| Author | Message | ||
     notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2131 Registered: 5-2001  |
I thought the moral was: guns don't kill people, cats kill people. Local, what about my example with having a cold? Do you feel that it's wrong to treat the symptoms of the cold, if you can't actually cure the cold itself? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 512 Registered: 3-2004  |
its a silly attempt at an analogy and i will not be a part of it. now hush, i think i saw a feral cat in the yard and i am not doen piling sandbags near all of the doors in my house | ||
| common sense Citizen Username: Common_sense Post Number: 53 Registered: 12-2004 |
MJ - you say that when people respect law and order, you are all for banning guns. So you are saying that American society is lawless ? And you want to arm them too? L - what's the point in discussing with you ? I think guns are bad. Do you think they are good ? Can anyone just answer that simple question ? Or can I just summarize your position being that you are in favor of lots of gun killing and having lots of guns around. Well, it's been fun. Bye. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 516 Registered: 3-2004 |
please come up with some points that do not involve either twisting my words or outright falsehoods in regards to my words and their intent. it seems that with your obvious anger issues and inability to converse without childish misrepresentation of others posts that it is you who needs to grow up, laddie. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2132 Registered: 5-2001 |
Nothing silly about it. There's a point to be made. If the only practical solution is to treat symptoms of a problem, rather than the root cause, then why not employ that solution? This is precisely the question that you need to answer to justify your position on gun laws. | ||
| sk8mom Citizen Username: Sk8mom Post Number: 115 Registered: 11-2003 |
The hydrogen bomb never killed anyone either. Common sense, thank you. Gun traffickers purchase guns in states with relaxed firearms laws and move them to wherever they can make money. Although murder and bodily harm can be carried out any number of ways, guns make it easy. Many people, including teenagers (their brains are not fully developed), have impulse control issues. I would think that many gun-related murders and assaults are committed impulsively, in the heat of the moment. Would things have turned out differently if a gun weren't available? I would think so. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1721 Registered: 1-2003  |
So you are saying that American society is lawless ? And you want to arm them too? No, I'm saying that society has lawless aspects to it and that law abiding citizens have a right to defend themselves against it. Americans do as a whole have a lack of respect for authority, when that changes, maybe we won't need guns in our society, but until then, I feel far more comfortable with an armed populace than an unarmed one. When society evolves to a point where we can ban ALL guns, including those from the police, security guards, bodyguards, etc. Then we can talk. But we are way too far from that to talk about banning them just yet. Sk8, once again, Florida proves you wrong. Its easy for anyone to get a gun down there, short waiting periods, no license or permit neccessary, pawn shops everywhere. Concealed carry permits are just as easy to get. Yet there is statistically about the same number of murders and gun crimes as in NY. If guns make it so easy, wouldn't you expect there to be many more? I understand you think what you think is common sense, but none of the studies by either side bear you out. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7876 Registered: 5-2001 |
Michael, you are actually making an arguement against gun ownership. If the murder rate in Florida with easy access to handguns and a "right to carry law" is statiscally the same as in New York and New Jersey with strict controls on ownership and carrying firearms by lawful people, why allow people to carry in the first place?  | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1724 Registered: 1-2003 |
Because of the second ammendment. | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 1530 Registered: 7-2003 |
Ha Ha Cop shoots himself in the foot in a class room. http://tinyurl.com/4f9kr | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 525 Registered: 3-2004 |
that video is so last week. lol | ||
| rssounds Citizen Username: Rssounds Post Number: 342 Registered: 5-2001 |
Florida Stats of interest. Pre right to carry: Violent Crimes: 325/100,000 population Post right to carry: Violent Crimes: 225/100,000 population | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5817 Registered: 1-2003  |
bobk, carrying a gun could allow you to beat the odds. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 527 Registered: 3-2004 |
a man in california was pushed out of a window recently. he fell to his death. OUTLAW WINDOWS!!!!! | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 1554 Registered: 12-2001 |
Did you know Lott has been seriously discredited? This is from Mother Jones, but it has been widely reported elsewhere. "Were Lott to be discredited, an entire branch of pro-gun advocacy could lose its chief social scientific basis. That may be happening. Earlier this year, Lott found himself facing serious criticism of his professional ethics. Pressed by critics, he failed to produce evidence of the existence of a survey -- which supposedly found that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack" -- that he claimed to have conducted in the second edition of "More Guns, Less Crime". Lott then made matters even worse by posing as a former student, "Mary Rosh," and using the alias to attack his critics and defend his work online. When an Internet blogger exposed the ruse, the scientific community was outraged. Lott had created a "false identity for a scholar," charged Science editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy. "In most circles, this goes down as fraud." Lott's recent baggage makes him an impeachable witness in the push to pass state-level right to carry laws, and raises questions about his broader body of work. Kennedy and others have even likened Lott to Michael Bellesiles, the Emory University historian who could not produce the data at the heart of his award-winning 2000 book "Arming America", which had seemed to undermine the notion that there was widespread gun ownership and usage in colonial America. But while Bellesiles resigned after a university panel challenged his credibility, thus far Lott has escaped a similar fate. An academic rolling stone, Lott has held research positions at the University of Chicago and Yale law schools, but currently works at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a Washington think tank much smiled upon by the Bush administration. AEI will not say whether it will investigate its in-house guns expert; by e-mail, AEI president Christopher DeMuth declined to comment on the possibility. But this is not the first time Lott has been accused of overstating his results. In early 1997, Lott testified before Nebraska lawmakers with advance galleys of his Journal of Legal Studies article in hand, claiming to have proven a causal link between right to carry laws and lower crime. Yet soon afterwards in the same journal, economist Dan Black and criminologist Daniel Nagin found that slight alterations to Lott's data and model dramatically skewed the outcome. For instance, removing Florida from the analysis caused the beneficial impact of right to carry laws on murder and rape to vanish entirely. Lott had an answer to Black and Nagin -- as he has for each subsequent critic. They tend to be mind-bogglingly complicated, involving things like ordinary least squares and Poisson distributions. In calling Lott's overall thesis junk science, Skeptical Inquirer magazine noted his tendency to make "arguments so complex that only other highly trained regression analysts can understand, let alone refute, them." This was not meant as praise. The Stanford Law Review critique, authored by Yale's Ayres and Stanford's Donohue, analyzed more recent crime statistics, extending Lott's original 1977-1992 crime dataset to include data through the late 1990s. As it turned out, after 1992, partly due to the end of the 1980s' crack cocaine-related crime wave, crime rates dropped dramatically in states with large urban centers, many of which had not passed right to carry laws. This fact proves highly inconvenient to the "More Guns, Less Crime" argument. After testing Lott and Mustard's analysis with more years of data and different econometric tweakings, Donohue and Ayres conclude, "No longer can any plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to reduce crime for all or even most states"; their analysis even suggested such laws might increase violent crime. This may seem like an ordinary scholarly dispute, but it quickly devolved into the sort of controversy that has followed much of Lott's recent work. Lott was invited to write a response to Ayres and Donohue, scheduled to run simultaneously in the Stanford Law Review. He accepted the invitation, but then suddenly withdrew his name from the response as the editorial process wound down. The cause, according to then Stanford Law Review president Benjamin Horwich, was a minor editing dispute involving literally one word; Lott, however, complains of an editorial "ultimatum" from the journal. And so Lott's response was published under the name of two co-authors, economists Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley. They accused Donohue and Ayres of having "simply misread their own results" and, in a feat of statistical one-upmanship, claimed to extend the crime data even further -- through 2000 -- thereby rescuing the "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis in the process. But when Ayres and Donohue analyzed this new data, they say they found severe coding errors that, when corrected, thoroughly obliterated the attempt to confirm the "More Guns, Less Crime" thesis. Similar coding errors, wrote Donohue and Ayres, have cropped up elsewhere in Lott's work, including in his new book, "The Bias Against Guns". A charge of coding errors, while not unheard of, is embarrassing, since it implies that only by using mistaken data can Lott preserve his thesis. The errors might have been accidental, but since the Stanford Law Review exchange, Lott has continued to defend the erroneous work. "There's a bit of concern over making the error, but now there's huge concern over not backing away from the results now that it has been pointed out," says Ayres. In May, Lott told the Chronicle of Higher Education that the claim of coding errors had not been reviewed by a third party. Now, though, he admits the errors but calls them "minor" and claims they don't appreciably affect the results of the Plassmann-Whitley paper (which is, of course, really his own). "I knew he was going to say that," says Donohue when informed of Lott's response. " | ||
| musicme Citizen Username: Musicme Post Number: 994 Registered: 5-2001  |
Obviously guns don't protect Judges or their families | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 540 Registered: 3-2004 |
there was someone holding that gun. he should walk free though cause we all know it was the guns fault, not his. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7883 Registered: 5-2001 |
musicme, that was just dumb. The Judge's family in Illinois were unarmed. The only person with a gun was the perp. The early reports on the Georgia incident are that a prisoner took a gun away from a court officer. Possibly civilians with guns in both cases might have prevented the murderers, although I am willing to admit the situations might have turned into the gunfight at the OK Coral. This kind of sums up my view on the situation. Rssounds has posted some reasonably impressive statistics. Still everytime I am in a Mall in Florida and see all the geezers with "nines" on their belts I don't really feel comfortable either. | ||
| SO Refugee Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 42 Registered: 2-2005  |
Libby, The purpose of a toaster is to make toast and the purpose of a gun is for what? To shoot bullets. If someone is killed with a toaster, we assume either poor wiring or some ingenuity on the part of the killer. Any idiot can pick up a gun and use it for its designed purpose and shoot. Make toast, not war. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 561 Registered: 3-2004 |
toast cats! |
