This is the beginning. This is what we call "blood in the streets." And, I'm afraid it's going to get worse before it gets better.
I couldn't care less about truth and falsity or causation and correlation, or all that other double talk the pro-gun crowd like so much.
I say there are too many guns out there and Austin Texas is one of the many examples.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I couldn't care less about truth and falsity or causation and correlation, or all that other double talk the pro-gun crowd like so much.
ReplyDeleteYou don't care about the truth? Well, that says it all right there really.
Leave it to you to purposely misread my remarks. What I don't give a damn about is the "truth and falsity" double talk that Joe Huffman spews. Of course you really thought I was saying I don't care about the truth. Way to go, for an intelligent discussion.
ReplyDelete"I couldn't care less about truth and falsity or causation and correlation, or all that other double talk the pro-gun crowd like so much."
ReplyDeleteWow. So help me out here. Sounds like you have a deeply-held belief (guns=bad, restrictive gun laws=solution). It also sounds like you're saying "Don't confuse me with facts, I've got a good theory going."
No matter what side of the gun debate you're on, I think EVERYBODY agrees that murder is a bad thing, and if there are ways to reduce guns being used for crimes, it would be a good thing. However, there's a problem with gun laws. They seem to do great job getting guns out of the hands of those that obey the laws. But they do a lousy job getting guns out of the hands of criminals, and they do NOTHING to reduce the number of guns available to criminals.
So...here's my question to you: would you rather have gun laws that sound logical to you but do nothing to reduce gun crime, or would you rather have laws that might not make sense to you, and run contrary to your belief system, but actually do reduce gun crime?
You see, gun crime is UP (waaaay up) in states like Illinois, California and Massachusets, and places like D.C.. Gun crimes have gone down in states like Florida and Texas with concealed carry laws on the books. So...do you want gun crime DOWN or do you want restrictive gun laws? Seems you can have one but you can't have the other.
Captain Digital
I didn't purposely misread anything. I read it as you posted it. How was I supposed to know what Joe Huffman writes about truth and falsity? You provided no link with your statement. I took your statement at face value, which really doesn't seem that outrageous. You've said on here before that this blog isn't interested in facts. You've mentioned how your policy is based on "feelings". It's not a stretch to think that you wouldn't really give a damn about "truth".
ReplyDeleteNo, mikeb302000, you want "blood in the streets", you need to drive about 5hrs South. Incidentally, right across that border they have the tightest gun control this side of the pond and it doesn't seem to be helping THEM one bit.
ReplyDeleteThe suspect arrested today was an 18yr old, known gangbanger and, according to reports, was wanted by immigration (i.e. illegal alien).
So, you see, if you REALLY want to solve the problem, start with immigration reform. And you're a fool to pretend that by implementing more rigid gun laws would've kept a gun outta this punk's hands in the first place(as if he, as an 18yr old, obtained it legally to begin with).
This CHL/Austin native feels just fine with the laws in place and somethin' tells me you ain't from around here anyway, thus explaining your views.
Brad, Aren't you spouting off a theory of your own here?
ReplyDelete"They seem to do great job getting guns out of the hands of those that obey the laws. But they do a lousy job getting guns out of the hands of criminals, and they do NOTHING to reduce the number of guns available to criminals."
All false.
RuffRidr, You're right about one thing, I didn't make my remarks clear by italicizing or putting quotes around "truth and falsity." And I presumed you knew of this popular inanity by Joe Huffman.
Still you took me out of context by saying I don't care about truth.
You f***ing idiot. You post "I couldn't care less about truth and falsity or causation and correlation" and then accuse someone of purposely misreading your remarks??? And how did anyone take that out of context? Because you didn't put it in italics?!!?!111?
ReplyDeleteYou would do well to follow Joe Huffman's example. He actually does some research before he posts something on his blog. There is no doubletalk there, he speaks the truth and has verified facts to back that truth up. More than I can say for this shitty little waste of space blog.
Mike:
ReplyDeleteNope. No theory. Just facts. ALL the data available on the subject correlates to lower gun crime in areas with concealed handgun permits, and higher crime in areas where gun laws prevent or limit law-abiding citizens from defending themselves. It's as simple as that.
The problem here is that you seem to think that gun laws are effective, and more gun laws would be more effective. That does not jibe with the public data available.
If you want to be an effective advocate for your position, you need to stop dealing with feelings and start dealing with facts. Otherwise, you're preaching only to the choir made up of those drinking the same KoolAid you're on.
Its very simple;
ReplyDeleteCars are, by far, the highest cause of accidental deaths, yet we accept cars because they offer a great benefit to society.
Guns are the same way. 2.5 million violent crimes a year are stopped by law-abiding citizens with guns which are outweigh the accidents and murders.
Not to mention, that without guns in the hands of citizens, murder would skyrocket.
Mikeb302000, your assumptions and conclusions are typical for a liberal, wrong, due to lack of thought.
For a quick primer on correlation and causation, and why it is not a hobby-horse of gun-nuts, I suggest that you peruse a book on statistics. (Or perhaps a book on understanding and using mathematical ideas in the real world.)
ReplyDeleteOr visit Wikipedia.
Or look at a tongue-in-cheek, joking discussion of the subject at a geek-oriented webcomic.
Understanding correlation, causation, and the difference between the two is a useful skill, with applications far outside of the realm of debating gun-laws.
Anonymous, We stopped believing that 2.5 million DGUs a year a long time ago around here. You must be new.
ReplyDeleteda_truth36 and Brad, You're new around here too, I think. Otherwise you'd know I'm just one of those feely kinda guys.
I also distrust stats. And I avoid playing that stat game of who's got the biggest and the best.
Common sense and logic is what I go by, which I think is what you're confusing with "feelings."
In any case, you're all very welcome here. Thanks for commenting.
Rather freely translating Aristotle, "Common sense and logic are a snare and a delusion." And this from a man noted for clarity of thought and expression.
ReplyDeleteWhere gun laws are concerned, there are more than 27,000 restrictive gun laws in effect. I have the before and after data on 22,389 of those; and the after enactment data on the rest.
Of those, not even one has ever reduced violent crime. Not even one has resulted in no increase in violent crime.
In fact, the post 1968 rising and falling fortunes of American gun control laws can be clearly seen - in the homicide rates provided here:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Without exception, restrictive gun laws have resulted in MORE murders, more violent crime, more crime. While permissive gun laws that require or allow private possession and carry of firearms result in less crime.
What are the odds that the next restrictive gun law will increase violent crime? 13.8 times ten raised to the 138th power. Write it out- 138 followed by 137 zeros.
That is a pretty large number. A number so large that is for all intents and purposes infinity. So there is an infinitely large probability that the "reasonable" laws you tout will increase violent crime, and an infinitely small probability that they will reduce violent crime.
Bluntly, more guns mean less crime - while gun controls have always resulted in more violence. Like it or lump it, that's a fact.
Stranger
(I'm not really anonymous, just don't want to link to anything.
ReplyDeleteMKEgal)
"I couldn't care less about truth and falsity or causation and correlation"
Yet you expect other people to take you seriously? And even if this was just bad writing, what does that say about your attention to detail?
I agree with Brad:
"If you want to be an effective advocate for your position, you need to stop dealing with feelings and start dealing with facts"
Only problem is that some people will never be persuaded by facts, and other people will never be persuaded by feelings. The first seem to be anti-self-defense and the latter seem to be pro-self-defense. In order to persuade someone of the opposite camp, you need to know how to re-frame your arguments.
"Common sense and logic is what I go by"
OK, try this common sense:
Places with more restrictive gun laws should have lower rates of violent crime.
Seems like it should work that way, right?
But it doesn't.
The places in the USA with the most restrictive gun posession & carry laws are also the places with the highest rate of violent crime: Chicago, DC, NJ, NY City, cities in CA.
In fact, Mexico, the UK, & Australia have laws which virtually prohibit gun posession by citizens (er, subjects, since they're unarmed) and their violent crime has risen every year.
Places with more liberal (meaning free) gun posession laws have lower crime. After FL enacted its concealed carry law, their violent crime rate dropped & has kept dropping, faster than the national average. Also see Alaska, Arizona, & Vermont.
Stranger, Thanks so much for your comment.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe there are 27,000 gun laws. But if there really are an average of 550 laws per state, so many of them are redundant, overlapping or obsolete, that your entire argument is bogus.
I'm a bit at a loss as to a sensible response to your claim that not one single gun law has ever prevented a crime. I think that's what you said, since the prevention of one single crime would result in a reduction in violence. And naturally you go one to push the John Lott nonsense.
Keep comin' around though. You sound like a real believer.
You don't believe a lot of things, mike.
ReplyDeleteThen again, no matter what you do "around here", I'm a lot more willing to believe in a few million defensive gun uses a year (where, again, "use" does not mean "firing") than I am to believe that more gun laws will somehow disarm criminals.
(Given that criminals have little trouble getting arms now in the United States, despite the laws we have making it illegal to sell them guns.
Of course, we can look to armed criminals in the UK for examples of how they manage to stay armed even when the rest of the population is essentially entirely disarmed and they're all on an island, and the nearest landmass is also basically disarmed.
It's almost like career criminals don't care about laws. Boggling.
But I guess if we're going to just reject causation, we get to make any conclusions we want from any premises.)
That you blame "too many guns", rather than people who are willing to use them to settle gang turf disputes or rob suggests a framing problem.
Statistics suggest (hard data is difficult to acquire, since people often don't want to tell an anonymous person on the phone that they possess an expensive and useful object, especially when that object has a history of banning and confiscation by the State) that something like 40% of American households contain a firearm.
If the mere existence of firearms caused murders, we'd expect to see a lot more of them, and not so heavily concentrated among career criminals/gang members.
We do not.
(And don't even think of bringing up the Kellermann "study". "Around here" we know that was discredited about ten minutes after it was published.)
Scenario:
ReplyDelete2AM. Your back door is kicked in and 2 men come in, armed with crowbars and knives, bent on mayhem. Happens a lot more these days in a lot more places.
Add in a female loved one in the house. How do you stop them?
Calling the cops won't stop them. The cops have no mandate to protect you anyway. All they have to do is respond eventually and investigate the crime.
You don't want guns, so guess what? Your are a professional victim.
Please check out the hot-break-in statistics in the UK compared to before they banned guns.
Now that you understand that guns are meant for self defense, you can take the next step.
The constitution was written by men to ensure that WE THE PEOPLE would stay in control of the country. Disarming WE THE PEOPLE converts us to we the subjects.
We are not ready to tolerate that.
Gun control causes FAR more damage than good. Honestly study the empirical data and you will agree.
You are deliberately ignoring statistics for places like Chicago, D.C., And oh, for fun England. (none of these places allow guns, in any reasonable sense of the definition, but violent crime is through the roof)
ReplyDeleteGuns can be scary. We understand. They bring a lot of power with them. But, they bring power to everyone.
Statistics are pretty glaring here. Allowing more guns reduces violent crime. If you don't like reducing violent crime, take the guns away from the law abiding. If you like violent crime, take away the guns. 2+2=4, sometimes even in politics.
"I couldn't care less about truth..."
ReplyDeleteWell, that just about says it all, doesn't it?
Sigivald and anonymous, it is far from clear that DGUs outnumber incidents of gun violence. You keep repeating it, but that doesn't make it so. You guys are the ones ignoring the evidence, the inconvenient evidence. You do this because you're desperate to justify what is essentially a bad decision.
ReplyDeleteYour fear of this is mostly unfounded:
"Scenario:
2AM. Your back door is kicked in and 2 men come in, armed with crowbars and knives, bent on mayhem. Happens a lot more these days in a lot more places."
Some folks, depending on where they live, have to concern themselves with desperate scenes like this, but most of you don't. Most of you needlessly add to the problem.
mike, you wrote "I'm a bit at a loss as to a sensible response to your claim that not one single gun law has ever prevented a crime. I think that's what you said, since the prevention of one single crime would result in a reduction in violence. And naturally you go one to push the John Lott nonsense."
ReplyDeleteAnd on the flip side, doesn't even one defensive gun use also cause a reduction in violence?
But your assumption "the prevention of a single crime would result in a reduction in violence" is fundamentally unsound.
If a gun law prevents one crime, say mandatory storage in a non-functional state with a trigger lock inside a locked container, prevents one murder of a wife by her husband that MUST be judged against every victim murdered by a home invader because the homeowner could not effectively defend herself.
So saying that you reduced the rate of "spousal murder" by one does nothing for the overall murder rate if death by home invader goes up ten. You have a net gain in crime.
And that reality has been born out time and time again. The data does not lie.
But as you have stated, you don't care about the data or the truth. Start caring, because rational people think about issues, and irrational people feel about issues.
AM says, "And that reality has been born out time and time again. The data does not lie."
ReplyDeleteThe stats you refer to are carefully selected to support your ideas. Other studies suggest that gun violence far outnumbers DGUs.
That's why I don't depend on statistics so much. I try to use common sense and logic.