Close enough.
No, the information I presented actually looked at the data in a scientific way, not in your folksy science way:
[QUOTE=The fine article]
Suffice to say there is academic disagreement on this issue.
Crime is down dramatically right now — even in states that have not passed such laws. To prove causation, which Gohmert’s statement implies, would require that those doing the study discern what would have happened if not for the law, and that is almost impossible to model.
[/QUOTE]
Which pretty much sums up the hole in your argument so far.
Keep telling yourself that. Gun sales are up huge, homicides (including gun homicides) are down huge. I’m sure the combination you liberals much to bemoan.
Get this into your head, and get it in there quick: I am not one of “you liberals”, and I don’t support such stupid measures as the AWB. I have little time for cheerleaders on either side who can’t examine their position critically.
I’m probably essentially on your side of the larger issue, but you’re wrong here. You’re just making an argument that will convince no-one who even has a passing knowledge of sociology, and you aren’t backing it up with any credible evidence, and you’re just hand-waving when presented with evidence that pretty much leaves yours in waste.
No? What are you?
What measures do you support?
Sorry I didn’t see any data that left mine in waste. I saw some signs of cherry picking data though, and if your so astute you should have seen it too? Anyway, if guns sales were on the way up 15%, and homicides were on the way up 15%, it would be a slam dunk on this board that guns are at fault. So all this “credible evidence” crap just seems to me like post-hoc rationalizations.
A reasonable human being. You’ve seen evidence otherwise?
I know of no pending measures that I support. If you want my position on a particular facet of the law, name it.
So, that’s your logic? Since there are people who would see the opposite statistic as confirmation of their bias, you’re justified in doing it here? How is the part of the article I quoted cherry-picking anything?
You sound like an apologist of some sort. What political party are you registered in? Who did you vote for in the last say 3 elections?
What gun/ammo/carry laws would you put into place if you had the power?
If the opposite statistic were fact it would be hard to argue with.
I saw cherry picking in the article just by skimming it, and thus considered the rest suspect. Sorry you missed it. I didn’t say anything in particular with regards to the quote you cherry picked from the rest.
I’m not registered, and wouldn’t. I voted Dem each time. Do with that what thou wilt.
All new guns would be pink. You can make it any color you like while owning it, but it has to be returned to pink before it transfers ownership again. I fucking hate people who buy guns because they look cool. They’re awesome to use without fetishizing them for their looks. Incidentally, I’d require all new computers to be beige, for the same goddamned reason.
(That’s a half joke, son. Your computer would be beige, and you would like it.)
If I were really made king, I’d probably remove some of the retarded limitations on modifying rifles. It’s retarded that if I buy a mare’s leg that’s made from a bespoke action, it’s legal. But if I cut down a rifle to make the same device, it’s the pokey for me.
Carbine laws are pretty dumb IMHO, too.
If that’s all you’ve got: Bye. I’m not wasting my time any more. Enjoy your religion.
Sounds like you lean liberal.
Which half ain’t a joke son?
For some reason I believe the pink part.
I’m an atheist.
No you cannot, so your question is irrelevant. I’m talking about attitudes, the kind you’ve displayed here.
Gosh, that’s so much better. So all your opponents are lying OR disingenous. No wonder you’re such a constructive debater.
Why not? You yourself made reference to something other than the gun supply that’s thought to influence crime rates:
Crime is a very complex subject, and no single variable accounts for any given uptick or downturn.
My question is irrelevant? Boy you guys really don’t like to answer questions when you know that answer strengthens my position. I guess you all really don’t like them facts.
I’ve merely noted that gun control efforts only served to put millions of extra guns in circulation and made fairly unpopular “plastic” rifle the most popular in America. And I noticed that homicides went down, A LOT, anyway.
Of course not, the stooges are not disingenuous, they are just going willingly some number of steps in the direction that the full on gungrabbers want them to go. And guys like Boblibdem are neither. He would like to ban all guns, and he will honestly say so. However, I think there are a lot of you people who are lying or disingenuous.
Pit Bulls? It could be the Pit Bulls.
You don’t say. It is however to me curious that as gun ownership and concealed carry goes up, violent crime keeps going down. I’m sure you are right though, it’s probably just a coincidence. I just appreciate the symmetry in the correlation.
What are you, Needles from Back to the Future? Gonna call me “chicken” next? You made an assumption and then based a question on it, but your assumption was wrong and therefore the question was irrelevant. Are you incapable of understanding basic logic? Wait, what am I saying? Of course you are.
In the same way that Emmanuel Goldstein made Big Brother popular, sure. More strawmen - or should I say “bogeymen” - created to gin up fear in the interest of garnering more money and political influence. Scary pictures of Obama and jackbooted government thugs pervade literature from gun advocacy organisations, whereas actual government efforts have been about as threatening as the Girl Scouts coming around to sell cookies. The fact that you can wave your hand and say “Look! They’re doing something that if you squint and pretend real hard looks vaguely like the thing we warned you would happen!” does not constitute vindication.
And you’ve failed to demonstrate the slightest bit of causation. But then Argumentum ad Anecdotum is your bread and butter.
Then you’re not arguing in good faith and there’s no point in engaging with you. You can continue to pretend that I hold positions I don’t and then pretend to defeat them without my assistance; I have no desire to be a further party to your mental masturbation.
Feel free to declare yourself a “winner” while you’re at it. It will have just as much validity as everything else you’ve posted, which is to say none whatsoever.
OK, so regardless of my assumption, you can still answer my question can’t you? If you just don’t want to, just say so.
No I’m good at logic.
You’re not going to pretend that they didn’t try to really bring back the AWB are you? You’re not going to pretend they didn’t really ban them guns before are you?
It looks exactly like the NRA said it would look.
Hume says you can never truly demonstrate causation.
Right and you can continue to avoid questions that make your positions clear so you can pretend they weren’t destroyed.
Thanks!
Incidentally the facts aren’t entirely in your favor either, Kable. While it is the case that the number of guns is increasing, the number of people who own guns have been going down.. Only about 1/3 of households have guns, and20% of gun owners own 65% of the guns. So that means about 7% or so of Americans own 65% of the guns. Your increasing gun sales don’t reflect an increasingly armed population, they instead represent a small number of people feeling the need for a massive personal arsenal. Since you can only shoot one or two guns at a time, the proportion of households with guns is the far more relevant number than the number of guns per household, in terms of determining the likelihood that a criminal will run into an armed home owner.
Now that correct analysis of the statistics show that violent crime is showing the same downward trend that gun ownership is, are you now willing to follow the data correlation to causation and admit that a less well armed populations has led to less violent crime? Or are the facts suddenly irrelevant.
That’s not what Gallup shows.
That’s drawing a pretty strong conclusion from the final 2012 data point. Even in the data you cite the trend downward between 1991 and 2011. Are you arguing that all of the data showing reduced violence and reduced gun ownership from in the 90’s is spurious but the one year 2012 is what makes the difference.
Guns per household had been downward for a good while and that was attributed to increase urbanization and increased households where women are the heads. However that has been reversing as of late with increased laxity of concealed carry and increased women buying firearms. What I thought was particularly interesting from the Gallup poll was the increase in firearms ownership among democrats as of late.
No I would say that has much to do with the right to carry which has been increasing steadily for years, such that a good portion of those guns you were talking about are in the street where they can do more good than they can at home in peoples guns safes. I cited this gif already just a few posts up: File:Rtc2.gif - Wikipedia
Maybe not.
But we have to put this in the correct context. As you know from my past posts, what’s significantly changed, in the US, is the ratio of gun homicides to suicides, not the number of gun deaths.
It could be that the increasing guns sales, and gun suicides, have the same underlying cause – worry and fearfulness. Worried people are probably more likely to kill themselves than others. Of course, people aren’t killing themselves for fear that Obama is going to come for their guns. But if they get upset over such nonsense, imagine how upset they may get when real life challenges appear. Just an idea.