I'll give gbaji a hint: it's the same reason states with higher crime rates have more people in prison. It's really not hard. Just set down the partisan tinged reality filters and engage your brain for, oh, have a minute or so.
The question one should ask is if the adoption of more restrictive gun laws dropped the crime rate more (or lessened the increase) versus similar states which did not adopt such gun laws.
I actually have no idea what the answer is.
Edit: looked it up:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/23/1615
"CONCLUSIONS. Restrictive licensing of handguns was associated with a prompt decline in homicides and suicides by firearms in the District of Columbia. No such decline was observed for homicides or suicides in which guns were not used, and no decline was seen in adjacent metropolitan areas where restrictive licensing did not apply. Our data suggest that restrictions on access to guns in the District of Columbia prevented an average of 47 deaths each year after the law was implemented. "
Oh, and what we learned from the Virginia Tech killings is that the laws we do have are rather ineffective. They've been pre-loopholed, guaranteed or your NRA dues back.
Edited, Jul 7th 2008 6:11pm by yossarian
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- DC gun ban struck down
DC gun ban struck downFollow
gbaji wrote:
Ambrya wrote:
knoxsouthy wrote:
Still waiting for some evidence that gun control actually works in reducing violent crime.
Still waiting for some REAL evidence (not just a far-right propaganda website) that gun availability reduces violent crime. You made the claim, back it up.
To be fair Ambrya, you're creating an impossible standard though. Somewhat by definition, the only sites that will have compiled lists of states/counties ranked by relation between gun control laws and violent crime rates will be identified by you as "far right propaganda" sites.
Nonsense. Just a little ways back, Yossarian provides a citation from the New England Journal of Medicine, a reputable scientific source, and not one any reasonable person could claim to be biased. If Varrus can provide a similar citation to back up his claims, then by all means I will concede his point. But look at the source he provided. Sorry if I don't trust the bias on a website that peddles books titled, Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax.
Edited, Jul 7th 2008 6:50pm by Ambrya
Jophiel wrote:
That's fine. Then just say you don't have an neutral cite.
Lol. On this issue, there aren't any Joph.
My point was purely that it's kinda silly to attack someone's argument because their source isn't non-biased, while refusing to cite any source yourself. And then, when called on it, insisting that the other guy come up with a new cite that you'll agree with first. I didn't think it was much of a stretch to point out that if you are anti-gun, you're not going to find any facts on a pro-gun site to be valid. And guess what? Your definition of a "pro-gun site" is going to be any site that contains facts that you consider to be "pro-gun". Which ends up being an impossible qualification. Dunno. Thought it was obvious...
We can play competing gun statistics all day long. At the end of the day, neither side can make a resounding argument in either direction. As Smash correctly points out, it's *all* correlation (and I'm waiting for him to go off on Yoss's post, but wont hold my breath). The point is that, given the lack of clear undeniable conclusion regarding the relationship between private gun ownership and crime, and given the right to "keep and bear arms" as defined in the 2nd amendment, it would seem best to err on the side of *not* restricting that right.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's fine. Then just say you don't have an neutral cite.
Lol. On this issue, there aren't any Joph.
Sure there are. Or are you going to argue that the New England Journal of Medicine, which Yossarian cited, is part of the vast OMG!TakeAwayTheGuns conspiracy?
Quote:
My point was purely that it's kinda silly to attack someone's argument because their source isn't non-biased, while refusing to cite any source yourself.
Okay, are you getting confused by words again? What part of "I'm not the one making statistical claims, therefore I'm not the one who has to back up those claims" are you not getting? I'm not claiming statistics one way or the other. I'm not saying Virus's stats are wrong, I'm saying they are QUESTIONABLE, because they do not come from an unbiased source.
If I were making a statistical claim, I'd back it up with numbers from a reliable source. But that's not what I'm doing. I'm merely pointing out that Virus's source is suspect, therefore his numbers tell us nothing.
Quote:
And then, when called on it, insisting that the other guy come up with a new cite that you'll agree with first.
If Virus wants to make statistical claims, he needs to find an unbiased source, and not use www.RightWingYahoosRUS.com. Whether I agree with the numbers or not is not the issue. I can't agree or disagree with them, because the source from which they are derived is so unreliable that taking them seriously enough to form a judgment one way or the other is an asinine waste of time.
Quote:
I didn't think it was much of a stretch to point out that if you are anti-gun, you're not going to find any facts on a pro-gun site to be valid. And guess what? Your definition of a "pro-gun site" is going to be any site that contains facts that you consider to be "pro-gun".
So then, by extension, if we follow your logic, you are saying that because the NEJM published facts that are "anti-gun" that the NEJM is an "anti-gun site"?
Nonsense. If the NEJM had said something else, cited stats about DC's gun law that were in support of what Virus was saying, rather than the opposite, I would STILL recognize that source as being credible and unbiased. I'm not stupid enough to claim a bias on the part of a well-recognized peer-reviewed scientific journal. Are you?
As Joph has said repeatedly, if the numbers Virus put forth are legit, then the site he got them from has a legit source. All he has to do is cite the legit source, rather than the version posted by the far-right nutjobs. But he hasn't done that. Nor, in defense of his numbers, have you. All you have done is cry about how no such source exists. Which is pretty damn telling.
gbaji wrote:
Lol. On this issue, there aren't any Joph.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Per your cite, rank & file citizens belong to an "unorganized militia" which would seem in opposition to the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in Amendment=2. So I'm no so much ignoring it as much as thinking it's not especially relevent.
Unorganized and "well regulated" are apples and oranges.
Regulated: To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law. [...] To put or maintain in order.
I wouldn't call a bunch of random yahoos from down the street expected to be our last line of defense when the Chinese invade or Bush goes all tyrannical "well regulated", but that's just me. Barring a stricter, more official, definition of each I'm going to have to go with my own opinion on it.
You really think a general lumping of every citizen able to hold a weapon without any training or qualifications aside from holding a shotgun constitutes a "well regulated militia"?
I wouldn't call a bunch of random yahoos from down the street expected to be our last line of defense when the Chinese invade or Bush goes all tyrannical "well regulated", but that's just me. Barring a stricter, more official, definition of each I'm going to have to go with my own opinion on it.
You really think a general lumping of every citizen able to hold a weapon without any training or qualifications aside from holding a shotgun constitutes a "well regulated militia"?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
"well regulated militia"?
I would.. were I to assume that the "regulated" part meant the regulation of firearms... as we have been saying here... no bazooka-armed citizen watch..
but I think an unarmed militia, organized or not.. is an oxymoron.
I'm no US constitutional expert, but from the outside, it feels like the article in question was written for a completely different time and environment. We don't have "militias" today, well-regulated or not. And the drafters of the constitution, in all their wisdom, couldn't have predicted the developments of firearms. "Arms" in the late eighteenth century referred to weapons completely different to the ones we have today.
I think it's all fine and dandy to respect the constitution and use it as a framework, but the debate is slightly reminiscent of the interpretation of biblical texts or of the Koran. You have the fundamentalists, who believe that we should read the text litterally and apply it as though time had stood still, and you have the moderates, who think you should adapt the text to fit the circumstances in which you live in.
This particular article stinks of the eighteenth century. No one has "militias" anymore, if they do they're certainly not "well-regulated", and "arms" certainly doesn't mean today what it meant then. A gunpowder musket is not the same thing as a semi-automatic. It's not even the same sport.
It seems crazy to me to justify gun ownership on that basis. One day we'll probably invent a hand-held laz0r that can insta-kill anyone within a six mile radius, and which will cost $50. Will this still be legal due to some eighteenth century historical circumstances?
I think it's all fine and dandy to respect the constitution and use it as a framework, but the debate is slightly reminiscent of the interpretation of biblical texts or of the Koran. You have the fundamentalists, who believe that we should read the text litterally and apply it as though time had stood still, and you have the moderates, who think you should adapt the text to fit the circumstances in which you live in.
This particular article stinks of the eighteenth century. No one has "militias" anymore, if they do they're certainly not "well-regulated", and "arms" certainly doesn't mean today what it meant then. A gunpowder musket is not the same thing as a semi-automatic. It's not even the same sport.
It seems crazy to me to justify gun ownership on that basis. One day we'll probably invent a hand-held laz0r that can insta-kill anyone within a six mile radius, and which will cost $50. Will this still be legal due to some eighteenth century historical circumstances?
Kelvyquayo wrote:
I would.. were I to assume that the "regulated" part meant the regulation of firearms... as we have been saying here... no bazooka-armed citizen watch..
Quote:
but I think an unarmed militia, organized or not.. is an oxymoron.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Smasharoo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Look. Find me an anti-gun site that debunks the numerous examples given earlier showing crime rates lower in a state with lose gun control laws and higher in one right next to it with stiffer gun control laws.
Correlation isn't causation EVEN WHEN IT SUPPORTS WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO BE TRUE still. It won't be next time, either, you rock stupid *******.
Fuck, when does this ever sink in, Capitan?
Apparently it sinks in when it (the correlation) doesn't support what gbaji wants to be true:
gbaji wrote:
We can play competing gun statistics all day long. At the end of the day, neither side can make a resounding argument in either direction. As Smash correctly points out, it's *all* correlation (and I'm waiting for him to go off on Yoss's post, but wont hold my breath).
It is trivial to get gbaji to contradict himself. He's not worth arguing with. There is no credible right wing point of view on this board. Try elsewhere. It's so bad here, I'm sorely tempted to start a thread "right wing nut job for a day" in which I will personally defend right wing nut job points of view and I submit that I or anyone with a vague sense of reason could do so better then anyone currently doing so on this board.
Smash & I were going to do this once.
Then we didn't.
Then we didn't.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I thought smash and joph had planned to do this a while ago.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Apparently in the same fashion my friend and I once said we were going to buy an old car and roadtrip it out west.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
yossarian wrote:
Apparently it sinks in when it (the correlation) doesn't support what gbaji wants to be true:
It is trivial to get gbaji to contradict himself. He's not worth arguing with. There is no credible right wing point of view on this board. Try elsewhere. It's so bad here, I'm sorely tempted to start a thread "right wing nut job for a day" in which I will personally defend right wing nut job points of view and I submit that I or anyone with a vague sense of reason could do so better then anyone currently doing so on this board.
gbaji wrote:
We can play competing gun statistics all day long. At the end of the day, neither side can make a resounding argument in either direction. As Smash correctly points out, it's *all* correlation (and I'm waiting for him to go off on Yoss's post, but wont hold my breath).
It is trivial to get gbaji to contradict himself. He's not worth arguing with. There is no credible right wing point of view on this board. Try elsewhere. It's so bad here, I'm sorely tempted to start a thread "right wing nut job for a day" in which I will personally defend right wing nut job points of view and I submit that I or anyone with a vague sense of reason could do so better then anyone currently doing so on this board.
/whoosh!
If it's wrong to point to the relative crime rates of counties/states within the US based on their respective gun control laws and conclude that gun control may have had an impact, then it's equally wrong to point to the murder rates in the US versus the UK and do the same.
Get it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
I'm no US constitutional expert, but from the outside, it feels like the article in question was written for a completely different time and environment. We don't have "militias" today, well-regulated or not.
That's a **** poor argument, and (surprise!) a component of the tail end of a slippery slope process.
How much do you want to bet that in the US, when the US military was federalized and the state militias were disbanded, that there wasn't debate about how this would affect the 2nd amendment? And how much do you want to bet that back then, those concerned that a disbanding of the militias would one day be used as an argument to restrict private gun ownership were assured up, down, and sideways that no one would ever try to do that...?
The pattern of history never does seem to change, does it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
And how much do you want to bet that back then, those concerned that a disbanding of the militias would one day be used as an argument to restrict private gun ownership were assured up, down, and sideways that no one would ever try to do that...?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
knoxsouthy wrote:
A better question is when the american revolution and war of northern aggression were concluded did the federal govn force the citizens who had joined these local militias to return their weapons to the federal govn?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
knoxsouthy wrote:
A better question is when the american revolution and war of northern aggression were concluded did the federal govn force the citizens who had joined these local militias to return their weapons to the federal govn?
Since they brought their own rifles to the fight for the most part my guess is no.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
knoxsouthy wrote:
A better question is when the american revolution and war of northern aggression were concluded did the federal govn force the citizens who had joined these local militias to return their weapons to the federal govn?
Since they brought their own rifles to the fight for the most part my guess is no.
But we should let the soldiers keep their M-16's when they come back from the ME....and include a lifetime supply of ammo.
Edited, Jul 14th 2008 7:47pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Samira wrote:
Since they brought their own rifles to the fight for the most part my guess is no.
Althought my point was really that using open and leading questions regarding historical events as support for your point without actually, ya know, answering those questions and using facts is pretty damn lame.
Want to bet that the leading philsophers of the Enlightenment all thought the same thing?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
If every soldier was possessed of deific qualities merely by virtue of joining the military, we wouldn't need a court martial system now would we?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 717
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (717)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- DC gun ban struck down
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC