Well, then Nancy Lanza’s fate is very valuable information then.
Or, then it is true that a single data point like your anecdote is not very useful or as they say: the plural of anecdote is not data.
You must have me confused with someone else because I never made that claim about police officers.
You however have claimed:
So please, produce these “studies” have “repeatedly” proven your claims.
If they are genuine then they should be easy for you to produce.
I don’t see why you’re angry at me for asking perfectly reasonable questions.
Your tone is becoming inappropriate for this forum, and it would be easier to produce the cite instead of criticizing and dismissing other posters for asking for it. So cite your assertion.
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws - John R. Lott, University of Chicago Press.
Now I’d like cites for these assertions:
“You don’t, and you aren’t. Guns don’t make people safer.”
“I think you are more likely to be inclined to kill me than help me if you were to encounter me.”
Originally Posted by ChickenLegs View Post
I carry guns to protect my own life, my friends’ lives, my family’s lives, and the lives of innocents.
“No. The police do. You don’t.”
“You do not carry a gun to protect “my own life, my friends’ lives, my family’s lives, and the lives of innocents.” The police do.”
“What makes a police officer valuable is not his skill at shooting, its his judgement in knowing when not to.”
And regarding “my tone”:
Is this better?
“I think you are more likely to be inclined to kill me than help me if you were to encounter me.”
Or this?
Me: “I carry guns to protect my own life, my friends’ lives, my family’s lives, and the lives of innocents.”
Him: “No. The police do. You don’t.”
Where I come from, that is pretty much calling a man a liar. Pretty bad manners, as I know them.
Not yet. Marry my sister, then maybe.
Is she pretty? Is she fond of eccentric older gentlmen?
Oh, yeah, John Lott! Knew that name was familiar!
Oh, dear.
A sock puppet!! A fucking sock puppet! The lowest of the low!
More fact based derision available at the source:
You’re likely misreading. His implication isn’t that you don’t carry guns; it’s that your carrying of guns doesn’t protect people. This isn’t calling you a liar. It’s disagreeing with the effects of your actions.
Just one.
Oh, almost forgot Mr Lott’s big hit The Bias Against Guns, in which he explains the unfortunate psychological defects that cause people not to accept the crystalline clarity of his arguments. Apparently, some people were willing to pay good money for that information.
only if you look at the completely debunked kellerman study. If Hitler had won the war anti gunners would be citing Leni Riefenstahl.
Funny you should mention debunking. From the above cited article…
The police carry guns to protect themselves, not the citizen. They have no legal obligation to protect anyone
I’m about the last person to get dewy eyed in automatic celebration of police officers as necessarily being heros, but we have all observed ample evidence of them willingly sacrificing themselves to protect others that your point above is readily seen by all as without merit.
You seem like an angry person with so much invested in guns that they define and identify you.
Citing Lott should become as discrediting to an argument as Godwinizing has now become.
You’re traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That’s the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Twilight Zone!
Oh my God. I nearly pissed myself laughing at this.
John Lott is your cite?
The John Lott, who’s been labeled and unreliable liar by that flaming liberal Michelle Malkin. http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2003/02/05/the_other_lott_controversy/page/2
Dude, when the woman who’s such a right-wing nut she defends the internment of Japanese-Americans thinks your guy is unreliable, you’ve got problems.
Lott is the guy who got pushed out of his job at The American Enterprise Institute due to questions about his ethics and his competence. For those not in the know, The American Enterprise Institute is not known for being a hot bed of liberalism, yet they, the organization that is still willing to employ America’s most famous scientific racist Charles Murray found Lott to be a right-wing hack.
For those not aware, Lott was found to be engaging in what could be described as at best “shoddy research” and more accurately “junk science” in the very book that Chicken has used as his source for his rather bizarre claim.
Most famously of all, much of the book was based on a survey who, when it’s methods were questioned and he was credibly accused by other academics of making up the survey, he promptly “lost” all evidence of the existence of the survey in a computer crash and he was unable to produce any evidence of the existence of this survey or even name any of the students who supposedly helped him with this survey.
In Malkin’s words
Lott was also caught creating sock puppets on various websites to praise his own work and claim how thorough and reliable it was which is certainly not the hallmark of the reliable academic.
In fact, James, Lindgren, a Law Professor at Northwestern Law School, one of primary bloggers for The Volokh Conspiracy(again not exactly a hotbed of liberalism) a noted Second Amendment scholar famous for discrediting Arming America and destroying Michael Bellesiles thought he’d help out Lott and started investigating the survey to prove it’s existence. However, after Lott kept changing his story in their interviews and several things wound up not adding up, he also wound up ripping into and discrediting Lott and his alleged “survey”.
Here is Lindgren’s report. http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html
It’s worth noting that earlier in this thread Chicken rather bizarrely suggested all studies that supported the pro-gun control side of the debate should be discarded because of the discrediting of Bellesiles’ Arming America, but he was apparently completely ignorant of the fact that the guy who’d discredited Bellesiles found similar issues with the source for his own rather ludicrous claims.
That being said, I will salute Chicken for essentially admitting that the studies weren’t credible because if your only source for them is from a proven liar and academic fraud, then, by definition they’re not credible.
Not in this messageboard/forum, it ain’t, as you will know precious fucking well if ye’ve been lurking here more than a week. It is the routine and polite manners, just exactly as it/they should be. Bad-and-shitsinful manners would be failing to provide the cite, and/or the failure to accept any and all consequences of thus though citing.
Of voeyeuristic intention.
And, well-secluded, I see all.
And, y’know what? It ain’t all that interesting. Not even in the Chinese sense. Crisis and opportunity have an utterly platititudistic relationship.
Nope, it’s actually much much lower, around .39%.
It is lower in Wyoming, at around .22%, but I have no idea why you think being armed is the reason. It’s even lower, .19% in New Hampshire, where not many people are armed, and only a bit higher, .28% in Hawaii, where pretty much nobody is armed. Cite. Just for fun, your murder/nonnegligent-manslaughter rate is higher than the following states:
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Iowa
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
New Hampshire
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
Hell, you’re not a lot lower than New York. Mississippi, which is also a heavily armed state is actually twice as high as New York.
Aren’t facts fun?
In Wyoming you never know when the pistol in some teenage girl’s purse is going to go off.
http://www.k2tv.com/news.php?id=1137
It seems juveniles are not legally entitled to concealed carry in Wyoming, even though no adult needs a permit. That’s why she’s in trouble.