To Arm or to Disarm.

[MightyMouse 12]

I posted this up for you to read before, but I doubt you did. The Harvard Law Center (hardly a conservative bunch) did an exhaustive study of murder rates worldwide and found zero correlation between legal gun ownership and murder, suicide, or overall crime rates. Here:

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

 

 

Perhaps you did not read it or you read it and feign selective ignorance.

 

Like so many well written pieces of NRA propaganda, it compares violent crime rates in jurisdictions where guns have become restricted to jurisdictions where guns are not restrictive and propose paradoxy. Then they compare short term and long term statistics. They exclude other influences of trending cultural, social, and legal differences. In short it is propaganda. There is big money in weak gun laws.

 

All countries are not the same and comparing them " willy nilly" is data-mining to strengthen a weak hypothesis when it has no merit on its own.

 

CHICAGO/NEW YORK, Dec 28 (Reuters) - In a sharp contrast between two of the nation's largest cities, Chicago recorded its 499th murder of 2012 on Thursday night while New York reported 414 murders as of Friday even though it has more than three times the population, according to police.

 

Plagued by gang violence, Chicago surpassed last year's murder total of 433 in October and is set for the highest rate of homicide since the third largest U.S. city recorded 512 in 2008. The number is likely to top 500 on the last weekend of the year.

 

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced on Friday that the nation's largest city could finish the year with the lowest number of murders and shootings since 1963, when it began keeping comparable data. The number of murders this year in New York is only about one-fifth the total of 2,245 homicides recorded in the peak year of 1990.

 

Sure, everyone wants to take credit for improvements that occur. The NY experience I am sure is not just a result of stricter gun rules, but the NRA conveniently leaves out the NY statistics since NY has some of the most restrictive and punishable gun laws in the US and sells the Chicago experience. But accordingly, from the study, shouldn't we expect gun violence to increase in NY since they have tighter gun rules? Datamining.

 

You seem to trust your dad. Ask your dad if adding guns to a situation would increase the chances of gun related violence or decrease it.

 

While you are at it. Ask your dad about which situation he would be more comfortable with:

If you told him you were going to a party where everyone there would be armed.

Or,

if you told him you were going to a party where guns were banned.

[MightyMouse 12]

I posted this up for you to read before, but I doubt you did. The Harvard Law Center (hardly a conservative bunch) did an exhaustive study of murder rates worldwide and found zero correlation between legal gun ownership and murder, suicide, or overall crime rates. Here:

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

.

 

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund hosted the Next Generation RKBA Scholars Seminar in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 7, and 8, 2012. Twenty-five select scholars heard, among others, Professor Randy Barnett, Professor Robert Cottrol, Professor Nicholas Johnson, Professor Joyce Malcolm, Dr. Stephen Halbrook, and Don Kates.

 

No bias whatsoever, correct? Slap Harvard on it and it becomes legitimate?

[TheDude 10]

Wow, clarifying that it was a plural labeling, instead of targeted at just one person, not only elevates your arguments into the realm of unassailable (like - ‘dumb’ people are always wrong), but it also removes any question that you are on the highest point of moral ground. (like – you know how everyone should live their lives based on the way you live yours.) Thank you so much.

 

Previous :razz: was missed or misinterpreted... maybe a will work

 

Jesus on a bicycle!

 

How long has it taken you to realise this???

 

 

FINALLY THE PENNY DROPS!!

 

Sheeesh.

[TheDude 10]

To the To Disarms

Based on emotions, I think you have latched onto an idea that banning guns would fix ‘it’ or at least sufficiently reduce ‘it’. I understand how close the close physical proximity for some of you reinforces your position. But I don’t think any of you ‘gun haters’ are really on board though. Nor were you really on board before. If you guys were really on board we would have seen passionate posting about the evils of guns for years and years now. The number of gun deaths of ‘children’ before Sandy would have been sufficient fuel – unless you are really racists who don’t care about ‘minority’ children ie black teens.

Drug lords, who are typically dangerous sociopaths adept at organizing dupes, can and do arm their minions perpetually… yet really until a single (still alledgedly) psychiatric patient snaps, we didn’t hear a word from you or the media. Your “rights be damned, just save one kid” arguments, twisted to “fewer guns = fewer gun deaths” arguments, are hypocritical… now just done for the sake of arguing rather than really trying to make changes to the culture and to laws.

 

I disagree.

 

I look at it as the straw that broke the camels back. It's just a shame that it's taken sooooo long for America to realise this.

[sdoma 10]

You are coming in mid conversation. comparisons have been made of assault weapons and squirrel guns.

 

The info-graphic was pointing out the flaws of the government's model for identifying a so-called "assault weapon." The actual technical term refers to a select-fire (a switch that toggles full-auto and semi-auto fire modes) rifle designed for engagements up to 400 meters. I will bold to stress: True assault weapons have been banned for over 40 years, and machine guns since the 1930s.

 

The term has, however, been co-opted by the media. The assault weapons ban of the 90's focused on so-called accessories, features of the weapon. No one feature would get the weapon banned, it was more than two of them together on the same gun. So, basically, they banned guns that looked scary but you could argue were no more effective. In the picture he showed, the only difference other than the scope was the stock and grip, which don't increase the weapon's effectiveness, especially at close quarters.

 

The lowly 22 is the most oft-used caliber in murder weapons because it's quiet, cheap and abundant, but soldiers haven't ever used them for a reason.

 

 

We didn't for political reasons, but you agree that we could have and will if we have too. You are making a somewhat silly assertion that we couldn't.

 

So, your assertion is that the US govt would engage in wholesale slaughter of American citizens, up to and including carpet bombing large swaths of its own infrastructure? I was pointing out the aforementioned insurgencies to demonstrate that has no historical basis.

 

 

Firearms are dangerous. They do not belong in schools. People who are experienced with firearms are capable of making mistakes with them. The more firearms the more mistakes with firearms. Is this not true? The more firearms, the more likely they are to end up in the hands of someone who will misuse them. Can you agree with this? if we reduce the number of guns in circulation, we will reduce the likely of a gun ending up in the hands of someone who will misuse them? Is that a radical statement?

 

Are these liberal ideas?

 

I did multiple searches using different terms trying to find situations where a student was accidentally shot with a security guard's gun and couldn't find any. This is not to say it hasn't happened, but doesn't appear to be the risk you claim. Also, the Clinton administration funded a program called School Shield which funded putting cops in schools. It was discontinued because of the cost, but at no point was a kid shot with a cop's gun in the program.

 

Dailykos is reporting that a newly hired security guard left his gun in the school bathroom where he worked. Accidents can happen, I agree, but like everything in life, this has to be weighed against the benefit of an armed officer present when a psycho starts shooting. You have to weigh each risk against the other, don't you think?

[SunTrader 10]

...........

 

CHICAGO/NEW YORK, Dec 28 (Reuters) - In a sharp contrast between two of the nation's largest cities, Chicago recorded its 499th murder of 2012 on Thursday night while New York reported 414 murders as of Friday even though it has more than three times the population, according to police.

 

Plagued by gang violence, Chicago surpassed last year's murder total of 433 in October and is set for the highest rate of homicide since the third largest U.S. city recorded 512 in 2008. The number is likely to top 500 on the last weekend of the year.

 

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced on Friday that the nation's largest city could finish the year with the lowest number of murders and shootings since 1963, when it began keeping comparable data. The number of murders this year in New York is only about one-fifth the total of 2,245 homicides recorded in the peak year of 1990.

 

Sure, everyone wants to take credit for improvements that occur. The NY experience I am sure is not just a result of stricter gun rules, but the NRA conveniently leaves out the NY statistics since NY has some of the most restrictive and punishable gun laws in the US and sells the Chicago experience. But accordingly, from the study, shouldn't we expect gun violence to increase in NY since they have tighter gun rules?

 

 

I am quoting this news item again to help those who might have a bout of selective amnesia - you folks know who you are. It probably won't do much good but in some cases they need all the help they can get.

 

And for the record New York DID finish at the lowest murder total in FIFTY years.

[sdoma 10]

Perhaps you did not read it or you read it and feign selective ignorance.

 

Like so many well written pieces of NRA propaganda, it compares violent crime rates in jurisdictions where guns have become restricted to jurisdictions where guns are not restrictive and propose paradoxy. Then they compare short term and long term statistics. They exclude other influences of trending cultural, social, and legal differences. In short it is propaganda. There is big money in weak gun laws.

 

I'm not sure you really considered all the data they represented. First, they compare crime rates in places with heavy gun control to places without, and point out that there is no correlation. Some places with gun control have low crime, others high. Same for places without. They postulate that in many high-crime gun control districts, gun control was instituted as a reaction to high crime rates, then examine the data before and after the regs are put in place, showing that violent crime often spikes following.

 

They are careful to make the point, however, that more guns doesn't equal less crime, but nor does it equal more. They attribute violent crime rates to socioeconomic factors, which is not a conservative position, but a liberal one.

 

All countries are not the same and comparing them " willy nilly" is data-mining to strengthen a weak hypothesis when it has no merit on its own.

 

As I said above, the comparison was not willy-nilly. I think you just did a quick scan of the study without really reading the analysis.

 

Compares Chicago and NYC

 

Sure, everyone wants to take credit for improvements that occur. The NY experience I am sure is not just a result of stricter gun rules, but the NRA conveniently leaves out the NY statistics since NY has some of the most restrictive and punishable gun laws in the US and sells the Chicago experience. But accordingly, from the study, shouldn't we expect gun violence to increase in NY since they have tighter gun rules? Datamining.

 

Actually, this result is CONSISTENT with their findings, that firearms laws do not heavily impact the overall crime/murder/suicide rates either way. I could make a convincing case that the differences between Chicago and NYC are due to NYC's use of stop-and-frisk (perhaps unconstitutional itself) and Chicago's rampant political corruption and public housing policies, which are theorized to be gang-creating. Chicago's gang problem is much worse than NYC's, and the ghetto residents hold a lot of political power here. Chicago's police force has also been pared back to 9,000 and change from over 13,000 under Daley.

 

You seem to trust your dad. Ask your dad if adding guns to a situation would increase the chances of gun related violence or decrease it.

 

Actually, that depends on the situation and the people involved. Let's say that you and three of your good friends are forced to exist in close proximity with guys that are Latin Kings. Let's say that one of you dissed them in some way, and now they got a beef with you. Do you think that your being armed would increase the chances of violence being perpetrated against you? Is there a higher chance that they would try something, or a lower chance?

[MightyMouse 12]

 

 

 

So, your assertion is that the US govt would engage in wholesale slaughter of American citizens, up to and including carpet bombing large swaths of its own infrastructure? I was pointing out the aforementioned insurgencies to demonstrate that has no historical basis.

 

[/quote

 

I do believe that at some extreme point that they would engage in slaughter of Americans inspite of any or all protections against such an event.

 

 

I did multiple searches using different terms trying to find situations where a student was accidentally shot with a security guard's gun and couldn't find any. This is not to say it hasn't happened, but doesn't appear to be the risk you claim.

 

There are not that many schools that have armed security present. But, arm faculty in every school as has been proposed and the accidents will start happening. It's just math.It would probably work out to where the benefits of the added security would be drowned by the additional shootings, accidents, etc.

 

Dailykos is reporting that a newly hired security guard left his gun in the school bathroom where he worked. Accidents can happen, I agree, but like everything in life, this has to be weighed against the benefit of an armed officer present when a psycho starts shooting. You have to weigh each risk against the other, don't you think?

 

Certainly! Adding risk doesn't make any sense to me unless it actually nets out to lower loss.

[zdo 20]

If we tell a lie (or in this case, use a statistic to argue causation) often enough, it will become a ‘truth’

 

...And for the record New York DID finish at the lowest murder total in FIFTY years.

 

 

... and then we infer to those with "selective amnesia" that guns ‘off the streets’ as THE reason for NYc’s suddenly civility?

… just as likely are that the crime organizations are more ‘mature’ in NYc than they are in ChiTown…

… in any event, other “violence” aspects of culture not sufficiently factored in these 'statistical' comparisons.. plus

… ignore stats on much more dramatic drops than in CHiTown or in NYC in cities where concealed carry laws where streamlined (Richmond, VA, etc.)

 

… in any case, guns in or out of the hands of regular citizens certainly doesn’t have as strong case as a major ‘causation’ factor as the one the To Disarmr's are wishing to build…

 

lies, dam lies, and statistics

A while back in this thread, major arguments were based on US Aussie comparisons.

whoops!

Australians Own More Guns Since Strict Gun Control Laws Were Enacted

..and No, I don’t care about or trust these 'stats' either. I’m just using them to show that all the ‘causation’ arguments based on stats are shaky at best.

ie I don’t ‘trust’ any of the stats used in this thread to build a case – pro or con Arm. ...

ie I don’t trust when posters turn to stats in this argument.

[sdoma 10]

I do believe that at some extreme point that they would engage in slaughter of Americans inspite of any or all protections against such an event.

 

And this presupposes that law enforcement and military personnel would move in lockstep to do so, or that the elites would have a drone army. Devil ex machina? That's not the case, and with all of the former LEO and Vets out there, including SpecOps guys, an American insurgency would be much, much more difficult to defeat, and impossible to control, as long as there are weapons out there for them to use. That's why we have the 2nd amendment.

 

From ambushes, to bombings, to sniper attacks from people that blend in with your supporters, a tyrannical government would have a great deal of difficulty holding on to power. Think of what a couple of former Delta snipers could do with Barrett 50 cal rifles. Those rifles can kill from over a mile away. Would a tyrant dare make an appearance in the open at that point?

 

There are not that many schools that have armed security present. But, arm faculty in every school as has been proposed and the accidents will start happening. It's just math.It would probably work out to where the benefits of the added security would be drowned by the additional shootings, accidents, etc.

 

Again, I am not a proponent of arming all faculty, and especially not of requirements that they do so. I did hear an intriguing proposal from a friend of mine, that every principal's office have a biometric safe that, when opened by one of a few people in the school, would automatically alert all police depts in the area to an armed intruder in the school. Inside it would have a shotgun with bean bag rounds inside which are non-lethal but capable of incapacitating an assailant, even in body armor. One shot from that would have put Lanza down for the count. Not saying that should be done, but there are a range of ideas out there that should be looked at that, at reasonable cost, would prevent and/or minimize deaths from these shooters. Locks on doors and potential one button lock down capability come to mind. Actually making schools hard to get into is another. It can be done without making them look like a prison.

[sdoma 10]

I do believe that at some extreme point that they would engage in slaughter of Americans inspite of any or all protections against such an event.

 

You reminded me of a quote, so I went and dug it up for you. I'd like you to think about it and your idea of government as omnipotent. I think there's truth in it what he has to say.

 

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

[zdo 20]

I was defending myself.

 

 

Against whom? No one was attacking you. … especially until you started interjecting yourself into the ‘conversation’ with 'possible interpretation' posts for questions to OP, or my 'messin with' TheDude.... plus you weren't coming down on either side. Why the hell are you defending yourself ?

"...Paranoia strikes deep. Into your heart it will creep ..."

 

 

...or am i just not asking the right questions?

 

It’s 1774. You live in Boston.

SIUYA, would you be a rebel or a tory?

 

Here’s some 'excess know how' reading for you.

Amazon.com: Resistance to Tyranny: A Primer (9781450574280): Joseph P. Martino: Books

[zdo 20]

Not a lot to do with the kids being white. Has to do with them being kids and being close to home. No matter where my home was, I would feel the same had it happened near that home. I make no apologies for living where I live.

 

Ok I will accept your replies as confirmation that the apparent hypocrisy is not based in racism – at least not the conscious, truly vicious kind. I never really suspected it deeply anyway… but we can’t be afraid to question.

I was not using ‘racism’ to try to win the argument. (Ironic, but once ‘race’ was brought up all the other points in the post were ignored… so, apparently, that subject is not as inert as we would like to think…anyways) I was, and still am, questioning what lies behind your crowdlike emotional passion for To Disarm...

it got 'buried, but also in that post were some ‘metro’ comments … another ‘answer’ to my questions may be something as ‘simple’ as the old rural vs urban orientation.

Why collectivism is doomed and the next great crisis will massively shift America toward conservatism

 

Your paradigm is so intrinsic to your mental process that you are hardly aware of its existence, until you try to communicate with someone with a different paradigm.

Donella Meadows

[TheDude 10]

 

Actually, that depends on the situation and the people involved. Let's say that you and three of your good friends are forced to exist in close proximity with guys that are Latin Kings. Let's say that one of you dissed them in some way, and now they got a beef with you. Do you think that your being armed would increase the chances of violence being perpetrated against you? Is there a higher chance that they would try something, or a lower chance?

 

So that we're on the right page here, do you mean:

 

Suppose you upset a Mexican gentleman is some way, and now he is jolly upset?

 

Well firstly, gentleman do not carry guns. They have no need to - unless for sport of course. Red necks and other undesirables carry guns.

 

Second, if our Mexican fellow was somewhat angry, then perhaps if MM was to have a gun on his person, then the Mexican chap may actually try and grab the weapon and use it on our poor friend MM! That would be a reason not to carry a gun wouldn't you agree?

 

As a wise man once said 'He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword'. That applies to Niggaz and gentleman alike.

 

:missy:

[SIUYA 11]

Against whom? No one was attacking you. … especially until you started interjecting yourself into the ‘conversation’ with 'possible interpretation' posts for questions to OP, or my 'messin with' TheDude.... plus you weren't coming down on either side. Why the hell are you defending yourself ?

"...Paranoia strikes deep. Into your heart it will creep ..."

 

just trying to put myself into the shoes of others....

 

 

It’s 1774. You live in Boston.

SIUYA, would you be a rebel or a tory?

 

[/url]

 

depends who i am talking to.....

thanks for the extra reading.

Plus - just for clarity/reality - it aint 1774, but then again 1984 was also written in 1948 right...

[SunTrader 10]

If we tell a lie (or in this case, use a statistic to argue causation) often enough, it will become a ‘truth’

 

 

... and then we infer to those with "selective amnesia" that guns ‘off the streets’ as THE reason for NYc’s suddenly civility?

….

 

Who cares about civility.

 

And it ain't statistics. It is the body count in the two respective cities morgues'.

[SunTrader 10]

...

It’s 1774. You live in Boston.

SIUYA, would you be a rebel or a tory?

 

 

Some are living and thinking like it is still 1774.

[MightyMouse 12]

Texas College Shooting Update: Both suspects in Lone Star College shooting in custody - Crimesider - CBS News

 

A gun sure does come in handy in an argument. Guns don't kill people, arguments do.

[Patuca 13]

well its about damn time they stood up and drove some fear into the SOB's

 

In Mexico, self-defense squads battle violence - Yahoo! News

 

too bad the poor bastards don't have decent weapons...due to the BAN ON GUNS of course...if they had some decent weapons they might drive the fear in faster and deeper....

[MightyMouse 12]

Guns On Campus: Texas, Arkansas Legislators File To Allow Concealed Carry At Colleges

 

I was unaware that constitutional rights were God given. What troubles me is that we had more than one forefather who wrote the constitution which means that we do not believe in only one God making us in fact, if not in effect, polytheistic and, therefore, subject to eternal damnation. Could it be that the constitution will lead us to hell? Is this some sort of left wing, commie, socialist, facist, jewish plot? Don't take away my medicare!

[Tams 20]

constitution is not eternal,

constitution can be amended, it's been done before.

[zdo 20]

‘Back in 1774’ those chumps were working on a concept called Natural Law … with MM and Tams leading the way, we’re way beyond that ignorance now.

 

‘Back in 1874’, well intentioned, hypocritical old ladies (… they were hypocritical because they didn’t really care at all about the colored drunks dying - just their young ‘lads and ladies’ who were being morally sullied and made promiscuous by booz. – no modern day parallels here) . It took them decades, but their dreams came true… they got the ‘bad objects’ made illegal.

Now, with MM and TheDude applying the same fervor in leading the way, we have an equally effective campaign of ‘prohibition as prevention’ under way with weapons.

[MightyMouse 12]

Pa. kindergartner suspended for alleged "terroristic threat," attorney says - Crimesider - CBS News

 

Can't wait to see how armed school officials will act with this situation.

[MightyMouse 12]

‘Back in 1774’ those chumps were working on a concept called Natural Law … with MM and Tams leading the way, we’re way beyond that ignorance now.

 

‘Back in 1874’, well intentioned, hypocritical old ladies (… they were hypocritical because they didn’t really care at all about the colored drunks dying - just their young ‘lads and ladies’ who were being morally sullied and made promiscuous by booz. – no modern day parallels here) . It took them decades, but their dreams came true… they got the ‘bad objects’ made illegal.

Now, with MM and TheDude applying the same fervor in leading the way, we have an equally effective campaign of ‘prohibition as prevention’ under way with weapons.

 

Not prohibition. There are plenty ways to force people to act more responsibly with guns.

 

That family that was massacred in NM had weapons not under lock and key. Could the kid have killed the family anyway? Of course he could have. But the father was just another irresponsible gun owner. May he rest in peace. No one deserves that.

[zdo 20]

... There are plenty ways to force people to act more responsibly with guns.

 

.

 

"plenty ways" ? ... such as ???