I'm a classical liberal--Libertarian, these days--with some Green leanings. The thing that I don't understand about what he said was how he was able to let that Browning go. Buying the Smith and Wesson? I get that. Letting go of his first, the gun that taught him how to shoot? That's just crazy talk.
I note that it took "Wild Bill" all of about 30 seconds to lay a little racism on, "Martin Luther King Boulevard". Oh, I'm sorry, Wussie Bill, was that not intentionally racist. Lying fuckbags with gunz scare me a lot more than all the blackevilfolk.
I may be a bit thick, but considering the FL LEO's penchant for shooting people, I don't really think a crack dealer is gonna try to jack a cop. Crack users are pretty much crazy but the dealers, they usually like being alive enough not to fuck with cops.
Here in Fayetteville, AR, Sixth Street got rernamed Martin Luther King Boulevard, but many of us remember it as Sixth Street. That's not racism. We just don't see any reason to jump on the bandwagon. Renaming the street is mere cosmetics. Show me an effective policy to improve the achievement of everyone in this country, and I'll be interested.
I'm not exactly sure of the point "Wild Bill" is trying to make.
In some ways, I concur with Demo.
On the other hand, his account doesn't sound right to me as someone who has daily dealings with criminals. Killing a white guy who isn't a fellow criminal is going to attract too much attention from the cops.
If anything, he sounds like he wanted to find trouble--and it found him.
Although, I doubt a carload of drug dealers is only going to have one gun from my experience. My guess is that there would have been multiple guns if this had been what he said it was.
At about 1:02 into the video Badass Billie sez, "Martin Luther King Boulevard" in such a way as to make clear that he is being derisive or monumentally stupid. I wouldn't rule out co-morbidity.
There is a way to get to the links if you click them as well uning the last link as an example: You are sent to: http://www.blogger.com/www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8Mhe-tyP7w&feature=related
Your attribution that more people carrying concealed weapons results in less crime is bullshit.
It is not a causal relationship at all.
Look at the in depth analyses Link text like this one, to explain that and to better quantify and correctly identify causality- there isn't any for concealed carry.
And, this one which also doesn't list more concealed carry anywhere as a factor:
which specifically says regarding concealed carry reducing crime: "5. Laws Allowing the Carrying of Concealed Weapons ..."First, allowing concealed weapons should have the greatest impact on crimes which involve fact to face contact and occur outside the home where the law might affect gun carrying. Robbery is the crime category that most clearly fits this description, yet Ayres and Donohue (2003) demonstrate that empirically that the passage of these laws is, if anything, positively related to the robbery rate. More generally, Duggan (2001) finds that for crimes that appear to decline with the law change, the declines in crime actually predate the passage of the laws, arguing against a causal impact of the law. Finally, when the original Lott and Mustard (1997) data set is extended forward in time to encompass a large number of additionallaw enactments, the results disappear (Ayres and Donohue, 2003). Ultimately, there appears to be little basis for believing that concealed carry laws have had an appreciable impact on crime."[emphasis in bold is mine- DG]
Challenging me, especially to research a position, is like pointing the four legged Laci at a squirrel.
So, let me ask you - WHAT decrease in crime brought about by concealed carry?
From wiki: However Lott has recently updated his findings with further evidence. According to the FBI, during the first year of the Obama administration the national murder rate declined by 7.4% along with other categories of crime which fell by significant percentages.[86] During that same time national gun sales increased dramatically. According to Mr. Lott 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than November 2007 which represents a 40% increase in sales, a trend which continued throughout 2009.[84] The drop in the murder rate was the biggest one-year drop since 1999, another year when gun sales soared in the wake of increased calls for gun control as a result of the Columbine shooting.[84] It cannot be put any clearer, More Guns = Less Crime
From today's news: SPARTANBURG COUNTY, S.C. -- The Spartanburg County Sheriff is known for speaking his mind, and at a news conference on Monday, he didn't hold back his anger and frustration after a woman was attacked in a park over the weekend.
Investigators said 46-year-old Walter Lance grabbed a woman who was walking her dog in Milliken Park on Sunday afternoon. They said Lance choked the woman, made her take off her clothing and tried to rape her. (Full Story)
Lance is in custody and was denied bond on Monday.
Sheriff Chuck Wright opened his news conference by saying, "Our form of justice is not making it."
He said, "Carry a concealed weapon. That'll fix it."
Just more of the same kill the messenger. wiki: The National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, claims to have found "no credible evidence" either supporting or disproving Lott's thesis.[88] However, James Q. Wilson wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that all of the Committee's own estimates confirmed Lott's finding that right-to-carry laws had decreased the murder rate and most of Lott's statistical analysis was inscrutable and survive virtually every reanalysis done by the committee.[89] On the Ayres and Donohue hybrid model showing more guns-more crime, the NAS panel stated: "The committee takes no position on whether the hybrid model provides a correct description of crime levels or the effects of right-to-carry laws."[90]
Lott is discredited? Guess it depends who you talk to. Or, are you talking about the 1st Edition, the 2nd Edition or the 3rd Edition? The only one who has been truly discredited is Donahue. His findings are completely opposite of the FBI's crime reports. A conference organized at the American Enterprise Institute by John Lott resulted in a special issue[2] of The Journal of Law and Economics. A number of papers from that conference supported Lott's conclusions:
Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University, and Brent D. Mast, American Enterprise Institute, 'Privately Produced General Deterrence', The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[3]
Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and T. Nicolaus Tideman, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, "Does the right to carry concealed handguns deter countable crimes? Only a count analysis can say", The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[4]
Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, "Testing for the effects of concealed weapons laws: Specification errors and robustness," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[5]
Other academic studies that have supported Lott's conclusions include the following.
William Alan Bartley and Mark A. Cohen, Vanderbilt University, 'The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis', Economic Inquiry, 1998[6]
Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, 'Confirming "More Guns, Less Crime"', Stanford Law Review, 2003.[7]
Eric Helland, Claremont-McKenna College and Alexander Tabarrok, George Mason University, "Using Placebo Laws to Test 'More Guns, Less Crime'," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2008.[8]
Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, and Thomas B. Marvell, Justec Research, 'The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws', Econ Journal Watch, 2008.[9]
The book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies, examines the gun control policies of many nations around the world and supports the ideas presented in Lott's work.
Those numbers anonymous reflect gun purchases; not how many people kept them versus reselling them, not how many people used them, or how they used them,and not what the crime statistics changes would have been regardless.
You do not have even solid correlation here,much less causal correlation.
All you have done is indicate how very little you appear to understand either statistics OR empirical science generally.
So, looking at this......apparently in Australia there was a sharp drop in gun crime with strict gun restrictions.
"Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws"
February, 2000
Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws
Latest official data from Australia shows a marked reduction in gun-related crime and injury following recent restrictions on the private ownership of firearms.
Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania, Australia's state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury. Between July 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force. Since that time, key indicators for gun-related death and crime have shown encouraging results.
Firearm-Related Homicide
"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."
-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999
This report shows that as gun ownership has been progressively restricted since 1915, Australia's firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has declined to almost half its 85-year average.
Homicide by Any Method
The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA.
The Institute of Criminology report Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999 includes 1998 homicide data showing "a 9% decrease from the rate in 1997." This is the period in which most of the country's new gun laws came into force.
Gun-Related Death by Any Cause
The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether or not they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years.
The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.
"We have observed a decline in firearm-related death rates (essentially in firearm-related suicides) in most jurisdictions in Australia. We have also seen a declining trend in the percentage of robberies involving the use of firearms in Australia."
-- Mouzos, J. Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice No. 116. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, May 1999; 6
Assault and Robbery
Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result of new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon). In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies involve a firearm.
"Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."
-- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Jun 1999
Firearm-Related Crime in Tasmania
"A declining firearm suicide rate, a declining firearm assault rate, a stable firearm robbery rate with a declining proportion of robberies committed with a firearm and a declining proportion of damage to property offences committed with a firearm suggest that firearm regulation has been successful in Tasmania."
-- Warner, Prof K. Firearm Deaths and Firearm Crime After Gun Licensing in Tasmania. Australian Institute of Criminology, 3rd National Outlook Symposium on Crime in Australia. Canberra, 22-23 Mar 1999.
In the 1996-97 Australian gun buy-back, two-thirds of a million semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns were sold to the government at market value. Thousands more gun owners volunteered their firearms for free, and nearly 700,000 guns were destroyed.
By destroying one-seventh of its estimated stock of firearms (the equivalent figure in the USA would be 30 million), Australia has significantly altered the composition of its civilian arsenal.
In addition, all remaining guns must be individually registered to their licensed owners, private firearm sales are no longer permitted and each gun purchase through a licensed arms dealer is scrutinised by police to establish a "genuine reason" for ownership. Possession of guns for self-defence is specifically prohibited, and very few civilians are permitted to own a handgun. All the nation's governments, police forces and police unions support the current gun laws.
Other Countries
Similar reductions in gun death and injury have been noted in several countries whose gun controls have been recently tightened.
In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low.
Two years ago in the United Kingdom, civilian handguns were banned, bought back from their owners and destroyed. In the year following the law change, Scotland recorded a 17% drop in all firearm-related offences. The British Home Office reports that in the nine months following the handgun ban, firearm-related offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.
A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American.
Sources: http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/facts99/
http://www.statistics.gov.au/ (see media release 68/99, 16 Jun 1999)
In 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available), 34,040 people died from gunfire in the United States. Of these deaths, approximately 54 percent resulted from suicide, 41 percent resulted from homicide, and 3 percent were unintentional (see figure 2). Firearm injuries are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. In addition, for every fatal shooting, there are roughly three nonfatal shootings.1
Approximately 37,500 gun sales, including 17,800 handgun sales, are completed every day in the United States. The increasing number of gun owners has elevated the danger of guns being acquired illegally through robberies and burglaries. In 1994, more than a quarter-million households experienced the theft of one or more firearms; nearly 600,000 guns were stolen during these burglaries.8
So, older data, but still pertinent. The reasons for crime decline are complex. What is not evident is that there is a causal relationship between more people buying guns and any crime reduction.
“[NYPD Commissioner] Ray Kelly attributes stop-and-frisk to New York’s continuing decline in crime (but) I think it’s more than just that,” says former LAPD chief William Bratton. “I think it’s the COMSTAT system. Malcolm Gladwell’s tipping point factor has come into play, and that behavior in New York City has tipped phenomenally. People just don’t routinely walk around with guns and knifes like they used to.
Police Report Crime Drop, Assaults with Guns Jump 52 Percent
Anne Arundel County Police
By Tim Lemke
March 5, 2011 The Anne Arundel County Police Department reported a 7 percent reduction in major crime in 2010, though officials remain concerned about the number of violent crimes, especially those involving guns.
The county saw a significant drop in major property-related crimes, including a 7-percent drop in burglary, 9-percent decline in larceny and 26-percent drop in arson.
But instances of aggravated assault rose from 1,903 to 2,003, with a 52-percent jump in the number of assaults involving a gun.
“We are going to have to look heavy at the gun issue,” Maj. Thomas Wilson said. “When we saw that [52 percent] number pop up, that is certainly a concern for us.”
Reported cases of rape increased from 87 to 106, while homicide cases also rose from 12 to 14. All cases of violent crime rose from 2,666 to 2,693."
Another Made in USA “less-lethal” weapon kills in Palestine
by Jeff Klein on January 14, 2011 Like 6 Retweet 0
Send to a Friend del.icio.us Digg Furl
The recent killing of Jawaher Abu Rahmah in Bil’in – and the death or injury of many others -- by Israeli tear gas munitions imported from the US has spotlighted the collaboration of American companies in the lethal suppression of unarmed protests in the West Bank. However, another US-made “less lethal” weapon has also caused many deaths and injuries, but has received less attention.
Live fire “crowd control” rounds attributed to .22 caliber sniper rifles, made by Sturm, Ruger Co. in Newport, NH, have been responsible for at least six – and possibly more -- deaths and scores of injuries during the past couple of years:
image001 1 Israeli sniper Weapons– front, Ruger 10/22 suppressed. (Photo) On January 28, 2008, Kusai al-Afrandi, age 17, was killed in Bethlehem on 29 July 2008, Ahmad Musa, age 10, was killed in Ni’lin on 28 December 2008 Mohammed Khawaje, age 20 (and Mohammed Hamid, age 22) on 13 February 2009, Izzedine al-Jamal, age 14, was killed in Hebron on 5 June 2009, Yusuf Aqel Srour, age 36 in Ni’lin (28 other than Srour were injured by 0.22” bullets in Ni’lin alone) B’stelem claims to have documented injuries from these weapons in Ni’lin, Bil’in, Jayyus, Bitunya, and Budrus, including at least one foreign national
Israel began to import small caliber sniper rifles for “riot control” during the First Intifada. The intention was to deploy weapons that would be less lethal than its standard issue 5.56mm US-Israeli M16 assault rifle, but with more potent firepower than rubber-coated metal bullets (which have also killed). The IDF settled on the Ruger 10/22, which fired a relatively small, but high velocity 0.22 caliber rimfire cartridge that could be used “to take out key protest leaders by shooting them in the legs.” The Israeli version was fitted with a sniper scope and, presumably to amplify its terror effect, with a fully “suppressed” -- or silenced in popular usage -- barrel, which could wound or kill at a distance with no loud report to indicate the shot’s origin. As one advertiser of this weapon boasted, the only noise you will hear is the firing pin hitting and then, the ‘smack’ on the target.”
Little miss smarty pants wrote: "Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."
So they got rid of guns and armed robbery increases 20%.
That simply proves that MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME. Thank you.
Btw, instead of trying to prove common observations wrong you might wanna work on learning how to spell 'kitchen'
From an early post of yours: And About Those Dangerous Ktichen Utensils...
It has been a while since I stopped in here, but gun control does not equal less crime, just as more guns does not equal less crime. Crime rates increase and decrease all the time. Some areas, like where I reside are lower, while in the northern part of the state they have increased.
Here is the simple fact that is lost in this bullshit argument, both sides of it. Until we resolve socioeconomic issues, we will continue to see the use of guns in suicides and murders. We will continue to see guns used in self-defense.
One more thing, I am as liberal as they come, yet I own guns, I have a CCW permit, and I carry a gun. As it stands, it has nearly become a requirement where I work. Why you might be asking yourself. I carry one, because I never know what I might encounter. It might be a bear, or large cat. Then again it might be some guy who wants to steal something so he can do whatever. I say whatever because I will not assume that all thieves are addicted to drugs, nor can I say they are stealing to support their family.
"It has been a while since I stopped in here, but gun control does not equal less crime, just as more guns does not equal less crime."
Then why do we need more gunz?
I have never advocated for removing the guns that LGO's own. OTOH, I am all for removing guns that are not legally owned, including those that are held by LGO's*. I'm not anti-hunting, I'm not anti-collecting, I'm not anti-target shooting.
I'm anti-shitheadz with gunz--and there's a boatload of them out there. I'm anti-pretending gunz aren't the single device that makes it easy to rob, threaten, hurt and kill other people or commit suicide. Anyone who claims to be anti-crime and pro-gun proliferation is either a hypocrite or delusional.
* They're LGO's until they get caught with that illegal weapon, then they become Gunzoperpz.
"I'm anti-shitheadz with gunz--and there's a boatload of them out there. I'm anti-pretending gunz aren't the single device that makes it easy to rob, threaten, hurt and kill other people or commit suicide. Anyone who claims to be anti-crime and pro-gun proliferation is either a hypocrite or delusional."
I'm anti overuse of the Z's. Unless of course, you embrace the stupidz.
"Actually, the "z's" are intended to annoy you idiots; that seems to have worked."
I usually just laugh at any of your comments - I can't help but picture some old dude yelling at the kids to get off his lawn everytime you post something. You come across as so angry and just yelling all the time. It is funny to see how Anon gets you so riled up.
Nah, democommie makes me laugh, often; he's not some crabby guy. Rather, imagine him sitting at his computer, sometimes laughing and sometimes just shaking his head. But I imagine him as a very pleasant man who pokes fun of stuffy people. It's just sometimes he does it with a sharper stick than other times, LOL.
On the other hand, I imagine all of you who are running around strapped to your gun, or with it in reach even while you shower, as terrified and suspicious of the world, all tense and fearful and angry. That's why you all have such swollen, distended, lumpy amygdalas in the middle of the more primitive part of your brain. You make it go that way with your politics and your social attitudes. Not healthy, and very much not fun.
Jim, I agree with Dog Gone's impression of democommie. I'd throw in a little bit of George Carlin too. Definitely not a crabby old guy yelling at kids.
I have a hard time imagining democommie smiling let alone laughing. Just look at his picture - you can tell that he is either always really angry or just really constipated.
Maybe he just needs more fiber in his diet and he can get rid of the shit through his ass instead of his mouth.
Then you are reading democommie too selectively through your own filter. He is really funny on a regular basis which tells me he has a great sense of humor.
George Carlin didn't always smile either, but that didn't make him humorless.
It might help to look at Democommie's photo, and then imagine he winks at you - with his left eye, of course.
Jim sez I'm angry and then proceeds to demonstrate where the real anger is--between his own earz.
That photograph was an ambush job by my former neighbor. I was standing outside my house looking at some lumber and trying to decide how to ruin it when he said, "Hey!". I looked up, directly into the glare of the morning sun being reflected off his white house and he took my picture. I use it BECAUSE it makes me look pissed. I also use it because I was wearing one of my favorite t-shirts that day. It says, "Here's a little hint, I don't care.".
I'm not always pissed off, Jim, but I'm a rageaholic and nothing pushes my buttons like a gunzloon knucklehead spouting nonsense.
"I'm not always pissed off, Jim, but I'm a rageaholic and nothing pushes my buttons like a gunzloon knucklehead spouting nonsense."
See I think I got the read on DC better than the rest of you. He purposefully uses a picture that makes him look pissed off and is a self proclaimed rageaholic.
Again, he is good for a laugh when he spouts off about the KKK and Skrotal Americans and Fuck this and Damn that. Anon and a few others seem really good at setting him off and he always comes forward with some raging cuss filled post that makes no sense. Good laughs all around.
Yep, Jim, I'm a self-proclaimed rageaholic, being honest about one's faults is the first step on the road to wellness. You're a clueless moron and the sooner you admit it and get some help the better off we'll all be. Don't thank me now, wait until you've come back to your senses.
Y'know the issue of swearing is one with which I have an unbelievably hard fucking time, no shit. I'm always and forever running into extremely polite and proper KKKristians and RepuKKKlicans who wouldn't say shit if they had a mouthful. Otoh, they're usually racist, homophobic, anti-liberty authroritarian assholes. Most of them have a keen grasp of the U.S. Constitution, well, at least this part:
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".
Them three little dots at the beginning of the quote? They're an "ellipsis"*
The ellipsis is a device, used when writing, that has some positive application; it is often used when the writer wants to include the germane portion of a lengthy text (with attribution) and allow the reader to, at their leisure, read the entire passage. It also has some negative uses, one of them being "quote mining". You may be familiar with the latter is you get your news from Fox, your politics from Rush or Newt and your GODliness from the likes of James Dobson, or your ConLaw from the NRA**.
So, I'll continue to work on my careless swearing--but I don't think those aforementioned lying shitweasel fuckbags are gonna work on being honest--it costs them too much revenue.
* (ĭ-lĭp'sĭs) n., pl.-ses (-sēz).
1. a.The omission of a word or phrase necessary for a complete syntactical construction but not necessary for understanding. b.An example of such omission. 2.A mark or series of marks ( . . . or * * * , for example) used in writing or printing to indicate an omission, especially of letters or words. [Latin ellīpsis, from Greek elleipsis, from elleipein, to fall short. See ellipse.]
I'm a classical liberal--Libertarian, these days--with some Green leanings. The thing that I don't understand about what he said was how he was able to let that Browning go. Buying the Smith and Wesson? I get that. Letting go of his first, the gun that taught him how to shoot? That's just crazy talk.
ReplyDeleteI note that it took "Wild Bill" all of about 30 seconds to lay a little racism on, "Martin Luther King Boulevard". Oh, I'm sorry, Wussie Bill, was that not intentionally racist. Lying fuckbags with gunz scare me a lot more than all the blackevilfolk.
ReplyDeleteI may be a bit thick, but considering the FL LEO's penchant for shooting people, I don't really think a crack dealer is gonna try to jack a cop. Crack users are pretty much crazy but the dealers, they usually like being alive enough not to fuck with cops.
democommie,
ReplyDeleteHere in Fayetteville, AR, Sixth Street got rernamed Martin Luther King Boulevard, but many of us remember it as Sixth Street. That's not racism. We just don't see any reason to jump on the bandwagon. Renaming the street is mere cosmetics. Show me an effective policy to improve the achievement of everyone in this country, and I'll be interested.
I'm not exactly sure of the point "Wild Bill" is trying to make.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, I concur with Demo.
On the other hand, his account doesn't sound right to me as someone who has daily dealings with criminals. Killing a white guy who isn't a fellow criminal is going to attract too much attention from the cops.
If anything, he sounds like he wanted to find trouble--and it found him.
Although, I doubt a carload of drug dealers is only going to have one gun from my experience. My guess is that there would have been multiple guns if this had been what he said it was.
Looking at the info on this page, Wild Bill's claims aren't borne out about more guns--less crime.
Florida has a lot of gun crime.
WildBillforAmerica exposed! I knew he didn't pass the smell test.
ReplyDeleteLaci The Dog:
ReplyDeleteBroken Link.
Greg Camp:
At about 1:02 into the video Badass Billie sez, "Martin Luther King Boulevard" in such a way as to make clear that he is being derisive or monumentally stupid. I wouldn't rule out co-morbidity.
Fixed links:
ReplyDeleteLooking at the info on this page"
WildBillforAmerica exposed!
There is a way to get to the links if you click them as well uning the last link as an example:
You are sent to:
http://www.blogger.com/www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8Mhe-tyP7w&feature=related
Remove the http://www.blogger.com/ and you get:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8Mhe-tyP7w&feature=related
Which takes you to the broken link.
Bottom line: Crime is down.
ReplyDeleteDo you wanna thank concealed carry laws now or later?
"Bottom line: Crime is down.
ReplyDeleteDo you wanna thank concealed carry laws now or later?
Anonymutt needs to write, 500 times, "Correlation is not cause.".
I'm listening democommie, what is the cause?
ReplyDeleteThanks Laci. I love it that the guy has been exposed. I'd never heard of him before, but the video was a riot.
ReplyDeleteI see no reason to thank concealed carry AT ALL.
ReplyDeleteYour attribution that more people carrying concealed weapons results in less crime is bullshit.
It is not a causal relationship at all.
Look at the in depth analyses
Link text
like this one, to explain that and to better quantify and correctly identify causality- there isn't any for concealed carry.
And, this one
which also doesn't list more concealed carry anywhere as a factor:
or this one
which specifically says regarding concealed carry reducing crime:
"5. Laws Allowing the Carrying of Concealed Weapons
..."First, allowing concealed weapons should have the greatest impact on crimes which involve fact to face contact and occur outside the home where the law might affect gun carrying. Robbery is the crime category that most clearly fits this description, yet Ayres and Donohue (2003) demonstrate that empirically that the passage of these laws is, if anything, positively related to the robbery rate. More generally, Duggan (2001) finds that for crimes that appear to decline with the law change, the declines in crime actually predate the passage of the laws, arguing against a causal impact of the law. Finally, when the original Lott and Mustard (1997) data set is extended forward in time to encompass a large number of additionallaw enactments, the results disappear (Ayres and Donohue, 2003). Ultimately, there appears to be little basis for believing that concealed carry laws have had an appreciable impact on crime."[emphasis in bold is mine- DG]
Challenging me, especially to research a position, is like pointing the four legged Laci at a squirrel.
So, let me ask you - WHAT decrease in crime brought about by concealed carry?
From wiki:
ReplyDeleteHowever Lott has recently updated his findings with further evidence. According to the FBI, during the first year of the Obama administration the national murder rate declined by 7.4% along with other categories of crime which fell by significant percentages.[86] During that same time national gun sales increased dramatically. According to Mr. Lott 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than November 2007 which represents a 40% increase in sales, a trend which continued throughout 2009.[84] The drop in the murder rate was the biggest one-year drop since 1999, another year when gun sales soared in the wake of increased calls for gun control as a result of the Columbine shooting.[84]
It cannot be put any clearer, More Guns = Less Crime
From today's news:
ReplyDeleteSPARTANBURG COUNTY, S.C. -- The Spartanburg County Sheriff is known for speaking his mind, and at a news conference on Monday, he didn't hold back his anger and frustration after a woman was attacked in a park over the weekend.
Investigators said 46-year-old Walter Lance grabbed a woman who was walking her dog in Milliken Park on Sunday afternoon. They said Lance choked the woman, made her take off her clothing and tried to rape her. (Full Story)
Lance is in custody and was denied bond on Monday.
Sheriff Chuck Wright opened his news conference by saying, "Our form of justice is not making it."
He said, "Carry a concealed weapon. That'll fix it."
Read more: http://www.wyff4.com/news/29638219/detail.html#ixzz1cOZg0aO8
Is this from the same anonymous who says don't trust law enforcement?
ReplyDeleteSheriff Chuck Wright opened his news conference by saying, "Our form of justice is not making it."
He said, "Carry a concealed weapon. That'll fix it."
Unfortunately, there is a mountain of evidence demonstrating this is wrong which has already been posted.
Additionally, Lott has been pretty much discredited. John Lott is embroiled in several controversial affairs:
* he almost certainly fabricated a mysterious survey and certainly behaved unethically in making claims for which he had no supporting data
* he presented results purporting to show that "more guns" led to "less crime" when those results were the product of coding errors
* he pretended to be a woman called "Mary Rosh" on the internet in order to praise his own research and accuse his critics of fraud.
* he probably was the person who anonymously accused Steve Levitt of being "rabidly antigun"
Just more of the same kill the messenger.
ReplyDeletewiki:
The National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, claims to have found "no credible evidence" either supporting or disproving Lott's thesis.[88] However, James Q. Wilson wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that all of the Committee's own estimates confirmed Lott's finding that right-to-carry laws had decreased the murder rate and most of Lott's statistical analysis was inscrutable and survive virtually every reanalysis done by the committee.[89] On the Ayres and Donohue hybrid model showing more guns-more crime, the NAS panel stated: "The committee takes no position on whether the hybrid model provides a correct description of crime levels or the effects of right-to-carry laws."[90]
Lott is discredited? Guess it depends who you talk to.
ReplyDeleteOr, are you talking about the 1st Edition, the 2nd Edition or the 3rd Edition?
The only one who has been truly discredited is Donahue.
His findings are completely opposite of the FBI's crime reports.
A conference organized at the American Enterprise Institute by John Lott resulted in a special issue[2] of The Journal of Law and Economics. A number of papers from that conference supported Lott's conclusions:
Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University, and Brent D. Mast, American Enterprise Institute, 'Privately Produced General Deterrence', The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[3]
Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and T. Nicolaus Tideman, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, "Does the right to carry concealed handguns deter countable crimes? Only a count analysis can say", The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[4]
Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, "Testing for the effects of concealed weapons laws: Specification errors and robustness," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[5]
Other academic studies that have supported Lott's conclusions include the following.
William Alan Bartley and Mark A. Cohen, Vanderbilt University, 'The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis', Economic Inquiry, 1998[6]
Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, 'Confirming "More Guns, Less Crime"', Stanford Law Review, 2003.[7]
Eric Helland, Claremont-McKenna College and Alexander Tabarrok, George Mason University, "Using Placebo Laws to Test 'More Guns, Less Crime'," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2008.[8]
Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, and Thomas B. Marvell, Justec Research, 'The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws', Econ Journal Watch, 2008.[9]
The book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies, examines the gun control policies of many nations around the world and supports the ideas presented in Lott's work.
Those numbers anonymous reflect gun purchases; not how many people kept them versus reselling them, not how many people used them, or how they used them,and not what the crime statistics changes would have been regardless.
ReplyDeleteYou do not have even solid correlation here,much less causal correlation.
All you have done is indicate how very little you appear to understand either statistics OR empirical science generally.
So, looking at this......apparently in Australia there was a sharp drop in gun crime with strict gun restrictions.
ReplyDelete"Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws"
February, 2000
Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws
Latest official data from Australia shows a marked reduction in gun-related crime and injury following recent restrictions on the private ownership of firearms.
Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania, Australia's state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury. Between July 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force. Since that time, key indicators for gun-related death and crime have shown encouraging results.
Firearm-Related Homicide
"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."
-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999
This report shows that as gun ownership has been progressively restricted since 1915, Australia's firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has declined to almost half its 85-year average.
Homicide by Any Method
The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA.
The Institute of Criminology report Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999 includes 1998 homicide data showing "a 9% decrease from the rate in 1997." This is the period in which most of the country's new gun laws came into force.
Gun-Related Death by Any Cause
The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether or not they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years.
The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.
"We have observed a decline in firearm-related death rates (essentially in firearm-related suicides) in most jurisdictions in Australia. We have also seen a declining trend in the percentage of robberies involving the use of firearms in Australia."
-- Mouzos, J. Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice No. 116. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, May 1999; 6
Assault and Robbery
Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result of new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon). In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies involve a firearm.
"Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."
-- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Jun 1999
Firearm-Related Crime in Tasmania
"A declining firearm suicide rate, a declining firearm assault rate, a stable firearm robbery rate with a declining proportion of robberies committed with a firearm and a declining proportion of damage to property offences committed with a firearm suggest that firearm regulation has been successful in Tasmania."
-- Warner, Prof K. Firearm Deaths and Firearm Crime After Gun Licensing in Tasmania. Australian Institute of Criminology, 3rd National Outlook Symposium on Crime in Australia. Canberra, 22-23 Mar 1999.
continued:
Curbing Gun Proliferation in Australia
ReplyDeleteIn the 1996-97 Australian gun buy-back, two-thirds of a million semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns were sold to the government at market value. Thousands more gun owners volunteered their firearms for free, and nearly 700,000 guns were destroyed.
By destroying one-seventh of its estimated stock of firearms (the equivalent figure in the USA would be 30 million), Australia has significantly altered the composition of its civilian arsenal.
In addition, all remaining guns must be individually registered to their licensed owners, private firearm sales are no longer permitted and each gun purchase through a licensed arms dealer is scrutinised by police to establish a "genuine reason" for ownership. Possession of guns for self-defence is specifically prohibited, and very few civilians are permitted to own a handgun. All the nation's governments, police forces and police unions support the current gun laws.
Other Countries
Similar reductions in gun death and injury have been noted in several countries whose gun controls have been recently tightened.
In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low.
Two years ago in the United Kingdom, civilian handguns were banned, bought back from their owners and destroyed. In the year following the law change, Scotland recorded a 17% drop in all firearm-related offences. The British Home Office reports that in the nine months following the handgun ban, firearm-related offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.
A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American.
Sources: http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/facts99/
http://www.statistics.gov.au/ (see media release 68/99, 16 Jun 1999)
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi116.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/outlook99/warner.pdf
Philip Alpers, gun policy researcher
Auckland & San Francisco
from:http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm
From: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html
ReplyDeleteSection I: Gun Violence in the United States
The Nature of the Problem and Current Trends
In 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available), 34,040 people died from gunfire in the United States. Of these deaths, approximately 54 percent resulted from suicide, 41 percent resulted from homicide, and 3 percent were unintentional (see figure 2). Firearm injuries are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. In addition, for every fatal shooting, there are roughly three nonfatal shootings.1
Approximately 37,500 gun sales, including 17,800 handgun sales, are completed every day in the United States. The increasing number of gun owners has elevated the danger of guns being acquired illegally through robberies and burglaries. In 1994, more than a quarter-million households experienced the theft of one or more firearms; nearly 600,000 guns were stolen during these burglaries.8
So, older data, but still pertinent. The reasons for crime decline are complex. What is not evident is that there is a causal relationship between more people buying guns and any crime reduction.
Oversimplification is for the simple minded.
And from this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thecrimereport.org/archive/the-great-american-crime-drop-part-ii/
AFTER the first year of the Obama administration:
Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:16
The Great American Crime Drop, Part II
“[NYPD Commissioner] Ray Kelly attributes stop-and-frisk to New York’s continuing decline in crime (but) I think it’s more than just that,” says former LAPD chief William Bratton. “I think it’s the COMSTAT system. Malcolm Gladwell’s tipping point factor has come into play, and that behavior in New York City has tipped phenomenally. People just don’t routinely walk around with guns and knifes like they used to.
And then there is this - which is just one example why the superficial correlation made by the pro-gunners was not the same as a causal relationship.
ReplyDeletehttp://crofton.patch.com/articles/police-report-crime-drop-assaults-with-guns-jump-52-percent
" Police & Fire
Police Report Crime Drop, Assaults with Guns Jump 52 Percent
Anne Arundel County Police
By Tim Lemke
March 5, 2011
The Anne Arundel County Police Department reported a 7 percent reduction in major crime in 2010, though officials remain concerned about the number of violent crimes, especially those involving guns.
The county saw a significant drop in major property-related crimes, including a 7-percent drop in burglary, 9-percent decline in larceny and 26-percent drop in arson.
But instances of aggravated assault rose from 1,903 to 2,003, with a 52-percent jump in the number of assaults involving a gun.
“We are going to have to look heavy at the gun issue,” Maj. Thomas Wilson said. “When we saw that [52 percent] number pop up, that is certainly a concern for us.”
Reported cases of rape increased from 87 to 106, while homicide cases also rose from 12 to 14. All cases of violent crime rose from 2,666 to 2,693."
Another Made in USA “less-lethal” weapon kills in Palestine
ReplyDeleteby Jeff Klein on January 14, 2011
Like 6 Retweet 0
Send to a Friend del.icio.us Digg Furl
The recent killing of Jawaher Abu Rahmah in Bil’in – and the death or injury of many others -- by Israeli tear gas munitions imported from the US has spotlighted the collaboration of American companies in the lethal suppression of unarmed protests in the West Bank. However, another US-made “less lethal” weapon has also caused many deaths and injuries, but has received less attention.
Live fire “crowd control” rounds attributed to .22 caliber sniper rifles, made by Sturm, Ruger Co. in Newport, NH, have been responsible for at least six – and possibly more -- deaths and scores of injuries during the past couple of years:
image001 1
Israeli sniper Weapons– front, Ruger 10/22 suppressed. (Photo)
On January 28, 2008, Kusai al-Afrandi, age 17, was killed in Bethlehem
on 29 July 2008, Ahmad Musa, age 10, was killed in Ni’lin
on 28 December 2008 Mohammed Khawaje, age 20 (and Mohammed Hamid, age 22)
on 13 February 2009, Izzedine al-Jamal, age 14, was killed in Hebron
on 5 June 2009, Yusuf Aqel Srour, age 36 in Ni’lin (28 other than Srour were injured by 0.22” bullets in Ni’lin alone)
B’stelem claims to have documented injuries from these weapons in Ni’lin, Bil’in, Jayyus, Bitunya, and Budrus, including at least one foreign national
Israel began to import small caliber sniper rifles for “riot control” during the First Intifada. The intention was to deploy weapons that would be less lethal than its standard issue 5.56mm US-Israeli M16 assault rifle, but with more potent firepower than rubber-coated metal bullets (which have also killed). The IDF settled on the Ruger 10/22, which fired a relatively small, but high velocity 0.22 caliber rimfire cartridge that could be used “to take out key protest leaders by shooting them in the legs.” The Israeli version was fitted with a sniper scope and, presumably to amplify its terror effect, with a fully “suppressed” -- or silenced in popular usage -- barrel, which could wound or kill at a distance with no loud report to indicate the shot’s origin. As one advertiser of this weapon boasted, the only noise you will hear is the firing pin hitting and then, the ‘smack’ on the target.”
Little miss smarty pants wrote:
ReplyDelete"Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."
So they got rid of guns and armed robbery increases 20%.
That simply proves that MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME. Thank you.
Btw, instead of trying to prove common observations wrong you might wanna work on learning how to spell 'kitchen'
From an early post of yours:
And About Those Dangerous Ktichen Utensils...
Spelling errors v John Lott, no fucking contest, annoymouse.
ReplyDeleteIt has been a while since I stopped in here, but gun control does not equal less crime, just as more guns does not equal less crime. Crime rates increase and decrease all the time. Some areas, like where I reside are lower, while in the northern part of the state they have increased.
ReplyDeleteHere is the simple fact that is lost in this bullshit argument, both sides of it. Until we resolve socioeconomic issues, we will continue to see the use of guns in suicides and murders. We will continue to see guns used in self-defense.
One more thing, I am as liberal as they come, yet I own guns, I have a CCW permit, and I carry a gun. As it stands, it has nearly become a requirement where I work. Why you might be asking yourself. I carry one, because I never know what I might encounter. It might be a bear, or large cat. Then again it might be some guy who wants to steal something so he can do whatever. I say whatever because I will not assume that all thieves are addicted to drugs, nor can I say they are stealing to support their family.
"It has been a while since I stopped in here, but gun control does not equal less crime, just as more guns does not equal less crime."
ReplyDeleteThen why do we need more gunz?
I have never advocated for removing the guns that LGO's own. OTOH, I am all for removing guns that are not legally owned, including those that are held by LGO's*. I'm not anti-hunting, I'm not anti-collecting, I'm not anti-target shooting.
I'm anti-shitheadz with gunz--and there's a boatload of them out there. I'm anti-pretending gunz aren't the single device that makes it easy to rob, threaten, hurt and kill other people or commit suicide. Anyone who claims to be anti-crime and pro-gun proliferation is either a hypocrite or delusional.
* They're LGO's until they get caught with that illegal weapon, then they become Gunzoperpz.
"I'm anti-shitheadz with gunz--and there's a boatload of them out there. I'm anti-pretending gunz aren't the single device that makes it easy to rob, threaten, hurt and kill other people or commit suicide. Anyone who claims to be anti-crime and pro-gun proliferation is either a hypocrite or delusional."
ReplyDeleteI'm anti overuse of the Z's. Unless of course, you embrace the stupidz.
Oh, dear, I have offended you with too many z's, I'm zorry, my bad.
ReplyDeleteActually, the "z's" are intended to annoy you idiots; that seems to have worked.
"Actually, the "z's" are intended to annoy you idiots; that seems to have worked."
ReplyDeleteI usually just laugh at any of your comments - I can't help but picture some old dude yelling at the kids to get off his lawn everytime you post something. You come across as so angry and just yelling all the time. It is funny to see how Anon gets you so riled up.
Nah, democommie makes me laugh, often; he's not some crabby guy. Rather, imagine him sitting at his computer, sometimes laughing and sometimes just shaking his head. But I imagine him as a very pleasant man who pokes fun of stuffy people. It's just sometimes he does it with a sharper stick than other times, LOL.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I imagine all of you who are running around strapped to your gun, or with it in reach even while you shower, as terrified and suspicious of the world, all tense and fearful and angry. That's why you all have such swollen, distended, lumpy amygdalas in the middle of the more primitive part of your brain. You make it go that way with your politics and your social attitudes. Not healthy, and very much not fun.
Jim, I agree with Dog Gone's impression of democommie. I'd throw in a little bit of George Carlin too. Definitely not a crabby old guy yelling at kids.
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time imagining democommie smiling let alone laughing. Just look at his picture - you can tell that he is either always really angry or just really constipated.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he just needs more fiber in his diet and he can get rid of the shit through his ass instead of his mouth.
Then you are reading democommie too selectively through your own filter. He is really funny on a regular basis which tells me he has a great sense of humor.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Carlin didn't always smile either, but that didn't make him humorless.
It might help to look at Democommie's photo, and then imagine he winks at you - with his left eye, of course.
Jim sez I'm angry and then proceeds to demonstrate where the real anger is--between his own earz.
ReplyDeleteThat photograph was an ambush job by my former neighbor. I was standing outside my house looking at some lumber and trying to decide how to ruin it when he said, "Hey!". I looked up, directly into the glare of the morning sun being reflected off his white house and he took my picture. I use it BECAUSE it makes me look pissed. I also use it because I was wearing one of my favorite t-shirts that day. It says, "Here's a little hint, I don't care.".
I'm not always pissed off, Jim, but I'm a rageaholic and nothing pushes my buttons like a gunzloon knucklehead spouting nonsense.
"I'm not always pissed off, Jim, but I'm a rageaholic and nothing pushes my buttons like a gunzloon knucklehead spouting nonsense."
ReplyDeleteSee I think I got the read on DC better than the rest of you. He purposefully uses a picture that makes him look pissed off and is a self proclaimed rageaholic.
Again, he is good for a laugh when he spouts off about the KKK and Skrotal Americans and Fuck this and Damn that. Anon and a few others seem really good at setting him off and he always comes forward with some raging cuss filled post that makes no sense. Good laughs all around.
I'm not convinced I got him wrong and you got him right, Jim.
ReplyDeleteA rageaholic who gets especially upset at gunloons is not the same as a crabby old man yelling at kids in the front yard.
Anyway, you're all welcome here. I'm enjoying the banter.
Oh, Jim, you got me pegged!
ReplyDeleteYep, Jim, I'm a self-proclaimed rageaholic, being honest about one's faults is the first step on the road to wellness. You're a clueless moron and the sooner you admit it and get some help the better off we'll all be. Don't thank me now, wait until you've come back to your senses.
Y'know the issue of swearing is one with which I have an unbelievably hard fucking time, no shit. I'm always and forever running into extremely polite and proper KKKristians and RepuKKKlicans who wouldn't say shit if they had a mouthful. Otoh, they're usually racist, homophobic, anti-liberty authroritarian assholes. Most of them have a keen grasp of the U.S. Constitution, well, at least this part:
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".
Them three little dots at the beginning of the quote? They're an "ellipsis"*
The ellipsis is a device, used when writing, that has some positive application; it is often used when the writer wants to include the germane portion of a lengthy text (with attribution) and allow the reader to, at their leisure, read the entire passage. It also has some negative uses, one of them being "quote mining". You may be familiar with the latter is you get your news from Fox, your politics from Rush or Newt and your GODliness from the likes of James Dobson, or your ConLaw from the NRA**.
So, I'll continue to work on my careless swearing--but I don't think those aforementioned lying shitweasel fuckbags are gonna work on being honest--it costs them too much revenue.
* (ĭ-lĭp'sĭs) n., pl.-ses (-sēz).
1.
a.The omission of a word or phrase necessary for a complete syntactical construction but not necessary for understanding.
b.An example of such omission.
2.A mark or series of marks ( . . . or * * * , for example) used in writing or printing to indicate an omission, especially of letters or words.
[Latin ellīpsis, from Greek elleipsis, from elleipein, to fall short. See ellipse.]
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/ellipsis#ixzz1ck2RadXq
** These several examples are but the visible blackhead for a suppurating pusfilled grabbag of the reichwing's dysintelligensia.