fostered by proponents including white nationalist and former Klansman David Duke — who jubilantly responded to Trump’s tweet:

David Duke responded:

Russia has already agreed to take in 15,000 White South Africans—your move, Mr. President.

Thank you!

See what you started Michaels. You spread a racist meme on the internet

[Michaels153]

Alexa: Mr. Michaels, Leftyg has added a response to your Gun control ideas crumbled when researched thread.
Michaels: Alexa, is the mop in the closet?
Alexa: Yes.
Mihaels: Thank you Alexa, that will be all for now.

Leftyg, Only a liberal would consider my post to be a meme. And calling it a dangerous meme would fit your penchant for trying to characterize conservatives as being irresponsible.
https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2018/08/10/you-wont-believe-what-obama-did-in-south-africa-n2508429
The column by Wayne Allyn Root in Townhall- You wont believe What Obama did in South Africa" did not contain any quotes from President Trump. Nevertheless, you took the opportunity to
look for what President Trump had to say on the matter and then you went to Snopes to find out what they had to say on President Trump's comments.
The commentary that followed from Snopes explains how they look to interpret anything from President Trump as a negative.
Snopes went on to focus on the words "Large scale killings" phrase" from one of President Trump's tweets, and SURPRISE SURPRISE (my Gomer Pyle impersonation here). Snopes concluded that the phrase was false. Hmmmmmm. Snopes concluded that a qualifying, subjective phrase was false.
From Wikipedia:

A November 2017 analysis by the BBC found that there is insufficient data to estimate a murder rate for South African farmers.[3] Between 1994 and March 2012, there had been 361,015 murders in all of South Africa and between 1990 and March 2012, there had been an estimated 1,544 murders on South African farms of which 208 of the victims were black.[14]

So the BBC found that there was insufficient data to estimate a murder rate for South African farmers. But Snopes believes it has sufficient data to conclude that the "Large scale killings" phrase is false. Yet statistically, with 1/6th the population of the United States, South Africa has both a higher intentional homicide rate and more intentional homicides than the United States. And as you pointed out, their murder rate is 34.27 to our 4.88. Now I think that South Africa's murders do amount to large scale killings, and I think most people (except Snopes) would agree.
...

The last government analysis of farm attack victims by race was conducted in 2001. In 2001, the year with the highest number of recorded attacks,[13] the police's Crime Information Analysis Centre stated that of the 1,398 people attacked on farms, 61.6% were white, 33.3% were black, 4.4% were Asian and 0.7% were listed as "Other",...Racial statistics around crime are no longer collected by the South African government.[16] In January 2015, AfriForum reported that there had been an increase in farm attacks and murders in the previous five years.[17]

Wikipedia has the footnotes to the statistics, (the facts of the killings). I did not find any reference to these statistics as being part of a "conspiracy theory" that Snopes attributed the "large scale killings" phrase to. There was none of that narrative, nor were their any references to David Dukes. But while you are in the gutter, your close to the sewers, so keep looking Leftyg. Obviously your not affected by the smell of your own garbage anymore.

[leftyg]

You quote Snopes:

A November 2017 analysis by the BBC found that there is insufficient data to estimate a murder rate for South African farmers.[3] Between 1994 and March 2012, there had been 361,015 murders in all of South Africa and between 1990 and March 2012, there had been an estimated 1,544 murders on South African farms of which 208 of the victims were black.[14]

Then if there is insufficient data, that means you cannot allege a race war going on, because there is insufficient data. You see Michaels, that is typical of your side. You toss out an allegation and if it is insufficient to prove, you (meaning a liberal) cannot attack it. It is dangerous to say things like that because it lends itself to race warfare. I put up something dreadful Bob Frantz said about the fellow who killed Mollie Tibbets in Iowa.

The onus is on Trump, Wayne Allen Root and Tucker Carlson for spreading this. It is not a liberals obligation to prove that there is no race war going on in South Africa; it is a conservatives obligation to prove there is, and there is just so much killing and so much poverty going on that that is impossible to deduce a racial motive .

In fact the number of killings has gone down dramatically from its high in 1998 when it was 153. This article states:

After a peak in 2001/2002, the number of farm attacks—rape, robbery and other forms of violent crime short of murder—has decreased to about half. Similarly, the number of murders on farms peaked in 1997/1998 at 153, but today that number is below 50. The South African Agricultural Industry, AgriSA, released a report in the hope that a sober look at the numbers would lead to a practical solution in rural South Africa—despite it having become an international hot-button issue. The AgriSA report avoids the racial aspect of the conversation by not differentiating the races of the victims of farm murders and attacks.

https://qz.com/africa/1297437/farm-murd ... frikaners/

So it is up to your side. And the Good Lord never said "Blerssed are the warmongers for they shall be called children of God."

Unless your evidence is much harder, that just will not do. President Trump should be ashamed that he listened to Tucker Carlson and not to the CIA or the State Department. And Wayne Allen Root and Tucker Carlson should not have said what they said with the quality of evidence that they had.

Wikipedia has the footnotes to the statistics, (the facts of the killings). I did not find any reference to these statistics as being part of a "conspiracy theory" that Snopes attributed the "large scale killings" phrase to. There was none of that narrative, nor were their any references to David Dukes. But while you are in the gutter, your close to the sewers, so keep looking Leftyg. Obviously your not affected by the smell of your own garbage anymore.


The fact that this conversation is going on is proof of a conspriacy. This meme has spread without evidence to support it. Racism is not a good look for an American, more less a Christian.

[Michaels153]

You quote Snopes: I referred to Snopes, but the quote from below came from Wikipedia

A November 2017 analysis by the BBC found that there is insufficient data to estimate a murder rate for South African farmers.[3] Between 1994 and March 2012, there had been 361,015 murders in all of South Africa and between 1990 and March 2012, there had been an estimated 1,544 murders on South African farms of which 208 of the victims were black.[14]

Then if there is insufficient data, that means you cannot allege a race war going on, because there is insufficient data. That is the key here Leftyg. I did not talk about Race. I did not make an allegation about a Race war. President Trump did not talk about Race, and President Trump did not make an allegation about a Race war. Go back to what I posted. President Trump tweeted this:

I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large-scale killing of farmers. “South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers

President Trump tweeted: "the large scale killing of farmers." He did not tweet about one race or another. He did not tweet about the large scale killing of White farmers. He did not tweet about the large scale killing of Black farmers. And yet Snopes followed up from that tweet with this narrative:

The “large scale killings” phrase included in Trump’s tweet was an invocation of “white genocide,” a conspiracy theory popular among white supremacists who have for years been attempting to advance the baseless claim that white South African farmers are being systematically murdered en masse. It is an idea that until now has existed mainly on the fringes, fostered by proponents including white nationalist and former Klansman David Duke — who jubilantly responded to Trump’s tweet:

And then Snopes goes on to focus on the phrase "large-scale killing". Without a definition on how they planned to evaluate what a Large-scale killing is, they proceed to conclude that the phrase is false. Without a definition of parameters the phrase cannot be objectively analyzed. The phrase then becomes a subjective interpretation.
But Snopes is the one who brought the "Race" angle into their interpretation of President Trump's tweet. That is why I included the knowledge that Racial statistics around crime are no longer collected by the South African government. So since President Trump did not tweet about large-scale killings by Race, and Racial statistics around crime are no longer collected by the South African government, where is Sopes going with an evaluation of the phrase Large-scale killings? Snopes could try to look at past statistics if they still wanted to maintain their focus on race. https://africacheck.org/factsheets/factsheet-statistics-farm-attacks-murders-sa/And the past statistics pre-date President Trump's term in office. So President Trump is not the founder of a meme on South African killings, nor has he been pushing any meme on the South African killings. Snopes did not try to break down available statistics of murders by vocation. So I do not know where the number of farm killings compares to the number of factory workers killed. Still, as I said, the number of farm killings seems to me to be on a large scale. And without a definition of what constitutes large scale, you can not honestly conclude the large-scale killings phrase to be false.

You see Lefty, that what is "typical on my side." is that we respond to the lies that you and your side make, like you did here, and we set the record straight. Once again you claimed that I did something that I did not.

If you are not obsessed with race, you certainly seem fixated on it. You look for it. You imported a lie on race and try to use that lie to smear me and President Trump. You see it (race/racism) everywhere even where it is not, like here in this thread.[/color]

When a Government, blames a particular segment of their society for problems that their country is facing, then those who have been identificed as being the problem, are going to be concerned about what may become of themselves. This has happened over and over again in history.

[Michaels153]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/23/betsy-devos-is-reportedly-considering-allowing-states-to-use-federal-funds-to-purchase-guns-for-teachers.html
Betsy DeVos is reportedly considering allowing states to use federal funds to purchase guns for teachers
By Tucker Higgins

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is mulling a plan that would allow states to use federal funds to purchase guns for teachers, The New York Times reports, citing multiple people with knowledge of the plan.

The plan would overturn the longstanding federal government policy of not paying for weapons in schools and would make use of a government program that makes no mention of providing firearms to teachers. That program, the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Program, is designed to increase access to education, improve conditions for learning and bolster digital literacy, according to a government website.

The Education Department would characterize the new plan as improving conditions for learning, basing that assessment on research it has conducted, the Times wrote.

DeVos could approve grant funding under the program to provide states or districts with funds for firearms. Congress passed a school safety bill in March that prohibited funding "for the provision to any person of a firearm or training in the use of a firearm." It could block the plan, but it would be required to clarify the language of the student support program or pass new legislation, according to the report.

A spokesperson for the department declined to confirm the report but said the agency is "constantly considering and evaluating policy issues, particularly issues related to school safety."

President Donald Trump has expressed his support for arming teachers. In February, following the deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, the president tweeted that armed teachers "love our students and will protect them."

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Armed Educators (and trusted people who work within a school) love our students and will protect them. Very smart people. Must be firearms adept & have annual training. Should get yearly bonus. Shootings will not happen again - a big & very inexpensive deterrent. Up to States.
DeVos said in March that arming teachers "should be an option for states and communities to consider" but noted that it should only be an option for those who are "capable."

What a turnaround. Giving teachers not only the option to be armed and carry their weapon in school but to extend financial help to them in the purchase of these weapons. There are already resources available to train teachers.

[leftyg]

Code: Select all

Betsy DeVos is reportedly considering allowing states to use federal funds to purchase guns for teachers


many people are reportedly allowing the surgeon general with the assist of HUD Secretary Carson to construct a brain for Betsy Devos. That is maybe the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Then you go on to say What a turnaround. Giving teachers not only the option to be armed and carry their weapon in school but to extend financial help to them in the purchase of these weapons. There are already resources available to train teachers. Actually there are not enough resources to train teachers. And you and others should take a college course in research methods focusing on how guns make us safer (they don't).

[leftyg]

That is the key here Leftyg. I did not talk about Race. I did not make an allegation about a Race war. President Trump did not talk about Race, and President Trump did not make an allegation about a Race war. Go back to what I posted. President Trump tweeted this:
I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large-scale killing of farmers. “South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers
President Trump tweeted: "the large scale killing of farmers." He did not tweet about one race or another. He did not tweet about the large scale killing of White farmers. He did not tweet about the large scale killing of Black farmers. And yet Snopes followed up from that tweet with this narrative:

The “large scale killings” phrase included in Trump’s tweet was an invocation of “white genocide,” a conspiracy theory popular among white supremacists who have for years been attempting to advance the baseless claim that white South African farmers are being systematically murdered en masse. It is an idea that until now has existed mainly on the fringes, fostered by proponents including white nationalist and former Klansman David Duke — who jubilantly responded to Trump’s tweet

If you read the tweet he said "white farmers." No Trump was probably unwittingly playing into this hysteria. He needs to shut up on twitter and he needs to listen to his experts and his intelligence apparatus that costs this country billions; And Fox News is questionable at best . Wayne Allen Root and Tucker Carlson no jackshit about jack.

You go on and say:

You see Lefty, that what is "typical on my side." is that we respond to the lies that you and your side make, like you did here, and we set the record straight. Once again you claimed that I did something that I did not.

I guess you are saying "my side makes lies." The problem is could you give a lie I have told? I do not drop them like confetti. I may say something once in a while that is not true. But I try to "make sure of all things" 1 Thessalonians 5:21. And accusing anybody of genocide, especially when it is their side that has been the victim of genocide is troubling. Tucker Carlson did it (I heard), Donald Trump did it ( I read the tweet) and Wayne Allen Root did it (I read the article you put up). So why are you pretending? This is bad stuff to get involved in and to spread on the internet.

Also, I almost did something similar and would have if my sister had not caught it. I was going to put up a meme that I got from a liberal Facebook page about Tim TeBow not being penalized for taking a knee during the national anthem. The source even showed TeBow on his knee. The problem was that it was not during the National Anther; it was during a random point in the game. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tim-t ... el-anthem/ But these things go viral and seem to have a life of their own. Just saying

[Michaels153]

Code: Select all

Betsy DeVos is reportedly considering allowing states to use federal funds to purchase guns for teachers


many people are reportedly allowing the surgeon general with the assist of HUD Secretary Carson to construct a brain for Betsy Devos. That's funny That is maybe the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Go back and read your own posts.Then you go on to say What a turnaround. Giving teachers not only the option to be armed and carry their weapon in school but to extend financial help to them in the purchase of these weapons. There are already resources available to train teachers. Actually there are not enough resources to train teachers. And you and others should take a college course in research methods focusing on how guns make us safer (they don't).

The turnaround is from the last administration that showed their support of the teachers by giving the teachers the "Promise Program" and intimidating them into not reporting students who violated school policies. The turnaround is coming from this administration that supported the idea of teachers arming themselves and then worked with teachers and school systems to make it a reality. The training that I referred to is in regards to weapons training that was being offered for free by some outside clubs and organizations. The price of weapons is relatively a large initial investment.
Since all teachers who would be willing to carry at work may not own their own weapon, purchasing weapons for them relieve them of this burden.

Took Research Methods. I already knew that guns make us safer before taking the course.

[Michaels153]

Leftyg: If you read the tweet he said "white farmers."

Here is the tweet:

I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large-scale killing of farmers. “South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers

I will now break down the tweet and what you referenced from Snopes.

The tweet has two parts. The first part contained the phrase "Large-scale killing" which is what Snopes focused upon and you referenced Snopes in your post:

Leftyg: Snopes calss this false X
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white ... th-africa/

Snopes explains that:
The “large scale killings” phrase included in Trump’s tweet...

The first part of the tweet, which is what Snopes focused upon, and which I responded to, did not reference race.

The second part of the tweet: "South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers."
[color=#FF0000]The second part of the tweet is not what Snopes focused upon.
Even though the second part of the tweet is not what Snopes focused upon, it is a statement of fact. If this was a racial statement, that is if President Trump were focusing only on the race of the issue, then that must mean that the South African Government is "now seizing land from white farmers and farmers from other races, but President Trump only wanted to focus on the land seizure of White farmers. Well that is not the case. It is not the case that this tweet was racist in nature. President Trump was concerned about the killings in South Africa and spoke out about it. President Trump has spoken out about the killings done by the MS-13 gang. President Trump has spoken out about the killings in Chicago.

So what is with your effort to make this tweet a racial issue by posting the Snopes reference?

[leftyg]

So what is with your effort to make this tweet a racial issue by posting the Snopes reference?

Yeah, I said the tweet was beneath the presidency, but then Trump is beneath the presidency. Look Trump tweets against MS 13 for political reasons just like he tweets about this. Do you realize that he doing tweets about things that are dog whistles to his base. It is all politics. Why was it ok for those white farmers to take land in South Africa and impose vicious laws that excluded blacks?

About the comment that my posts are stupid, I will take that as a compliment from you as a Trump supporter. You live in Bizarro World

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/08/28/ha-man-behind-the-3-d-printed-gun-debate-symbolically-flips-the-bird-to-gun-co-n2513898
HA! Man Behind The 3-D Printed Gun Debate Symbolically 'Flips The Bird' To Gun Control Advocates
Beth Baumann Beth Baumann - Posted: Aug 28, 2018

Before the ability to make 3-D printed guns came out a few years ago, people could make rifles and handguns on their own. The type of rifles and handguns that people could make lacked the sophistication of contemporary models but were still effective. Except for the novelty of the new 3-D guns, I did not pay much attention to this phenomena until John Lott's insight on how this could virtually end gun control. The 3-D gun was expected to be challenged in the courts and that will probably continue for some time, but the long-term effects of this are just beginning to be considered. No more opportunistic lawsuits on the manufacturer alledging negligence or complicity following a defensive gun use. Today, people can make their own guns much like somebody who goes to JoAnn Fabrics and gets a pattern to make their own clothes.

A U.S. District Court Judge on Monday ruled that Cody Wilson and his company, Defense Distributed, could not provide blueprints for 3-D printed guns. Wilson, however, has a different interpretation of the ruling. He believes that the judge's ruling said one thing: that he must charge to distribute his files.

"This judge's order for simply giving things away was only an authorization that we can sell it, that we can mail it, that would could email it, that we could provide it by secure transfer. I will be doing all of those things now." Wilson said during a press conference Tuesday morning. "A lot of this was about principle for me. For many years I simply chose not to sell these files because I'm an open source activist. I believe in demonstrating that there was a right to commit this information to the public domain. And so, for many years, I chose not to sell the files."

According to Wilson, his press conference was designed to correct media misinformation and headlines that state downloadable guns are now illegal, something Wilson said has never been the case.

"Everyone in America who wants the files will get the files," Wilson said. "They're allowed to name their own price on our website. Making the money isn't important to me."

"I'm happy now, at this point, to become the iTunes of downloadable guns..." Wilson said with a snicker.

"The Internet has largely spoken on this issue. They've decided that censorship is not something that will abide and certainly something that they can afford to correct," Wilson told reporters.

All money that is raised from people downloading the files will go towards Defense Distributed's lawsuits. Once the company reaches their fundraising goal of $400,000 Wilson will announce how they money is being utilized. Interestingly enough, about $100,000 of the $200,000 that the company has raised has come in the form of cryptocurrency.

Wilson plans to challenge the judge's order in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The best part of this entire debacle so far: gun control advocates think they can shut Wilson down and the "problem" will magically go away. They've severely underestimated pro-gun advocates and the Second Amendment community's desire to help our own.

When Wilson made it so people could purchase his files, he basically said one thing to those want to censor them: screw you and MOLON LABE!

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/columnists/bobbarr/2018/08/29/louisiana-fights-back-against-antisecond-amendment-banks-n2513796
Louisiana Fights Back Against Anti-Second Amendment Banks
By Bob Barr |Posted: Aug 29, 2018

When it comes to banning firearms in America, Leftists operate with a dark twist on a common aphorism; for them, “there is more than one way to skin the Second Amendment.” While Democrats have had marginal success stalling efforts by the GOP in Congress to pass much-needed firearm legislation (for example, the Hearing Protection Act and national reciprocity for concealed carry), not since Bill Clinton’s 1994 federal Assault Weapons Ban have they enjoyed any real legislative victories on gun control. Public opinion still favors protecting the Second Amendment from congressional interference, despite efforts by Democrats to turn every mass shooting into a political cause regardless of the circumstances or facts.

As a result, numerous attempts to pass gun control similar to that of the Clinton-era have been reduced to symbolism; failing to draw support from even some Democrats in states having majorities of Second Amendment-supporting voters.

This is not to say that Democrats have been completely ineffective in pursuing their gun-control agenda. President Barack Obama understood the futility of pushing Congress to pass openly gun-control legislation. Wisely, his administration focused primarily on what could be accomplished in the private sector, employing the regulatory powers at his disposal.

Thus, during the Obama years, agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation pressured non-government entities over which they had a degree of regulatory control to “choke” the manufacture, sale, distribution, and ownership of firearms. Lawful firearms businesses will remember “Operation Choke Point” as a clear abuse of the federal government’s regulatory power over financial institutions and part of a drive to choke off the ability of those businesses to engage in normal and necessary financial practices.

This abuse of government’s regulatory power remains a tactic even now being employed by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo against insurance companies with lawful ties to the National Rifle Association. Cuomo’s strategy is so blatantly unconstitutional that the American Civil Liberties Union, which rarely finds itself on the same side of a battle with the NRA, has joined in the fight against what Cuomo and his cohorts in Albany are doing.

Liberal activists have also grown wise to this private-sector approach, by bullying private corporations to adopt their anti-gun agenda. This strategy of shaming and bullying corporate America into embracing a left-wing political agenda was honed in the 1980s by Jesse Jackson, but that torch has been passed to a new generation of rabble-rousers, led now by the likes of the ego-centric high-schooler David Hogg and his anti-Second Amendment disciples.


It has been disheartening over the years to watch one corporation after another cave to left-wing histrionics about guns, and against the NRA in particular. But at last, someone is fighting back.

Earlier this month, the state of Louisiana’s Bond Commission, which manages the state’s debt, voted to prohibit contracts with banks that had denied funding to organizations supportive of the Second Amendment. By this action, Louisiana dropped both Bank of America and Citigroup from its pool of prospective underwriters of its public debt.

The Commission’s decision (by a 7 to 6 vote) followed an earlier move by Bank of America not to lend to manufacturers of “military-style rifles”; Citigroup had attempted to force its retail clients into adopting several practices demanded by gun control advocates. “The second amendment won and I’m damn proud of the Louisiana Bond Commission,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). “I can tell you this is going to go out nationwide, what our people have done, and we are going to take this fight to every state.”

Hopefully what the Louisiana Bond Commission has done will embolden other states to start using the tools at their disposal, to fight back against financial and other institutions operating in their states, when those corporations unfairly and improperly succumb to the Left’s anti-firearm agenda.

And, there is no need to limit such a strategy to matters relating to a state’s issuance of public bonds. State governments legitimately could prohibit its employees from traveling on airlines, patronizing car rental companies, lodging at hotels, or using government-issued credit cards at businesses that have caved to pressure from gun-control groups and taken steps against the NRA.

Liberals will, of course, cry foul and proclaim that such punitive measures are unreasonable and abusive. Seems to me it is simply giving the gun-control crowd a dose of its own medicine, and it is high time we started fighting back.

As a social worker and counselor for a social services agency, I had an occasion where an employee was giving poor advice that was not helpful to a resident. The gist of the story is that the resident had gotten into an argument with a teacher and disrespected that teacher. Instead of focusing on the negative behavior, the employee basically told the resident that he should not have disrespected this teacher because they shared the same race. When I confronted the employee on this, the employee threatened me and told me to mind my own business (counseling residents on school-related matters was my business). I then told the employee that because he had lost the argument he thought he could win it by physically intimidating me. (?) The incident ended at that point. But what the left has been doing by using financial intimidation tactics has not ended.

[leftyg]

Let me get this straight: banks have to lend to gun manufacturers, but bakers do not have to bake cakes for gay couples. That is why I am not a conservative. I thank God everyday for the cognitive skills to avoid that form of stupidity.

[Michaels153]

Let me get this straight: banks have to lend to gun manufacturers, but bakers do not have to bake cakes for gay couples. That is why I am not a conservative. I thank God everyday for the cognitive skills to avoid that form of stupidity.

You couldn't get things straight if a robot were guiding your arm with a mechanical ruler. You are not a conservative by choice. You're Left in a really tough position like a man without a country. You are too stupid to defend the liberal position when challenged, and you don't have the brains to be a conservative.

[leftyg]

You couldn't get things straight if a robot were guiding your arm with a mechanical ruler. You are not a conservative by choice. You're Left in a really tough position like a man without a country. You are too stupid to defend the liberal position when challenged, and you don't have the brains to be a conservative.

Michaels watch who you are calling stupid here. It appears to me that I am not the one who put up the lame post that supports the ruling that banks have to lend to gun manufacturers while I know you support a baker's right to not serve gay customers.

You are right, I do not have the brain to be a conservative. Thank God!

[Michaels153]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/01/study-claiming-us-is-home-one-third-mass-shooters-worldwide-debunked-figure-less-than-3-percent.html
Study claiming US is home of one-third of mass-shooters worldwide debunked; figure less than 3 percent
By Lukas Mikelionis

A widely-popularized study adopted by the Obama administration claiming the U.S. has by far the most mass public shooters in the world has been criticized and dismissed by new research.

John. R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of the new study, has always been skeptical of the research by Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama, whose work gained special prominence after then-President Barack Obama cited his study in remarks about the San Bernardino attack in December 2015.
Lott raised alarm bells that Lankford, who found that between 1966 and 2012 the U.S. had 31 percent of public mass shooters in the world despite accounting for less than five percent of the population, did not do diligent research and refused to be transparent about his work, including not sharing his paper with others as he started his media blitz tour promoting the study in 2015.

"Here’s an amazing thing, [Lankford] refuses to provide his list of cases, he refuses to explain exactly how he got it. This is not just some normal academic study – President Obama many times cited this study as a source for his claims."

- John. R. Lott Jr.

I can’t find any other academic research that’s gotten so much worldwide attention,” Lott told Fox News, adding that people across the world heard about the study.

Despite that, the study became go-to research across the media, with the New York Times and CNN frequently citing it. Just this Wednesday, liberal news site Vox referenced a CNN article that cited Lankford’s work.

Lankford declined an interview request about his study and told Fox News in an email that he’s “not interested in giving any serious thought to John Lott or his claims.”
With little success to stop the myth of mass shootings as a uniquely American problem becoming ingrained across the world, Lott took the matter into his own hands, releasing a comprehensive study this week that debunks Lankford’s claims.
fter crunching the numbers, Lott concluded in his study that the U.S. accounts for less than three percent of the world’s mass public shootings over a 15-year period – between 1998 and 2012 – which is significantly lower than what Lankford’s work has shown.
Lott said that he looked at the last 15 years rather than the last 47 years as Lankford did, because it’s nearly impossible to come up with perfectly accurate information about mass public shooters in, for example, Africa in the 1960s.

“My most conservative count is well over three thousand shooters over just the last 15 years. My best count is that there were 10,800 of these public mass shooters over the last 15 years,” Lott said.

Compare that with Lankford’s research, which found merely 292 mass public shooters over a 47-year period across the world, with 90 of those in the U.S., per his research.

Lott is committed to transparency about his study, listing every single case used in the research in a massive 451-page appendix of the study. He claims to have used the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database, complimented by additional search tools to find cases that weren’t listed in the dataset.

Of 1,491 mass public shootings reviewed by Lott, only 43 of those were in the U.S. This represents just 2.88 percent of all the cases. In per capita terms, the data put the U.S. below Finland, Norway or Switzerland. It’s still slightly higher than other Western countries such as France, Germany or the United Kingdom.
Lankford’s main conclusion of his data was that there’s something in the American culture that makes people commit more public mass shootings than people in other cultures.
This was a popular theme bandied about by liberals back then and still today. Lankford's work is one of the lowest forms of research. It is basically a position paper that was criticised when it first came out but never properly scrutinized until Lott presented his research disputing Lankford.

For Lott, the actual data shows that the mass shooter problem in the U.S. is far from being a unique American experience. His question remains how the media and a president was able to get away with pushing a botched study published in a “low-rank journal” despite criticism.

[leftyg]

Study claiming US is home of one-third of mass-shooters worldwide debunked; figure less than 3 percent

I don't think anybody has ever said the United States was home to one third of the mass shootings in the world (and I have not researched this yet); what they are saying is that we are home to one-third of mass shootings in Western Society, and it is probably higher than that. https://www.theatlas.com/charts/H1uCbtnwM

No, the people of South Africa and Central America and other poverty pockets around the world kill a lot more than we do, just as we kill more than other technologically advanced nations.

So the number of mass shootings is no surprise.

What surprises me is that Mr. Lott and you would make such a charge without providing the proper context. It is typical conservative trick

[Michaels153]

Study claiming US is home of one-third of mass-shooters worldwide debunked; figure less than 3 percent

I don't think anybody has ever said the United States was home to one third of the mass shootings in the world (and I have not researched this yet); what they are saying is that we are home to one-third of mass shootings in Western Society, and it is probably higher than that. https://www.theatlas.com/charts/H1uCbtnwM

No, the people of South Africa and Central America and other poverty pockets around the world kill a lot more than we do, just as we kill more than other technologically advanced nations.

So the number of mass shootings is no surprise.

What surprises me is that Mr. Lott and you would make such a charge without providing the proper context. It is typical conservative trick

What doesn't surprise me is that you admit that: 1) "and I have not researched this yet" - Yet that does not stop you from proclaiming that Mr. Lott and I " would make such a charge without providing the proper context". - No, you just make charges without doing the research, and without properly reading the article reference.
2) Lukas Mikelionis, the one who authored the column said in the title of the column that "Study claiming US is home of one-third of mass shooters world wide debunked. John Lott Jr. was quoted in the article as stating: "Lott raised alarm bells that Lankford, who found that between 1966-2012 the U.S. had 31 percent of public mass shooters in the world despite accounting for less than five percent of the population, did not do diligent research and refused to be transpaerent about his work, not sharing his papers with others as he started his media blitz tour promoting the study in 2015.

Here is a Newsweek article dated 8/23/15 https://www.newsweek.com/2015/09/11/study-sees-mass-shootings-exceptionally-american-problem-365260.html

...In other words, although the U.S. accounts for less than five percent of the world's population, it had 31 percent of mass shooting between 1966 and 2012.

John Lott Jr. is quoted at saying exactly what was reported in the Newsweek article.

3) You said

what they are saying is that we are home to one-third of mass shootings in Western Society,

The article referenced said: Study claiming US is home of one-third of mass-shooters worldwide NOT AS YOU SAID -> "in Western Society."
The Newsweek article said

Adam Lankford, a criminal justice professor at the University of Alabama, looks at the “dark side of American exceptionalism” in a new study to be presented Sunday at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association in Chicago. In Mass Shooters, Firearms, and Social Strains: A Global analysis of an exceptionally American problem.

Again, the article said "Global analysis" NOT WESTERN SOCIETY

In a CNN article published 10/5/17 I found this factoid:

And in the United States, there are 6.87 victims on average per incident. In the other 171 countries Lankford studied, the average was 8.8 victims per incident. https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/health/u-s-most-mass-shootings/index.html
Lankford said he thinks there are fewer people killed in these mass shootings in the United States because American police routinely train on how to deal with this kind of incident, even though it happens rarely compared with other kinds of crime.
"Police were slower to respond in other countries and were more likely to be ill prepared when they did respond," he said.

American Police trained with guns respond better to mass shootings than in the other 171 countries Lankford studied. - And remember, the United States arm their police with guns, not batons and pepper spray as the police in Ireland are armed.

This is the second time you questioned Mr. Lott Jr. And the second time you were wrong about him.
Here is a link for you https://crimeresearch.org/2018/02/with-39-killed-in-tunisia-attack-the-top-three-mass-public-shootings-are-outside-the-united-states/. Happy reading.

[leftyg]

The simple fact that I knew that the United States was not home to a third of the mass shootings to begin with says a lot. The information is out there for anyone to find. It is not rocket science. You like Wikipedia. Here is what they say about gun deaths;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

The only thing is that you have to define your terms about what is a mass shooting, about how many people have to die or be hurt. Unless there is an operational definition this all seems pretty fuzzy. I went back to the article and found the definition of a mass murderer as being one who kills four or more people. I also saw that it was from 171 countries and that the Philippines was second with 18 as compared to our 46. According to the Wikipedia article the Phillipines was 38th in homicides Perhaps all the countries with high homicide rates were merely excluded from the study which makes the study weak and dishonest.

You and I both know and have known that the problem the United States has is against our friends. We are at the top of that heap and that is what matters most. Conservatives hate to admit the link between poverty and crime and homicide in particular.

Here is a list of School shootings by country since 2009:
United States 288
Mexico 8
South Africa 6
India 5
Canada 2
France 2
Russia 1
Germany 1
Greece 1
China 1
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/schoo ... -vs-world/
Now this may be a bit afield of the conversation. But I think some stuff got fouled up here. I know that there are third world countries whose murder rate is far worse than ours, but I also know that no comparable country in the world is even close to us in our murder rate. I think some wires have gotten crossed.

[Michaels153]

The simple fact that I knew that the United States was not home to a third of the mass shootings to begin with says a lot. You throw yourself a bone when no one is taking your food away from you.The information is out there for anyone to find. Yes, that's true.It is not rocket science. True again.You like Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia for the most part because you, JuicedTruth, and the rest of of you libs do not seem to object so much when it is used.Here is what they say about gun deaths;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

The only thing is that you have to define your terms about what is a mass shooting, about how many people have to die or be hurt. AgreedUnless there is an operational definition this all seems pretty fuzzy. AgreedI went back to the article and found the definition of a mass murderer as being one who kills four or more people. I also saw that it was from 171 countries and that the Philippines was second with 18 as compared to our 46. According to the Wikipedia article the Phillipines was 38th in homicides Perhaps all the countries with high homicide rates were merely excluded from the study which makes the study weak and dishonest. I didn't catch that until you brought it to my attention. I did have questions here because Mr. Lankford left these questions hanging from his comments regarding his research. He said he used the FBI's definition of a mass shooting which is 4 or more. Then he throws out that in the United States there are 6.86 victims on average per incident compared to the other 171 countries where the average was of 8.8 victims per incident. I know that a victim is a victim but I would have liked a better explanation of victims in these crimes. How many people actually died at the scene? How many were actual intended targets by the shooter? Did anybody die as a result of a stray bullet from either the shooter or the police? //There was a re-examination of the data presented on school shootings in this country (I can't remember where I read it) but it disputed the number of school shootings because the crime suggested that all school shootings listed happened in the school while some happened after school was closed, or on the school grounds but not during the school week etc.
Since you and I both found questions regarding Mr. Lankford's research, we should not be surprised that Mr. Lott Jr. had questions as well. What is surprising is Mr. Lankford's lack of professional accountability and lack of transparency in sharing his research notes. That is inexcusable, and until he does share his notes, his protests, and uncooperative behavior towards Mr. Lott Jr. can not be viewed as anything other than a weak dodge. He has no "moral high ground" here, and lacks credibility when he says "he is not interested in giving any serious thought to John Lott or his claims."
,
You and I both know and have known that the problem the United States has is against our friends. We are at the top of that heap and that is what matters most. Conservatives hate to admit the link between poverty and crime and homicide in particular. Not true Leftyg. Conservatives, especially religious advocates have noted the link between poverty and crime, and homicide in particular since these things were first defined. Conservatives and Liberals pretty much agree with the definitions of these things. We just have different ideas as to how we should address them

Here is a list of School shootings by country since 2009:
United States 288
Mexico 8
South Africa 6
India 5
Canada 2
France 2
Russia 1
Germany 1
Greece 1
China 1
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/schoo ... -vs-world/
Now this may be a bit afield of the conversation. But I think some stuff got fouled up here. I know that there are third world countries whose murder rate is far worse than ours, but I also know that no comparable country in the world is even close to us in our murder rate. I think some wires have gotten crossed.

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/09/03/160-democrats-pen-letter-to-betsy-devos-urging-her-not-to-allocate-funds-for-n2515332
160 Democrats Pen Letter to Betsy DeVos Urging Her NOT To Allocate Funds For...
By Beth Baumann - Posted: Sep 03, 2018

Uh, Mr. Michaels153, if you could summarize this story in one word, what word would that be?
DISPICABLE.

More than 160 Democrats came together to present Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos with a letter demanding she prevents schools from using federal funding to purchase firearms or provide firearms training for teachers and school faculty.

And just how many signatures do you suppose that I could get from parents urging Secretary DeVos to use whatever funds were available to purchase firearms and provide firearms training for teachers and school faculty? I would bet that if the necessary effort were made to locate and poll the teachers in the United States, the majority of the teachers polled (not a sample) would be in favor of Secretary DeVos finding available money to purchase firearms and firearm training for teachers and school staff.

To suggest that this administration would break the law to fund things that they advocate goes beyond past precedent and imagination. This administration has patiently waited for the courts to settle up questions of law when it came to the travel restrictions that they sought. It was the previous administration, that lacked compunction whenever they freely dipped into government reserves to do whatever they felt like.
I would not place it beyond possibility for any of these Democrats to send a letter to a friend of theirs in the press, stating anonymously of course, that they believe that somebody in the administration was considering using certain funds specifically set aside for certain purposes to fund the firearms and firearm training for teachers and school staff.
But it would not be unethical for a governmental official to investigate all laws and funding sources when a new program or service was suggested to them.

I think these 160 + Democrats might be able to procure signatures in support of their position from MS-13 members, and representatives of the United States prison population.

...These Democrats say there's no "common sense" in arming teachers. We've tried their way before. We've tried reminding students to say something if they see something suspicious. But what keeps happening? School shootings. And what do we keep doing? That's right...absolutely. NOTHING.Isn't that the very definition of insanity? Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result?

Not only does this group of legislators lack any common sense but they were very assumptive in their position. Making the assumption that DeVos — an appointee of a president who has strong ties to the gun community — would come out against arming teachers is just flat out stupid.

Face it, Democrats. We've done things your way. We've put up signs that say schools are a "gun free zone." We've told kids to tell teachers or parents if they are suspicious of anyone and everyone. And gun control laws keep being crammed down our throat. But not a thing has changed.

Maybe it's time to admit, Liberals. You all don't know how to deal with mass shootings. It's time to stop calling for "solutions" that are proven to be utter failures and start looking at what the pro-gun community has been saying. After all, it's not about being right. It's about being safe. And protecting our greatest asset: America's future.

Whatever happened to all the cries of "It's all for the children." And, if we could save just one child then it would be worth it. And, we have to do something because something is better than doing nothing? Well, what happened to all that rhetoric?

[Michaels153]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6154699/South-Africa-close-war-zone-57-murders-day-minister.html
South Africa is 'close to a war zone' with 57 murders a DAY, says police minister
South Africa's police minister has compared the country to a 'war zone'
More than 20,300 people were killed from April 2017 to March 2018
The already high murder rate increased by seven per cent year-on-year
By AFP
PUBLISHED: 05:58 EDT, 11 September 2018 | UPDATED: 15:59 EDT, 11 September 2018

So what do you think South Africa is doing to address these Murders? If you guessed that they were going to declare their country as the first gun free country in the world, you would be wrong. If you guessed they were going to pass strict gun control laws - you would also be wrong. So what is South Africa planning to do?

South Africa is calling for the hiring of 62,000 police officiers, - WITH GUNS, to address this violence.

Presenting the figures to parliament, Norman Sekhukhune, the police official responsible for crime research and statistics, said murder rate had increased for the past six consecutive years.

South African police often come under fire for failing to bring down crime levels, while police chiefs saying they need at least 62,000 more officers.

[Michaels153]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/14/licensed-gun-owner-aids-illinois-cops-in-shootout-with-suspect-1-officer-injured.html
Licensed gun owner aids Illinois cops in shootout with suspect; 1 officer injured
By Louis Casiano | Fox News

A licensed gun owner was hailed Thursday for his role in helping police in suburban Chicago stop a suspect who was firing an automatic weapon, officials said.

Officials commended the unnamed civilian for his actions as they stood outside a hospital where Cicero police Officer Luis Duarte, 31, was undergoing surgery for four gunshot wounds suffered during the shootout, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.


Chicago Sun-Times
✔
@Suntimes
A man with a concealed-carry license was commended for coming to the aid of Cicero police who were engaged in a shootout with a man who shot and wounded an officer near the Stevenson Expressway, authorities said. @mitchtrout and @MHendricksonCST report.https://bit.ly/2QsMXXi

10:55 PM - Sep 13, 2018
“We were lucky enough to have a citizen on the street there’s who’s a concealed-carry holder, and he’s also engaged in gunfire,” said Cicero police Superintendent Jerry Chlada Jr.

“We were lucky enough to have a citizen on the street there’s who’s a concealed-carry holder, and he’s also engaged in gunfire.”

- Superintendent Jerry Chlada Jr., Cicero (Ill.) police
The chaos erupted just after 5 p.m. when Duarte, a four-year-veteran of the department, and his partner tried to pull over a vehicle in Cicero for a routine traffic stop. The driver instead took off onto a ramp leading to Interstate 55, in Chicago’s city limits.

The officers boxed the vehicle in traffic and the suspect got out and began firing the automatic weapon at them as he fled on foot, Fox 32 Chicago reported. The officers returned fire.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

FOX 32 News
✔
@fox32news
Cicero police officer shot, suspect in custody https://bit.ly/2p6PeuK @RaferWeigel reports

11:02 PM - Sep 13, 2018
6
See FOX 32 News's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The concealed-carry owner then got out of his vehicle and began shooting at the suspect.

“He got out and started helping the police, which is something I’ve got to be proud of,” Cicero town President Larry Dominick told the Sun-Times.

“He got out and started helping the police, which is something I’ve got to be proud of.”

- Cicero town President Larry Dominick
The suspect was hit once but it was not clear if the bullet came from the officers or the concealed-carry holder.

Duarte suffered wounds to an arm, a leg and his abdomen, but was talking and alert ahead of surgery, officials said.

The suspect was taken to a hospital and listed in serious condition. His weapon was found at the scene.

Educate. Dispel the myths. And people's behavior can be positively modified to accept and be more comfortable regarding concealed gun holders.
When I was much younger, I noticed that people around here were not very comfortable sharing the road with motorcycles and bicycles. When I started going down to Florida, I did not observe this. There were more motorcycles and bicycles on the streets, and drivers there did not seem as uncomfortable with them as they did back here in Ohio. It takes time to change comfort levels, and it took time for this country to become more comfortable about other issues as well. That is why it is important to share news like this so that people can become more comfortable with the knowledge of concealed carry holders.
I think I remember Wobbly sharing a story about how a community worked to take back their parks. I thought that the article and the news was inspiring. I hope that news like this can be comforting as well. The situation in Chicago is horrible, but people just can not give up and accept it. They have to work to save their communities. And they have to be willing to work with the police and to recognize that they can not succeed without the police.

[Michaels153]

https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/09/16/giffords-group-aims-to-flip-10-progun-congressional-districts-with-statues-depicting-gun-violence-n2519502
Here is an article about an ex congressional representative who has decided to embark on a voter registratrion drive in ten selected cities. You can go to the article and read it yourself. You can look for the "Paul Harvey's Rest Of The Story." But I am telling you the Good Housekeeping, Readers Digest summary of the most pertinent facts.
This ex-congressional representative did not include any district form the state that sent this person to Congress.
This voter registration drive is not being made to promote one of the chief civic duties of our Democratic society. No, this voter registration drive has ostensibly been started to promote gun control advocates to office.

...

According to former [Representative, too many children know the trauma of gun violence, which is what launched this statue campaign.

"Young people took this frustration and tapped into the proud American tradition of raising our voices. Now they are demanding action,"the ex-representative said in a statement. "I am proud of them for making it clear to the gun lobby and the NRA that we will no longer tolerate a world where politicians vote against the public safety of the communities they represent. Together we are organizing to bring gun safety champions to Congress this November so we can make real, meaningful changes to save lives.”

These are the ten districts targeted for the voter registration drives:
1) Parkland, Florida (FL-22), 2) Las Vegas, Nevada (NV-03), 3) Denver, Colorado (CO-6), 4) Minneapolis Minnesota (MN-03), 5) Irving, California (CA-45), 6) Milwaukee, Wisconsin (WI-01), 7) Houston, Texas (TX-07), 8) Sarasota, Florida (FL-16), 9)Spokane, Washington (WA-05), 10) Philadelphi, Pennsylvania (Pa-05, + Pa-06).
These ten districts must have "politicians that vote against the public safety of the communities they represent" Now the definition of voting against the public safety is simply voting against what this ex-representative defines as the public safety of the communities they represent. But conspicuously left out is any district from the state of Illinois, most notably Chicago, which must mean that this ex-representative thinks that the representatives of Chicago, and the state of Illinois are politicians that vote for the public safety of the communities they represent.
I will leave it to the reader to ascertain whether the representatives of Chicago and the state of Illinois vote for the safety of the communities they represent.

The ex-representative said: "I am proud of them (young people), making it clear to the gun lobby and the NRA...
In regards to Denver, Colorado district 6 the article says:

Congressman Mike Coffman, has positioned himself against any form of gun violence prevention. Rep. Coffman has the enthusiastic backing of the NRA for his support of concealed carry reciprocity and the loosening of restrictions on interstate gun sales. Congressman Coffman is running for re-election against gun safety champion Jason Crow.

Now note that Mr. Coffman is described on the one hand as positioning himself against any form of gun violence prevention, and yet in the very next sentence it says: Rep. Coffman has the enthusiastic backing of the NRA for his support of concealed carry reciprocity and the loosening of restriction on interstate gun sales....
In regards to Minneapolis Minnesota district 3 the article says:

Congressman Erik Paulsen, who represents Minneapolis, has received $20,000 from the NRA and has been a barrier to congressional efforts to take action to save lives.
In regards to Sarasota, Florida district 16

the article says: "Buchanan has repeatedly taken NRA money and has done the gun lobby’s bidding."

This ex-congressional representative and sympathizers that are portraying the NRA as a roadblock to the safety of communities do a disservice to the very communities that they act as advocates for.
The NRA has a long history of working for and supporting the public safety, including the safety of childern.

The National Rifle Association, a powerful force in state and national politics, says the best way to keep children from getting hurt by guns is to teach them what to do if they find a firearm.

At the heart of that effort is the Eddie Eagle GunSafe program, developed by a team of psychologists and educators in 1988. Eddie, a fictional character, teaches kids four gun safety steps: Stop! Don’t touch. Run away. Tell a grown-up.

The NRA launched the program in 63 Florida counties in 1989, winning praise from police departments and gun owners. The lesson continues to be used in parts of the state, including Pasco and Duval counties.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article134487764.html
And:
https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/09/15/heres-how-much-the-nra-spent-in-grants-to-support-school-security-projects-nationwide-n2519326
Here's How Much The NRA Spent In Grants To Support School Security Projects Nationwide

The NRA School Shield Program, which was designed to address "the many facets of school security, including best practices in security infrastructure, technology, personnel, training, and policy," on Monday provides 54 grants in 23 states. The grants totaled more than $600,000 and were awarded to both public and private K-12 educational institutions.

“The NRA is proud to be at a forefront of providing meaningful solutions to safeguard our nation’s schools,” NRA President Oliver North said in a statement. “Protecting our most precious resource – our children – with substantive measures that work should be the top priority for all Americans. Thanks to the generous support of NRA members, many schools will now have the necessary funding to enhance their security.”

The grant can be used to:
• Enhance and renovate their infrastructures.
• Implement access control and visitor management systems.
• Improve communications systems and emergency medicals kits.
• Perimeter fencing repairs and installation.
• Invest in life-saving training.

The NRA Shield Program is most known for its Security Assessor Training Program which creates a relationship between schools and local stakeholders to make schools more secure. At the end of the training, participants should be able to:
• Understand the role and responsibilities of a school security assessor
• Understand the difference between threat, vulnerability and risk assessments
• Identify potential threats and common vulnerabilities in the school environment
• Conduct a school vulnerability assessment based on industry best practices
• Discuss advantages of security personnel and SROs in the school environment
• Identify and communicate emerging best practices in school security

Instead of being a roadblock to safeguarding our schools and communities, the NRA has paid for and advocated for "Meaningful efforts" to protect our citizens. And the NRA has backed programs
such as the Eddie Eagle GunSafe program as well as programs to train teachers gun handling and marksmanship training.

[Michaels153]

The Gun Control Advocates Aren't Listening
https://townhall.com/columnists/davidharsanyi/2018/10/05/democrats-new-antigun-laws-are-also-an-attack-on-due-process-n2525584
By David Harsanyi
Posted: Oct 05, 2018

This collection of examples by Mr. Harsanyl, denotes, in no specific order, the current trends of the gun control advocates. While the column mentions Diane Feinstein and California laws, it could easily apply to gun control advocates of either party, anywhere. It also compares the differences in reasoning as strategically applied in other areas. The bottom line here is that the political approach of the gun control advocates has not changed, and continues in its practice of legislative action under the banner of "doing something" instead of designing meaningful measures that actually address what they consider problematic.

....Another area of American life where we continue to see egregious attacks on the presumption of innocence is gun ownership. You might remember that a couple of years ago, Democrats engaged in a much-covered congressional "sit-in" to support legislation that would have stripped Americans on secret government watchlists -- hundreds of thousands of people who had never been accused, much less convicted, of any crime -- of their constitutional right to bear arms.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in fact, proposed legislation that would have restricted not only American citizens on faulty watchlists but anyone who had been on any watchlist at any time during the previous five years and anyone who had traveled to select Middle Eastern countries. Apparently, Democrats believe limiting the number of refugees from Syria is unconstitutional but explicitly restricting the constitutional rights of Syrian immigrants here legally is just fine.

[Michaels153]

https://www.nratv.com/videos/stinchfield-tom-fitton-judicial-watch-filed-freedom-of-information-act-lawsuit-against-atf
Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records regarding the attempts by the Obama administration to ban ammo.
If you watch the video, or read the transcripts, you will find that Judicial watch has been given the runaround and delayed with efforts thus far to obtain this information. Mr. Fitton has been told by both parties that Obama was informed by members of both parties in congress that he could not ban the ammo in the way that he had tried, -> by redefining the ammo to place it basically off limits for most civilians.

[Michaels153]

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/10/30/did-you-hear-about-the-mass-shooting-at-mcdonalds/
Did You Hear About the Mass Shooting at McDonald’s?
October 30, 2018

RUSH: Did you hear about the mass shooting in McDonald’s on Saturday? You didn’t, did you? You know why? Because there wasn’t one, and you know why there wasn’t one? Because there was a guy in there with a gun that stopped it. You think I’m making this up? “A brave dad armed with a pistol stopped what could have been a mass shooting Saturday inside an Alabama McDonald’s when he took down a masked gunman who had stormed in and opened fire.
“The unidentified father was leaving the establishment with his sons when a masked man walked into the Birmingham fast-food restaurant and started shooting, WBRC-TV reported. The father returned fire and, during the ensuing shootout, the gunman, the father and one of the man’s teenage sons were struck, according to the station. The gunman, who was not identified, later died of his injuries. The other two injuries were not considered life-threatening.

“Markus Washington, one of the McDonald’s employees, told WBRC-TV he was making two quarter-pounders when bullets started to fly. Washington said he ran into the freezer, where he heard about 15 shots fired.” It was all brought to a screeching halt by a customer who legally was carrying a gun! You didn’t hear about this anywhere. Fox News has it on their website. But you didn’t hear about it anywhere.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/alabama-mcdonalds-gunman-killed-by-armed-dad-who-is-injured-in-shootout
Alabama McDonald's gunman killed by armed dad, who is injured in shootout
By Edmund DeMarche, Ryan Gaydos

....The gunman, who was not identified, later died of his injuries. The other two injuries were not considered life-threatening.

Markus Washington, one of the McDonald's employees, told WBRC-TV he was making two quarter-pounders when bullets started to fly. Washington said he ran into the freezer, where he heard about 15 shots fired. Maybe the left would like to argue about magazine sizes again?

“I’m feeling grateful,” he told the station. “Wrapping my head around it all, I was just wishing someone would come wake me up from this nightmare.”

Washington feared the worst as the shootout unfolded outside the freezer door.

“All we hear is like different gunfire, so in my mind, I’m imagining everybody is dead. He’s looking for us,” he said. Washington added he was thankful the armed customer was there."Wrapping my head around it all, I was just wishing someone would come wake me up from this nightmare."

— Markus Washington, McDonald's employee
“He’s my hero. Because I can only imagine how it would’ve went if he wasn’t armed. We might not be here having this interview,” Washington said.

The father is not expected to face charges, police said.

Remember what Leftyg said:
"Only poorly thought out anecdotal evidence confirms that guns help."
"The differences are staggering and the right's insistence that " the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun "is simply not supported by evidence."
"how full of shit gun advocates are when they say guns lead to fewer gun deaths: clearly they lead to more."

[leftyg]

Remember what Leftyg said:
"Only poorly thought out anecdotal evidence confirms that guns help."
"The differences are staggering and the right's insistence that " the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun "is simply not supported by evidence."
"how full of shit gun advocates are when they say guns lead to fewer gun deaths: clearly they lead to more."

Are you capable of understanding that anecdotes are not as good as data? Are you another Gwenyth Paltrow, a person who raves how something works when the evidence shows it does not? I would not be arrogant if I were you. We have more, not fewer, guns than other countries and more gun deaths by a wide margin. https://www.theatlas.com/charts/H1uCbtnw

Wouldn't it be wiser to adopt England's gun policies? After all they have 51 times fewer deaths than we do. Maybe they know something we do not.

Michaels do you realize how foolish you look? I say you use anecdotes rather than scientific evidence, so you use anecdotes over scientific evidence, and you gloat. Do you have the grey matter to understand that everything you wrote, which I quoted, confirms my point?

[Michaels153]

Remember what Leftyg said:
"Only poorly thought out anecdotal evidence confirms that guns help."
"The differences are staggering and the right's insistence that " the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun "is simply not supported by evidence."
"how full of shit gun advocates are when they say guns lead to fewer gun deaths: clearly they lead to more."

Are you capable of understanding that anecdotes are not as good as data? Are you incapable of understanding that behind every piece of data there is a story there.
What you revere are what can be summarized from the individual data points. Are you incapable of accepting the value of anecdotal evidence, which I would argue is the bedrock of our court system. Are you another Gwenyth Paltrow, a person who raves how something works when the evidence shows it does not? I would not be arrogant if I were you. We have more, not fewer, guns than other countries and more gun deaths by a wide margin. https://www.theatlas.com/charts/H1uCbtnw

Wouldn't it be wiser to adopt England's gun policies? After all they have 51 times fewer deaths than we do. Maybe they know something we do not. Do you remember the proverb that the grass is always greener on the other side. If we were to adopt England's gun policies, what would stop our country from experiencing a wave of alternative problems that they have experienced such as knife and acid attacks?

Michaels do you realize how foolish you look? I say you use anecdotes rather than scientific evidence, so you use anecdotes over scientific evidence, and you gloat. Do you have the grey matter to understand that everything you wrote, which I quoted, confirms my point? Not true.

Leftyg, everyone who is a regular here and most likely most of the visitors who have read my posts have read both what you consider scientific evidence as well as anecdotes in them. It does not matter which I use if you don't like what they contain. But I can't tell you how bad I feel when your disappointed in what I write when they don't please you. So suck it up, keep a stiff upper lip, and carry on.

[leftyg]

Are you incapable of understanding that behind every piece of data there is a story there.
What you revere are what can be summarized from the individual data points. Are you incapable of accepting the value of anecdotal evidence, which I would argue is the bedrock of our court system.

Yes I am aware of the use of anecdotes in the court room. They are very useful there, but not very useful at looking for the causes of things like gun violence.

For example, Bob Frantz and Peter Kirsanow often use statistics inappropriately when they argue that because the number of young unarmed black men killed by police is low (it is not) that such killings are not a problem and that police are innocent rather than looking at the individual cases. So for crimes looking at the anecdotes is important. You have to actually see the specific evidence; quoting crime stats will get you nowhere. For looking at overall policy though, statistics are far more useful. I often say: "when conservatives should use specific data, they use general numbers; when they should look at large trends, they try to use anecdotes."

Do you remember the proverb that the grass is always greener on the other side. If we were to adopt England's gun policies, what would stop our country from experiencing a wave of alternative problems that they have experienced such as knife and acid attacks?

The problem is that it is much easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. The murder rate in England is 1.2 per 100,000; in the United States it is 5.35 per 100,000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate The gun homicide rate in the United States is 4.62 per 100,000; in England it is .06 per 100,000.

This article from the EuroNews should settle the argument:

So, how does the US and the United Kingdom compare when it comes to gun and knife crime?

We looked at murder rates from both weapons over a five-year period.

There were 34 firearm homicides in the US per million of population in 2016, compared with 0.48 shooting-related murders in the UK.

Knife murders are also higher stateside: there were 4.96 homicides “due to knives or cutting instruments” in the US for every million of population in 2016.

In Britain there were 3.26 homicides involving a sharp instrument per million people in the year from April 2016 to March 2017.

https://www.euronews.com/2018/05/05/tru ... k-compare-

So the Brits even have fewer knife killings even though they have fewer guns.

Leftyg, everyone who is a regular here and most likely most of the visitors who have read my posts have read both what you consider scientific evidence as well as anecdotes in them. It does not matter which I use if you don't like what they contain. But I can't tell you how bad I feel when your disappointed in what I write when they don't please you. So suck it up, keep a stiff upper lip, and carry on.

Michaels, the two are not equal. Anecdotal evidence is not as compelling as actual data. And yes it has a place.

[Michaels153]

Leftyg,
The beginning of this thread addressed Great Britain:

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths. and in Britain and Australia they both have a parliament not our form of Congress, and they do not have a constitution that protects the 2nd ammendment

This was from By Leah Libresco October 3 (The first article in this thread)
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site.
But this was not good enough for you. You wanted to trot out your stats on Great Britain and compare them to the United States. But I am sure Leah Libresco already took into consideration the differences between the two countries. You quote: "The murder rate in England is 1.2 per 100,000; in the United States it is 5.35 per 100,000 When you look statistically at the differences from another perspective, you see a different picture. From your stat, the United States has 4.45 per 100,000 more murders than Great Britain. And you reasonably suggest this: " Wouldn't it be wiser to adopt England's gun policies? After all they have 51 times fewer deaths than we do. Maybe they know something we do not. " Maybe they do know something we do not. But I would not suggest taking their entire police force and bringing them over here and replace them with our police. Why? well for one thing the Land Mass of the United States is the fourth largest of any country while Great Britain is 81st. And closely tied to the extra size of the United States as compared to Great Britain, is the difference in population. Our population is roughly 4.93 times larger than the population of Great Britain. So while we have 4.93 more people, we have 4.45 more murders than Great Britain. So when you account for the differences in population, the United States has less murders than Great Britain.
Now I chose "murder rate" because that includes everything.

[leftyg]

But this was not good enough for you. You wanted to trot out your stats on Great Britain and compare them to the United States. But I am sure Leah Libresco already took into consideration the differences between the two countries. You quote: "The murder rate in England is 1.2 per 100,000; in the United States it is 5.35 per 100,000 When you look statistically at the differences from another perspective, you see a different picture. From your stat, the United States has 4.45 per 100,000 more murders than Great Britain. And you reasonably suggest this: " Wouldn't it be wiser to adopt England's gun policies? After all they have 51 times fewer deaths than we do. Maybe they know something we do not. " Maybe they do know something we do not. But I would not suggest taking their entire police force and bringing them over here and replace them with our police. Why? well for one thing the Land Mass of the United States is the fourth largest of any country while Great Britain is 81st. And closely tied to the extra size of the United States as compared to Great Britain, is the difference in population. Our population is roughly 4.93 times larger than the population of Great Britain. So while we have 4.93 more people, we have 4.45 more murders than Great Britain. So when you account for the differences in population, the United States has less murders than Great Britain.

The problem is that Libresco made no statistical arguments. The article was full of her opinions and devoid of facts. Vox says this:

But despite the article’s headline and author Leah Libresco’s data journalism credentials, the column is surprisingly thin on studies and data. In fact, it cites no specific studies on gun control whatsoever.

Here’s what seems to be the most evidence-based claim in the piece:

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

That's it

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ngton-post

And Michaels, the data I just showed you speaks for itself; we even have more knife violence and killing than England, and a knife is an extremely hard instrument to kill with as the data showed. Leah Libresco may be a statistician, but she did not use data in the argument. She only used the claim that you can not prove anything or any relationship definitively which is a basic axiom of social science. But England and Australia definitely have fewer gun deaths than we do, and the margin is powerfully significant.

As a matter of fact Americans are 25 times as likely to be killed by a gun than residents of other advanced countries. Poliotifacts says:

To back up the statement, Newsom’s campaign spokesman pointed to a study published in the American Journal of Medicine in March 2016 called "Violent Death Rates: The US Compared with Other High-income OECD Countries, 2010."

The study relied on mortality data from 2010 collected by the World Health Organization. It found the rate of gun homicides was 25.2 times higher in the United States than in 22 other populous and high-income countries for which data was also gathered. A sample of those included South Korea, Australia, Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy.

My money is on the data, not Libresco who incidentally changed her relgious, and probably political, affiliations about a year ago.

[Michaels153]

But this was not good enough for you. You wanted to trot out your stats on Great Britain and compare them to the United States. But I am sure Leah Libresco already took into consideration the differences between the two countries. You quote: "The murder rate in England is 1.2 per 100,000; in the United States it is 5.35 per 100,000 When you look statistically at the differences from another perspective, you see a different picture. From your stat, the United States has 4.45 per 100,000 more murders than Great Britain. And you reasonably suggest this: " Wouldn't it be wiser to adopt England's gun policies? After all they have 51 times fewer deaths than we do. Maybe they know something we do not. " Maybe they do know something we do not. But I would not suggest taking their entire police force and bringing them over here and replace them with our police. Why? well for one thing the Land Mass of the United States is the fourth largest of any country while Great Britain is 81st. And closely tied to the extra size of the United States as compared to Great Britain, is the difference in population. Our population is roughly 4.93 times larger than the population of Great Britain. So while we have 4.93 more people, we have 4.45 more murders than Great Britain. So when you account for the differences in population, the United States has less murders than Great Britain.

The problem is that Libresco made no statistical arguments. The article was full of her opinions and devoid of facts. Vox says this:

But despite the article’s headline and author Leah Libresco’s data journalism credentials, the column is surprisingly thin on studies and data. In fact, it cites no specific studies on gun control whatsoever.No Leftyg, there is no problem here. Ms. Libresco summarized her findings for the article. You originally commented on this earlier in this thread, and your comments made more sense than anything Vox has to say. A similar study that focused on Australia was written by the National Review. I provided the link in my thread "The Left's tirade on gun's weakens, the Right defense doesn't." viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3814#p44283

Here’s what seems to be the most evidence-based claim in the piece:

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

That's it

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ngton-post I have shredded every piece of dung that Vox has flung so far that you and Juicedtruth have referred to. You even found fault with Vox' in one of your references saying it was beneath the presidency. Supermarket tabloids have more credibility than Vox, but your still willing to go to them if you think you can use anything they have to offer on any subject.

And Michaels, the data I just showed you speaks for itself; No Leftyg, what you just showed does not speak for itself. And, I noticed you did not respond to my input regarding the population of Great Britain versus the United States and how that impacts the murder rates of both countries.we even have more knife violence and killing than England, and a knife is an extremely hard instrument to kill with as the data showed. Leah Libresco may be a statistician, but she did not use data in the argument. She only used the claim that you can not prove anything or any relationship definitively which is a basic axiom of social science. But England and Australia definitely have fewer gun deaths than we do, and the margin is powerfully significant. I showed you that in regards to England, the margin is not as you claim it to be when population size is taken into account.

As a matter of fact Americans are 25 times as likely to be killed by a gun than residents of other advanced countries. Poliotifacts says:

To back up the statement, Newsom’s campaign spokesman pointed to a study published in the American Journal of Medicine in March 2016 called "Violent Death Rates: The US Compared with Other High-income OECD Countries, 2010."

The study relied on mortality data from 2010 collected by the World Health Organization. It found the rate of gun homicides was 25.2 times higher in the United States than in 22 other populous and high-income countries for which data was also gathered. A sample of those included South Korea, Australia, Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy.

My money is on the data, not Libresco who incidentally changed her relgious, and probably political, affiliations about a year ago.

[leftyg]

No Leftyg, there is no problem here. Ms. Libresco summarized her findings for the article. You originally commented on this earlier in this thread, and your comments made more sense than anything Vox has to say. A similar study that focused on Australia was written by the National Review. I provided the link in my thread "The Left's tirade on gun's weakens, the Right defense doesn't." viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3814#p44283

The problem is Ms. Libresco makes a claim. If there is evidence for it, she should show it. I think what she is trying to say is that you can't prove anything in social science. If that is her point, she is right. But if she is trying to say that more, that the gun rights position is validated she is wrong. Look, when you make a claim you have to back it up. I try all the time. I do not see that with the right on this issue. I see people making claims that they simply do not validate with evidence. Do you think for a second, I am buying her argument? No, because she did not validate what she said; she merely made a claim

I have shredded every piece of dung that Vox has flung so far that you and Juicedtruth have referred to. You even found fault with Vox' in one of your references saying it was beneath the presidency. Supermarket tabloids have more credibility than Vox, but your still willing to go to them if you think you can use anything they have to offer on any subject.

No, you have not shredded anything: you claim you have. I want scientific evidence, and in all our arguments I have not gotten it.

I have shown that we have 25 times as many gun deaths; that we even have more knife deaths than England and the killing someone with a knife takes a lot of work. I have shown our gun deaths compared to other advance countries. What have you done. Be specific. Anecdotes have little value here. You were right, they do in a court of law where the number of killings of unarmed black men, for instance, is no argument at all. It is an interesting statistic, but it has no judicial value. Likewise anecdotes have little value in a social science argument. I mean Freddy may have been thrown clear of death because he did not wear a seat belt, but usually seat belts save lives. You can find an anecdote to support anything. Just because one social scientist who has been converted to conservatism believes there is no or little evidence that guns are harmful in our society means nothing without evidence. Now I have given you evidence; it is your turn to give it to me and not just attack sources. Most of the stuff you cite is biased right wing journalism at best.

No Leftyg, what you just showed does not speak for itself. And, I noticed you did not respond to my input regarding the population of Great Britain versus the United States and how that impacts the murder rates of both countries

What was your input regarding the populations of England and the United States? That they are made up of different kinds of people? That is a given, but why are all other economically advanced countries so much safer than we are.

I showed you that in regards to England, the margin is not as you claim it to be when population size is taken into account.

Population is always a factor, that is why we use the statistic deaths per 100,000 or in the case of knife deaths, deaths per million. My God Michaels do you think I have been using raw numbers! I am a social scientist. Trying to use raw numbers would be a childish stunt

[Michaels153]

Leftyg:

What was your input regarding the populations of England and the United States?

When you factor in the difference in populations, England turns out to have a higher murder rate than the United States.
When you use statistics, like you do as a cudgel, you are relying on only partial input of the available data to try to persuade others to your position.
By adding my input to your data, there is a more complete presentation of the data.



Leftyg:

but why are all other economically advanced countries so much safer than we are.

Safer is a subjectively accepted state of being. In "raw numbers" you can show the high, and the low but that doesn't always convert to an easily recognizable state of being. If something is more likely to occur in a large city, but you happen to live in a rural area away from the city, than you probably are not as likely to experience that which is more likely to occur in a large city. And this does not affect the present statistics with the recorded data.

[leftyg]

Michaels writes:

When you factor in the difference in populations, England turns out to have a higher murder rate than the United States.
When you use statistics, like you do as a cudgel, you are relying on only partial input of the available data to try to persuade others to your position.
By adding my input to your data, there is a more complete presentation of the data.

That is silly. Great Britain has a 1.2 murder rate per 100,000; the USA has a 5.35. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate Because we have a population roughly five times that of Great Britain, we have about 17 thousand murders and the Brits have less than 800. http://www.worldometers.info/world-popu ... y-country/ You simply do not know what you are talking about because evidently you do not have even close to a firm grasp on quantitative analysis

Math: 12*X 66 million+792

53,5*X 326 million=17,441

*these are the values in millions of people

Then you add in red something that while true has no relevance to what is being discussed:

Safer is a subjectively accepted state of being. In "raw numbers" you can show the high, and the low but that doesn't always convert to an easily recognizable state of being. If something is more likely to occur in a large city, but you happen to live in a rural area away from the city, than you probably are not as likely to experience that which is more likely to occur in a large city. And this does not affect the present statistics with the recorded data.

[Michaels153]

[url] [https://www.robertniles.com/stats/percap.shtml/url]
Robert Niles
Per Capita, Rates and Comparisons

[quote] To find out if one city (or one country)really is more dangerous than another, you need to determine a per capita murder rate. That is, the number of murders for each person in town. (That's what "per capita" means. It's Latin for "for each head.")

To find that rate, simply divide the number of murders by the total population of the city. To keep from using a tiny little decimal, statisticians usually multiply the result by 100,000 and give the result as the number of murders per 100,000 people.

In Springfield's case, 50 murders divided by 800,000 people equals a murder rate of 6.25 per 100,000 people. Capital City's 50 murders divided by 600,000 people equals a murder rate of 8.33 per 100,000 people......

[Read the rest of Robert's statistics lessons for people who don't know math./quote] Your welcome.

[leftyg]

Michaels, about this time any one who is numerate ought to think you are an idiot. I know all this stuff far better than you*. You can never learn if your head is so hard that you believe what you wrote in your last post. You simply cited a simple example and imposed it on our conversation.

You write:

In Springfield's case, 50 murders divided by 800,000 people equals a murder rate of 6.25 per 100,000 people. Capital City's 50 murders divided by 600,000 people equals a murder rate of 8.33 per 100,000 people......

I have used a similar example with my freshman class. I am very familiar with basic math. And if you can notice, that is what I did; we have a much higher murder rate and raw number of murders than Great Britain. So your example demonstrates my point

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go to my niece's house for Christmas dinner.

*That is about the first time I ever just came out and said that

[leftyg]

Michaels favorite singer must be Muddy Waters because he muddies the waters on this thread. And his favorite fish, red herring because he tries to change the subject when he is backed into a corner (maybe he is a rat). That is what he did on this thread.

He wrote that I used raw numbers to compare England's (Great Britain) and the USA's murder rates, when my posts clearly show that I use averages

Michaels says

When you factor in the difference in populations, England turns out to have a higher murder rate than the United States.

He accuses me of not using per capita information which of course is not true. And by no measure does Britain have a higher murder rate than the United States

I wrote:

Great Britain has a 1.2 murder rate per 100,000; the USA has a 5.35.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate which is clearly per capita information. And anybody with a functioning brain can see that 5.35 is almost 4,5 times as many murders per capita. So Michaels does not know what he is talking about. Further, the fact that the United States has almost five times as many people further exacerbates the disparity. http://www.worldometers.info/world-popu ... y-country/ But I understand that raw numbers should never be used. And to have someone who appears to be barely numerate challenge me is insulting .

[Michaels153]

Michaels, about this time any one who is numerate ought to think you are an idiot. I know all this stuff far better than you*. You can never learn if your head is so hard that you believe what you wrote in your last post. You simply cited a simple example and imposed it on our conversation. Which you totally dismissed.

You write: No, I did not write that. I quoted the example that the author used to point out the influence or impact that population has on the subject that you brought up.

In Springfield's case, 50 murders divided by 800,000 people equals a murder rate of 6.25 per 100,000 people. Capital City's 50 murders divided by 600,000 people equals a murder rate of 8.33 per 100,000 people......

I have used a similar example with my freshman class. Well bully for you.I am very familiar with basic math. Well then don't be so put off when math is used to clarify something.And if you can notice, that is what I did; we have a much higher murder rate and raw number of murders than Great Britain. So your example demonstrates my point. You are not acknowledging the problem with your stats. In raw numbers, there were more murders in the United States than in England. But you also added the question of safety in your post. As Mr. Niles shows in his simple example, the two cities have the same number of murders. the murder rate shows that the city with the lower population had a higher murder rate. But if both cities had the same number of murders, which city is safer? The use of 100,000 per stat, though conventional is not without it's problems. Could you not find sets of 100,000 in the population in our country that have zero murders? I am sure you could.
So that when you use that stat, it is not actually being an accurate accounting as a murder rate. Here is another simple example that you are not going to like. If x country sells A widgets at a rate of 2 per 100,000 and y country sells A widgets at a rate of 1 per 100,000, what country sells more A widgets?
The answer is you don't know, because you don't have enough information. All that you can see from what is given is that it would appear that x country would be selling more widgets because the rate is twice that of y country. The United States has a population that is 4.93 times larger than England.
Yet London rivaled New York City at times this past year with a higher murder rate. And I am sure I could find other cities around the world with as large or larger a population than London that had higher and lower murder rates. The point being is that you would not characterize England as being healthier than the United States because they had fewer deaths, knowing that you would expect more deaths in the United States because we have a larger population.You also tried to make a point by lumping the United States with other countries of of similar economic levels. Yet you know that other countries that are smaller than the United States have had higher murder rates. Since Murder rates do fluctuate from city to city (Houston, Detroit, Chicago) and from country to country, to suggest that one country might have a better solution to lowering our murder rate because their murder rate is lower, is not a strong argument. You said that England might know something that we do not. That is true. It has already been shown that they have learned from us. They have a special police similar to our swat teams that are armed with handguns and use rifles.
Oh and I hope you enjoyed your Christmas dinner at your niece's house, though I don't think you "had" to go, as in forced to go.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go to my niece's house for Christmas dinner.

*That is about the first time I ever just came out and said that

[leftyg]

You are not acknowledging the problem with your stats. In raw numbers, there were more murders in the United States than in England. But you also added the question of safety in your post. As Mr. Niles shows in his simple example, the two cities have the same number of murders. the murder rate shows that the city with the lower population had a higher murder rate. But if both cities had the same number of murders, which city is safer? The use of 100,000 per stat, though conventional is not without it's problems. Could you not find sets of 100,000 in the population in our country that have zero murders? I am sure you could.
So that when you use that stat, it is not actually being an accurate accounting as a murder rate. Here is another simple example that you are not going to like. If x country sells A widgets at a rate of 2 per 100,000 and y country sells A widgets at a rate of 1 per 100,000, what country sells more A widgets?

The last statement is too didactic and irrelevant; it is a red herring. Yes you could find a city in the United states with no murders or very few, but it means nothing to our conversation because there are towns that size in England that probably have not had a murder in decades. You can cherry pick if you like; I choose not to. Not only are there more raw murders in the United States, there are more murders per capita, 5.35 to 1.20 for England for both the entire countries.[b] So I clearly have noted murders per capita or per 100,000, and your whole didactic exercise here is like I did not. I never do that. So your argument there is a straw man, and the reader should see it as that.

You go on:

The answer is you don't know, because you don't have enough information. All that you can see from what is given is that it would appear that x country would be selling more widgets because the rate is twice that of y country. The United States has a population that is 4.93 times larger than England.[color]

A problem I clearly state in all my posts on the subject. So what is your point? It sounds like you did not even read what I wrote. I have always avoided using raw numbers and stuck to per capita values and averages. I cannot argue with someone who makes up arguments as he goes.


You continue down this primrose path of your own making:

Yet London rivaled New York City at times this past year with a higher murder rate. And I am sure I could find other cities around the world with as large or larger a population than London that had higher and lower murder rates. The point being is that you would not characterize England as being healthier than the United States because they had fewer deaths, knowing that you would expect more deaths in the United States because we have a larger population.You also tried to make a point by lumping the United States with other countries of of similar economic levels. Yet you know that other countries that are smaller than the United States have had higher murder rates. Since Murder rates do fluctuate from city to city (Houston, Detroit, Chicago) and from country to country, to suggest that one country might have a better solution to lowering our murder rate because their murder rate is lower, is not a strong argument. You said that England might know something that we do not. That is true. It has already been shown that they have learned from us. They have a special police similar to our swat teams that are armed with handguns and use rifles

Again, your total brain freeze does not allow you to look at what I write. I am the guy who for almost ten years has talked about statistics in terms of per capita; the fact that the United States has a almost five times higher population is irrelevant and always has been why you persist in this particular red herring or straw man (it is both), I do not know. I think it is to muddy the waters of debate. [size=150]The United States has a per capita murder rate 4.46 times that of England [b]5.35 to 1.20 and we have 17250 raw murders to the Great Britain"s 791/size]
For a couple months this year London had a higher murder rate than New York. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 86866.html But the Independent article goes on:

While those two months may have been the first times in recent history that London had a higher homicide rate than New York, the year-on-year statistics are still firmly suggestive of the UK capital being the less murderous city.

There were 116 murders in London in 2017, fewer than half New York’s annual total of 290.

The disparity seems even more marked if you look slightly further back, albeit with the caveat that the way the Met presented its data for these years does not allow comparison of exactly the same 12-month time periods.

In the calendar year of 2016 there were 334 murders in New York. In the financial year 2016-17 (1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017) there were 102 murders in London, suggesting – but not proving - that at that point the UK’s capital’s murder rate for any given 12-month period was less than a third of New York’s.

Similarly, New York had 352 murders in the calendar year 2015, while London’s Metropolitan Police recorded 109 homicides between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2016.

[/quote]
New York is one of the safest large city in the United States https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 302763002/ and has been for a while. New York has stringent gun laws https://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/serv ... 4/gun-laws and a more gentrified population. There are lots of variables to consider.



And yes, there are poor countries, especially in our own hemisphere (the ones sending refugees) that are far more violent, but there is no wealthy country in the world that is close to us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate

[Michaels153]

What country could come over here with their police force, within our laws and do a better job as in lowering our murder rate? Because that is what you are saying. That is your bottom line.

[leftyg]

What country could come over here with their police force, within our laws and do a better job as in lowering our murder rate? Because that is what you are saying. That is your bottom line.

I think it is not the police force so much as it is the way our country is structured. You said it yourself "within our laws." We have a problem with that, I think. But the only thing I know for certain is we have a higher murder rate. To fix that higher murder rate we need "probably," criminal justice reform (which we are starting to get), more education because that is where the jobs are and stronger families with stable incomes and strong role models.

That is my best guess. Of course, I am something of a social democrat which means that I believe in capitalistic solutions combined with appropriate government intervention. I am a Keynseian in that I think the government does certain things better and the private sector does other things better. https://www.econ.iastate.edu/node/710 I believe in relatively high taxes on the rich, but not exorbitant. I think poverty has a huge effect on the murder rate and a lot of research confirms that https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... cide-rates. And of course, I believe that health care can be delivered far more effectively by a combination of government insurers and private providers https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/hea ... -countries

I realize I have said a lot here and opened up many cans of worms. But there can be no doubt that among rich countries we stick out in not providing certain essentials to success and well-being to all our citizens,