Other Resources The Political Joe » 'The' Gun Thread Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 48
 
 
2013-05-07 9:21 PM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

Here is an article on crime rates and states that have strict gun control

http://news.yahoo.com/firearms-statistics-gun-control-advocates-don-t-want-194040384.html



2013-05-07 9:21 PM
in reply to: #4731387

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

DanielG - 2013-05-07 10:17 AM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-07 12:57 PM This is probably a dumb question, but here goes: So, then, "AR-15" is a type of gun the way a sedan is a type of car? I guess I always thought that it was a particular model of rifle by a particular manufacturer, but it sounds like you're saying that several different manufacturers make AR-15's? Or is there one "true" AR-15 and other companies make something that looks like it and "AR-15" has become an umbrella term for a rifle that sorta looks like an M-16 but lacks full auto and is made for non-military use?
AR 15 was made by Armalite Rifle (AR) from a model AR-10 made by Eugene Stoner. Armalite made more than a handful of rifles, all with an AR prefix. All these were bolt action and semi-auto. Armalite had money problems and sold the AR-15 to Colt who made a full auto version and sold it to the DoD who named it the M16. AR-15 has become a generic term but only in the userspace. The model AR-15 is made by Colt who owns the trademark. If you look close you'll see "AR15 type" or "AR15 style" or some other "15" model name unless it's a Colt lower receiver. It's not exactly something Colt really pushes or sues for so you do see a lot of AR15 models that aren't Colt. Bushmaster, for one. Stag Arms for another. Before long, Colt will lose the trademark for it and not be able to sue. The chamber of a 5.56 rifle is slightly (IIRC .02") longer than a .223 Rem chamber so it's perfectly fine to shoot .223 in a 5.56 chamber but you can get into pressure problem fast if you shoot 5.56 in a .223 chamber.

 

Great question JMK and excellent answer Daniel. Thanks to you both.

2013-05-07 9:55 PM
in reply to: #4732386

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
powerman - 2013-05-07 9:21 PM

Here is an article on crime rates and states that have strict gun control

http://news.yahoo.com/firearms-statistics-gun-control-advocates-don-t-want-194040384.html



Meh.

There are places with very restrictive gun laws with low crime, places with lenient gun laws with high crime, and the reverse as well. The conditions that cause crime are too complex to try to tie to any one statistic.
2013-05-07 11:32 PM
in reply to: #4732426

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-07 8:55 PM
powerman - 2013-05-07 9:21 PM

Here is an article on crime rates and states that have strict gun control

http://news.yahoo.com/firearms-statistics-gun-control-advocates-don-t-want-194040384.html

Meh. There are places with very restrictive gun laws with low crime, places with lenient gun laws with high crime, and the reverse as well. The conditions that cause crime are too complex to try to tie to any one statistic.

Would you care to post those places?

One thing for sure is... you're right. You can't really correlate more/less guns = more/less crime. All I know is that the gun control crowd hammer away with doing this to stop gun crime/violence/whatever.... when it is more than obvious more laws does not accomplish the stated goal. Why do we continue to pass laws that do not accomplish what they were passed for?

The next thing that is hammered endlessly, is that more guns does = more deaths and crime..... yet that is not true, or at least as you said.... you can't draw a conclusion. So it means guns themselves are not responsible for the crime.... yet that is all we hear as the only solution to crime is to put more restrictions on guns.

2013-05-08 4:45 AM
in reply to: #4732522

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
powerman - 2013-05-07 11:32 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-07 8:55 PM
powerman - 2013-05-07 9:21 PM

Here is an article on crime rates and states that have strict gun control

http://news.yahoo.com/firearms-statistics-gun-control-advocates-don-t-want-194040384.html

Meh. There are places with very restrictive gun laws with low crime, places with lenient gun laws with high crime, and the reverse as well. The conditions that cause crime are too complex to try to tie to any one statistic.

Would you care to post those places?

One thing for sure is... you're right. You can't really correlate more/less guns = more/less crime. All I know is that the gun control crowd hammer away with doing this to stop gun crime/violence/whatever.... when it is more than obvious more laws does not accomplish the stated goal. Why do we continue to pass laws that do not accomplish what they were passed for?

The next thing that is hammered endlessly, is that more guns does = more deaths and crime..... yet that is not true, or at least as you said.... you can't draw a conclusion. So it means guns themselves are not responsible for the crime.... yet that is all we hear as the only solution to crime is to put more restrictions on guns.



I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.
2013-05-08 5:59 AM
in reply to: #4732570

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 5:45 AM
I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.


"Perpetuate a myth" and "demonstrably false" poor choice of words.

There are more firearms in circulation than ever before. Crime, including crime using firearms, is down to levels not seen for 50 some years. Both of those statements are true. Whether one has anything to do with the other is irrelevant, just the fact that both are true at the same time mean your statements are not absolute and may very well be incorrect. You may not like that but both of those statements are facts.





2013-05-08 6:42 AM
in reply to: #4732601

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
DanielG - 2013-05-08 5:59 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 5:45 AM
I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.


"Perpetuate a myth" and "demonstrably false" poor choice of words.

There are more firearms in circulation than ever before. Crime, including crime using firearms, is down to levels not seen for 50 some years. Both of those statements are true. Whether one has anything to do with the other is irrelevant, just the fact that both are true at the same time mean your statements are not absolute and may very well be incorrect. You may not like that but both of those statements are facts.





Right, but correlation does not imply causation. The mere fact that these two conditions exist simultaneously does not in any way prove that they are directly related. is also a fact that some of the cities with the highest crime in the nation are in states with less stringent gun laws (Houston, for example). Again, the degree to which these two facts are related to one another is debatable, but the statement that more guns always equals less crime is false. At best, it's an unprovable theory, one which is not supported consistently by the facts.

2013-05-08 7:24 AM
in reply to: #4732627

User image

Expert
839
50010010010025
Central Mass
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 7:42 AM
DanielG - 2013-05-08 5:59 AM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 5:45 AM I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.
"Perpetuate a myth" and "demonstrably false" poor choice of words. There are more firearms in circulation than ever before. Crime, including crime using firearms, is down to levels not seen for 50 some years. Both of those statements are true. Whether one has anything to do with the other is irrelevant, just the fact that both are true at the same time mean your statements are not absolute and may very well be incorrect. You may not like that but both of those statements are facts.
Right, but correlation does not imply causation. The mere fact that these two conditions exist simultaneously does not in any way prove that they are directly related. is also a fact that some of the cities with the highest crime in the nation are in states with less stringent gun laws (Houston, for example). Again, the degree to which these two facts are related to one another is debatable, but the statement that more guns always equals less crime is false. At best, it's an unprovable theory, one which is not supported consistently by the facts.

+1

I'd wager this graph has more to do with the lowering incidence of violent crime than more guns.

It's a huge graph, so you've got to follow the link to the US Census.

 

Raw data in excel format

2013-05-08 8:27 AM
in reply to: #4732627

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 7:42 AM

DanielG - 2013-05-08 5:59 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 5:45 AM
I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.


"Perpetuate a myth" and "demonstrably false" poor choice of words.

There are more firearms in circulation than ever before. Crime, including crime using firearms, is down to levels not seen for 50 some years. Both of those statements are true. Whether one has anything to do with the other is irrelevant, just the fact that both are true at the same time mean your statements are not absolute and may very well be incorrect. You may not like that but both of those statements are facts.





Right, but correlation does not imply causation. The mere fact that these two conditions exist simultaneously does not in any way prove that they are directly related. is also a fact that some of the cities with the highest crime in the nation are in states with less stringent gun laws (Houston, for example). Again, the degree to which these two facts are related to one another is debatable, but the statement that more guns always equals less crime is false. At best, it's an unprovable theory, one which is not supported consistently by the facts.



However those two facts do, in fact, eliminate the argument that more guns equal more crime.

I am amused how aggressively the need to argue a point that I'm not even making seems to be, though.

2013-05-08 8:43 AM
in reply to: #4732627

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 6:42 AM
DanielG - 2013-05-08 5:59 AM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 5:45 AM I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.
"Perpetuate a myth" and "demonstrably false" poor choice of words. There are more firearms in circulation than ever before. Crime, including crime using firearms, is down to levels not seen for 50 some years. Both of those statements are true. Whether one has anything to do with the other is irrelevant, just the fact that both are true at the same time mean your statements are not absolute and may very well be incorrect. You may not like that but both of those statements are facts.
Right, but correlation does not imply causation. The mere fact that these two conditions exist simultaneously does not in any way prove that they are directly related. is also a fact that some of the cities with the highest crime in the nation are in states with less stringent gun laws (Houston, for example). Again, the degree to which these two facts are related to one another is debatable, but the statement that more guns always equals less crime is false. At best, it's an unprovable theory, one which is not supported consistently by the facts.

I agree about correlation not implying causation and I think that's what most people on here have argued.  However, the anti-gun crowd has lived in the causation without correlation world which is pretty silly.

Also, you say that more guns=less crime is "demonstrably false" and not "supported consistently by the facts".  Yet all the facts that I've seen on this topic show it being demonstrably true and consistently supported.  Yes, it doesn't mean causation but at the very least one can logically conclude that the opposite position that "more guns=more crime" is demonstrably false and "not supported consistently by the facts".  So, only one or the other is true because both sides can't be demonstrably false.

Why do you hate science? 

2013-05-08 8:47 AM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

On that note:

"every argument the media and the left are currently making to push for new restrictions on our Second Amendment civil rights, are made up of anti-science nonsense."

Media's Anti-Gun Narrative Destroyed By Justice Dept. Report



2013-05-08 11:15 AM
in reply to: #4732677

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
scorpio516 - 2013-05-08 6:24 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 7:42 AM
DanielG - 2013-05-08 5:59 AM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 5:45 AM I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.
"Perpetuate a myth" and "demonstrably false" poor choice of words. There are more firearms in circulation than ever before. Crime, including crime using firearms, is down to levels not seen for 50 some years. Both of those statements are true. Whether one has anything to do with the other is irrelevant, just the fact that both are true at the same time mean your statements are not absolute and may very well be incorrect. You may not like that but both of those statements are facts.
Right, but correlation does not imply causation. The mere fact that these two conditions exist simultaneously does not in any way prove that they are directly related. is also a fact that some of the cities with the highest crime in the nation are in states with less stringent gun laws (Houston, for example). Again, the degree to which these two facts are related to one another is debatable, but the statement that more guns always equals less crime is false. At best, it's an unprovable theory, one which is not supported consistently by the facts.

+1

I'd wager this graph has more to do with the lowering incidence of violent crime than more guns.

It's a huge graph, so you've got to follow the link to the US Census.

 

Raw data in excel format

So then, what you are saying is that law abiding... probably the majority of which are educated... are not the problem and gun control has no bearing. A educated society is a polite society, and we can have all the guns we want?

2013-05-08 1:06 PM
in reply to: #4732769

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
DanielG - 2013-05-08 8:27 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 7:42 AM

DanielG - 2013-05-08 5:59 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 5:45 AM
I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.


"Perpetuate a myth" and "demonstrably false" poor choice of words.

There are more firearms in circulation than ever before. Crime, including crime using firearms, is down to levels not seen for 50 some years. Both of those statements are true. Whether one has anything to do with the other is irrelevant, just the fact that both are true at the same time mean your statements are not absolute and may very well be incorrect. You may not like that but both of those statements are facts.





Right, but correlation does not imply causation. The mere fact that these two conditions exist simultaneously does not in any way prove that they are directly related. is also a fact that some of the cities with the highest crime in the nation are in states with less stringent gun laws (Houston, for example). Again, the degree to which these two facts are related to one another is debatable, but the statement that more guns always equals less crime is false. At best, it's an unprovable theory, one which is not supported consistently by the facts.



However those two facts do, in fact, eliminate the argument that more guns equal more crime.

I am amused how aggressively the need to argue a point that I'm not even making seems to be, though.



I don't think that it's true to say that more guns equal more crime any more than it's true that more guns equals less crime or less guns equals less crime or less gun equals less crime. I know it sounds like I'm mincing words, but my point is that I don't think any argument is any more or less correct than any other--it's entirely conjecture.

The factors that contribute to increases and decreases in crime are numerous and varied. There are political, social, economic, and even meteorological factors that contribute to crime patterns in a given population. Given that it's physically impossible to isolate the one variable (guns) from a populaton large enough to have a valid study (Kenesaw GA doesn't count, IOW), I don't think that either side, pro or con, can say with any certainly whether guns by themselves contribute posiively or negatively to crime.

What's interesting, I think, is that, to both sides, their argument seems obvious and the converse seems counter-intuitive.
2013-05-08 1:16 PM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Pro
15646
50005000500050010025
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
More guns do NOT equal more crime.....however, more crime DOES equal more guns. Laughing
2013-05-08 1:16 PM
in reply to: #4733427

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 12:06 PM
DanielG - 2013-05-08 8:27 AM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 7:42 AM
DanielG - 2013-05-08 5:59 AM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 5:45 AM I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.
"Perpetuate a myth" and "demonstrably false" poor choice of words. There are more firearms in circulation than ever before. Crime, including crime using firearms, is down to levels not seen for 50 some years. Both of those statements are true. Whether one has anything to do with the other is irrelevant, just the fact that both are true at the same time mean your statements are not absolute and may very well be incorrect. You may not like that but both of those statements are facts.
Right, but correlation does not imply causation. The mere fact that these two conditions exist simultaneously does not in any way prove that they are directly related. is also a fact that some of the cities with the highest crime in the nation are in states with less stringent gun laws (Houston, for example). Again, the degree to which these two facts are related to one another is debatable, but the statement that more guns always equals less crime is false. At best, it's an unprovable theory, one which is not supported consistently by the facts.
However those two facts do, in fact, eliminate the argument that more guns equal more crime. I am amused how aggressively the need to argue a point that I'm not even making seems to be, though.
I don't think that it's true to say that more guns equal more crime any more than it's true that more guns equals less crime or less guns equals less crime or less gun equals less crime. I know it sounds like I'm mincing words, but my point is that I don't think any argument is any more or less correct than any other--it's entirely conjecture. The factors that contribute to increases and decreases in crime are numerous and varied. There are political, social, economic, and even meteorological factors that contribute to crime patterns in a given population. Given that it's physically impossible to isolate the one variable (guns) from a populaton large enough to have a valid study (Kenesaw GA doesn't count, IOW), I don't think that either side, pro or con, can say with any certainly whether guns by themselves contribute posiively or negatively to crime. What's interesting, I think, is that, to both sides, their argument seems obvious and the converse seems counter-intuitive.

I visited Florida last August and I will tell you the heat and humidity made me want to shoot myself!

2013-05-08 1:21 PM
in reply to: #4732802

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
tuwood - 2013-05-08 8:43 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 6:42 AM
DanielG - 2013-05-08 5:59 AM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 5:45 AM I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.
"Perpetuate a myth" and "demonstrably false" poor choice of words. There are more firearms in circulation than ever before. Crime, including crime using firearms, is down to levels not seen for 50 some years. Both of those statements are true. Whether one has anything to do with the other is irrelevant, just the fact that both are true at the same time mean your statements are not absolute and may very well be incorrect. You may not like that but both of those statements are facts.
Right, but correlation does not imply causation. The mere fact that these two conditions exist simultaneously does not in any way prove that they are directly related. is also a fact that some of the cities with the highest crime in the nation are in states with less stringent gun laws (Houston, for example). Again, the degree to which these two facts are related to one another is debatable, but the statement that more guns always equals less crime is false. At best, it's an unprovable theory, one which is not supported consistently by the facts.

I agree about correlation not implying causation and I think that's what most people on here have argued.  However, the anti-gun crowd has lived in the causation without correlation world which is pretty silly.

Also, you say that more guns=less crime is "demonstrably false" and not "supported consistently by the facts".  Yet all the facts that I've seen on this topic show it being demonstrably true and consistently supported.  Yes, it doesn't mean causation but at the very least one can logically conclude that the opposite position that "more guns=more crime" is demonstrably false and "not supported consistently by the facts".  So, only one or the other is true because both sides can't be demonstrably false.

Why do you hate science? 



Of course you can have two arguments that are demonstrably false. I guess you could say, "Both might be right" or "They are equally hypothetical" if you prefer, but the bottom line is that neither argument holds true 100% of the time, so neither can be held up as fact.

How do you account for the fact that Houston and Phoenix (large cities, lenient gun laws) has more violent crime than New York City (larger city, more stringent gun laws)? NYC has less guns and less crime. Houston has more guns and more crime.

The answer is, because NYC has better police or a better economy or colder weather or better public schools (I don't know for sure if any or all of these are true, I'm just using them as examples of other factors that could be contributors). Would NYC have more crime if it had more guns? No way to know definitively. Maybe. Perhaps it would have less. Same goes for Houston.



2013-05-08 5:33 PM
in reply to: #4733453

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 1:21 PM
tuwood - 2013-05-08 8:43 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 6:42 AM
DanielG - 2013-05-08 5:59 AM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 5:45 AM I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.
"Perpetuate a myth" and "demonstrably false" poor choice of words. There are more firearms in circulation than ever before. Crime, including crime using firearms, is down to levels not seen for 50 some years. Both of those statements are true. Whether one has anything to do with the other is irrelevant, just the fact that both are true at the same time mean your statements are not absolute and may very well be incorrect. You may not like that but both of those statements are facts.
Right, but correlation does not imply causation. The mere fact that these two conditions exist simultaneously does not in any way prove that they are directly related. is also a fact that some of the cities with the highest crime in the nation are in states with less stringent gun laws (Houston, for example). Again, the degree to which these two facts are related to one another is debatable, but the statement that more guns always equals less crime is false. At best, it's an unprovable theory, one which is not supported consistently by the facts.

I agree about correlation not implying causation and I think that's what most people on here have argued.  However, the anti-gun crowd has lived in the causation without correlation world which is pretty silly.

Also, you say that more guns=less crime is "demonstrably false" and not "supported consistently by the facts".  Yet all the facts that I've seen on this topic show it being demonstrably true and consistently supported.  Yes, it doesn't mean causation but at the very least one can logically conclude that the opposite position that "more guns=more crime" is demonstrably false and "not supported consistently by the facts".  So, only one or the other is true because both sides can't be demonstrably false.

Why do you hate science? 

Of course you can have two arguments that are demonstrably false. I guess you could say, "Both might be right" or "They are equally hypothetical" if you prefer, but the bottom line is that neither argument holds true 100% of the time, so neither can be held up as fact. How do you account for the fact that Houston and Phoenix (large cities, lenient gun laws) has more violent crime than New York City (larger city, more stringent gun laws)? NYC has less guns and less crime. Houston has more guns and more crime. The answer is, because NYC has better police or a better economy or colder weather or better public schools (I don't know for sure if any or all of these are true, I'm just using them as examples of other factors that could be contributors). Would NYC have more crime if it had more guns? No way to know definitively. Maybe. Perhaps it would have less. Same goes for Houston.

I completely agree that it doesn't hold true 100%.  We could give everyone in prison guns and I suspect crime would go up quite a bit.  lol (ok, dumb example)

When it comes to stuff like this we have to look at a national, or at the least a state level and we can certainly state for fact that gun ownership has gone up a lot, and gun crimes have gone down a lot.  Those are both facts, and I'm not implying causation.

Now, taking the opposite point of view that more guns equals more crime.  In order for that to be true I feel it would be impossible for violent crimes to drop almost 50% while adding an additional ~150M guns to the market since 1993.  Yes, you still have the causation argument but from a statistical standpoint I'm going to call it impossible.

I know you're not arguing that more guns equals more crime, but the proponents of the gun legislation are, so that's why I mention it.

2013-05-08 6:08 PM
in reply to: #4733888

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
tuwood - 2013-05-08 5:33 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 1:21 PM
tuwood - 2013-05-08 8:43 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 6:42 AM
DanielG - 2013-05-08 5:59 AM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 5:45 AM I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.
"Perpetuate a myth" and "demonstrably false" poor choice of words. There are more firearms in circulation than ever before. Crime, including crime using firearms, is down to levels not seen for 50 some years. Both of those statements are true. Whether one has anything to do with the other is irrelevant, just the fact that both are true at the same time mean your statements are not absolute and may very well be incorrect. You may not like that but both of those statements are facts.
Right, but correlation does not imply causation. The mere fact that these two conditions exist simultaneously does not in any way prove that they are directly related. is also a fact that some of the cities with the highest crime in the nation are in states with less stringent gun laws (Houston, for example). Again, the degree to which these two facts are related to one another is debatable, but the statement that more guns always equals less crime is false. At best, it's an unprovable theory, one which is not supported consistently by the facts.

I agree about correlation not implying causation and I think that's what most people on here have argued.  However, the anti-gun crowd has lived in the causation without correlation world which is pretty silly.

Also, you say that more guns=less crime is "demonstrably false" and not "supported consistently by the facts".  Yet all the facts that I've seen on this topic show it being demonstrably true and consistently supported.  Yes, it doesn't mean causation but at the very least one can logically conclude that the opposite position that "more guns=more crime" is demonstrably false and "not supported consistently by the facts".  So, only one or the other is true because both sides can't be demonstrably false.

Why do you hate science? 

Of course you can have two arguments that are demonstrably false. I guess you could say, "Both might be right" or "They are equally hypothetical" if you prefer, but the bottom line is that neither argument holds true 100% of the time, so neither can be held up as fact. How do you account for the fact that Houston and Phoenix (large cities, lenient gun laws) has more violent crime than New York City (larger city, more stringent gun laws)? NYC has less guns and less crime. Houston has more guns and more crime. The answer is, because NYC has better police or a better economy or colder weather or better public schools (I don't know for sure if any or all of these are true, I'm just using them as examples of other factors that could be contributors). Would NYC have more crime if it had more guns? No way to know definitively. Maybe. Perhaps it would have less. Same goes for Houston.

I completely agree that it doesn't hold true 100%.  We could give everyone in prison guns and I suspect crime would go up quite a bit.  lol (ok, dumb example)

When it comes to stuff like this we have to look at a national, or at the least a state level and we can certainly state for fact that gun ownership has gone up a lot, and gun crimes have gone down a lot.  Those are both facts, and I'm not implying causation.

Now, taking the opposite point of view that more guns equals more crime.  In order for that to be true I feel it would be impossible for violent crimes to drop almost 50% while adding an additional ~150M guns to the market since 1993.  Yes, you still have the causation argument but from a statistical standpoint I'm going to call it impossible.

I know you're not arguing that more guns equals more crime, but the proponents of the gun legislation are, so that's why I mention it.



I probably know the answer to this, but do you think that the increased gun regulation that the country has seen over the last 20 years (the ones gun advocates are always complaining about) have had anything to do with the fact that gun-related crime has not increased at the same rate that gun ownership has? If not, how do you account for it? Because clearly, to get back to my Houston/NYC example above, the increased rates of gun ownership and simultaneous crime rate reductions aren't always taking place in the same locations. In other words, even if you believe that the increased gun ownership nationwide over the past 20 yrs contributed to crime reduction nationwide, you still have places where gun ownership went up a little or not at all and crime went down a lot, and other places where crime went up.
2013-05-08 7:35 PM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Expert
1002
1000
Wind Lake WI
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

Around here, sales of Diet Coke have gone through the roof along with the obesity rate. Does this imply that Diet Coke causes obesity?

 

You are trying to tie together to related items, but have no way to prove that one causes the other which invalidates the original argument.

2013-05-08 7:52 PM
in reply to: #4643301

User image

Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
True Fact: The Lack of Pirates Is Causing Global Warming
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-...
2013-05-08 7:58 PM
in reply to: #4733936

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 6:08 PM
tuwood - 2013-05-08 5:33 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 1:21 PM
tuwood - 2013-05-08 8:43 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 6:42 AM
DanielG - 2013-05-08 5:59 AM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 5:45 AM I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.
"Perpetuate a myth" and "demonstrably false" poor choice of words. There are more firearms in circulation than ever before. Crime, including crime using firearms, is down to levels not seen for 50 some years. Both of those statements are true. Whether one has anything to do with the other is irrelevant, just the fact that both are true at the same time mean your statements are not absolute and may very well be incorrect. You may not like that but both of those statements are facts.
Right, but correlation does not imply causation. The mere fact that these two conditions exist simultaneously does not in any way prove that they are directly related. is also a fact that some of the cities with the highest crime in the nation are in states with less stringent gun laws (Houston, for example). Again, the degree to which these two facts are related to one another is debatable, but the statement that more guns always equals less crime is false. At best, it's an unprovable theory, one which is not supported consistently by the facts.

I agree about correlation not implying causation and I think that's what most people on here have argued.  However, the anti-gun crowd has lived in the causation without correlation world which is pretty silly.

Also, you say that more guns=less crime is "demonstrably false" and not "supported consistently by the facts".  Yet all the facts that I've seen on this topic show it being demonstrably true and consistently supported.  Yes, it doesn't mean causation but at the very least one can logically conclude that the opposite position that "more guns=more crime" is demonstrably false and "not supported consistently by the facts".  So, only one or the other is true because both sides can't be demonstrably false.

Why do you hate science? 

Of course you can have two arguments that are demonstrably false. I guess you could say, "Both might be right" or "They are equally hypothetical" if you prefer, but the bottom line is that neither argument holds true 100% of the time, so neither can be held up as fact. How do you account for the fact that Houston and Phoenix (large cities, lenient gun laws) has more violent crime than New York City (larger city, more stringent gun laws)? NYC has less guns and less crime. Houston has more guns and more crime. The answer is, because NYC has better police or a better economy or colder weather or better public schools (I don't know for sure if any or all of these are true, I'm just using them as examples of other factors that could be contributors). Would NYC have more crime if it had more guns? No way to know definitively. Maybe. Perhaps it would have less. Same goes for Houston.

I completely agree that it doesn't hold true 100%.  We could give everyone in prison guns and I suspect crime would go up quite a bit.  lol (ok, dumb example)

When it comes to stuff like this we have to look at a national, or at the least a state level and we can certainly state for fact that gun ownership has gone up a lot, and gun crimes have gone down a lot.  Those are both facts, and I'm not implying causation.

Now, taking the opposite point of view that more guns equals more crime.  In order for that to be true I feel it would be impossible for violent crimes to drop almost 50% while adding an additional ~150M guns to the market since 1993.  Yes, you still have the causation argument but from a statistical standpoint I'm going to call it impossible.

I know you're not arguing that more guns equals more crime, but the proponents of the gun legislation are, so that's why I mention it.

I probably know the answer to this, but do you think that the increased gun regulation that the country has seen over the last 20 years (the ones gun advocates are always complaining about) have had anything to do with the fact that gun-related crime has not increased at the same rate that gun ownership has? If not, how do you account for it? Because clearly, to get back to my Houston/NYC example above, the increased rates of gun ownership and simultaneous crime rate reductions aren't always taking place in the same locations. In other words, even if you believe that the increased gun ownership nationwide over the past 20 yrs contributed to crime reduction nationwide, you still have places where gun ownership went up a little or not at all and crime went down a lot, and other places where crime went up.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe any new Federal gun legislation has passed since the 1994 AWB, so I guess I'd say that the new regulations haven't had any effect. 

I know there have been various laws here and there from state to state, but honestly I think most of them have been to relax gun regulations such as allowing CCW.  I'm sure some states/cities have passed tougher gun laws (talking prior to 2013) but they would be mostly in the Blue states.

There's no question the crime rate going down is a lot more complex than just guns in the population, and I absolutely agree that more guns is not the only "reason" crime rate is down.  I personally believe it's a contributing factor, but there's no way to prove it so it really doesn't matter.



2013-05-08 8:19 PM
in reply to: #4734063

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

DanielG - 2013-05-08 7:52 PM True Fact: The Lack of Pirates Is Causing Global Warming http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-...

hah, I knew it.  Those dam pirates.

I like to give the following global warming question to my "enlightened" friends who trust in science so much.

If CO2 increased by 50% the last 20 years and the global temperatures decreased by almost 50%.  Would you still say that CO2 is the cause of global warming?

So why do you believe that a ~50% increase in guns in the US over the past 20 years results in increased violent crime, even though violent crimes have gone down almost 50% over that same period?

hmm

2013-05-09 5:50 AM
in reply to: #4734071

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
tuwood - 2013-05-08 7:58 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 6:08 PM
tuwood - 2013-05-08 5:33 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 1:21 PM
tuwood - 2013-05-08 8:43 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 6:42 AM
DanielG - 2013-05-08 5:59 AM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 5:45 AM I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.
"Perpetuate a myth" and "demonstrably false" poor choice of words. There are more firearms in circulation than ever before. Crime, including crime using firearms, is down to levels not seen for 50 some years. Both of those statements are true. Whether one has anything to do with the other is irrelevant, just the fact that both are true at the same time mean your statements are not absolute and may very well be incorrect. You may not like that but both of those statements are facts.
Right, but correlation does not imply causation. The mere fact that these two conditions exist simultaneously does not in any way prove that they are directly related. is also a fact that some of the cities with the highest crime in the nation are in states with less stringent gun laws (Houston, for example). Again, the degree to which these two facts are related to one another is debatable, but the statement that more guns always equals less crime is false. At best, it's an unprovable theory, one which is not supported consistently by the facts.

I agree about correlation not implying causation and I think that's what most people on here have argued.  However, the anti-gun crowd has lived in the causation without correlation world which is pretty silly.

Also, you say that more guns=less crime is "demonstrably false" and not "supported consistently by the facts".  Yet all the facts that I've seen on this topic show it being demonstrably true and consistently supported.  Yes, it doesn't mean causation but at the very least one can logically conclude that the opposite position that "more guns=more crime" is demonstrably false and "not supported consistently by the facts".  So, only one or the other is true because both sides can't be demonstrably false.

Why do you hate science? 

Of course you can have two arguments that are demonstrably false. I guess you could say, "Both might be right" or "They are equally hypothetical" if you prefer, but the bottom line is that neither argument holds true 100% of the time, so neither can be held up as fact. How do you account for the fact that Houston and Phoenix (large cities, lenient gun laws) has more violent crime than New York City (larger city, more stringent gun laws)? NYC has less guns and less crime. Houston has more guns and more crime. The answer is, because NYC has better police or a better economy or colder weather or better public schools (I don't know for sure if any or all of these are true, I'm just using them as examples of other factors that could be contributors). Would NYC have more crime if it had more guns? No way to know definitively. Maybe. Perhaps it would have less. Same goes for Houston.

I completely agree that it doesn't hold true 100%.  We could give everyone in prison guns and I suspect crime would go up quite a bit.  lol (ok, dumb example)

When it comes to stuff like this we have to look at a national, or at the least a state level and we can certainly state for fact that gun ownership has gone up a lot, and gun crimes have gone down a lot.  Those are both facts, and I'm not implying causation.

Now, taking the opposite point of view that more guns equals more crime.  In order for that to be true I feel it would be impossible for violent crimes to drop almost 50% while adding an additional ~150M guns to the market since 1993.  Yes, you still have the causation argument but from a statistical standpoint I'm going to call it impossible.

I know you're not arguing that more guns equals more crime, but the proponents of the gun legislation are, so that's why I mention it.

I probably know the answer to this, but do you think that the increased gun regulation that the country has seen over the last 20 years (the ones gun advocates are always complaining about) have had anything to do with the fact that gun-related crime has not increased at the same rate that gun ownership has? If not, how do you account for it? Because clearly, to get back to my Houston/NYC example above, the increased rates of gun ownership and simultaneous crime rate reductions aren't always taking place in the same locations. In other words, even if you believe that the increased gun ownership nationwide over the past 20 yrs contributed to crime reduction nationwide, you still have places where gun ownership went up a little or not at all and crime went down a lot, and other places where crime went up.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe any new Federal gun legislation has passed since the 1994 AWB, so I guess I'd say that the new regulations haven't had any effect. 

I know there have been various laws here and there from state to state, but honestly I think most of them have been to relax gun regulations such as allowing CCW.  I'm sure some states/cities have passed tougher gun laws (talking prior to 2013) but they would be mostly in the Blue states.

There's no question the crime rate going down is a lot more complex than just guns in the population, and I absolutely agree that more guns is not the only "reason" crime rate is down.  I personally believe it's a contributing factor, but there's no way to prove it so it really doesn't matter.



Really? Then why are gun advocates constantly bemoaning the erosion of their rights? Seems to me that with no new federal legislation passed in 20 years and more than a 50% increase in the number of guns in the US, I'd say the 2A is looking pretty robust.

I also think more guns is probably a contributing factor to less crime in some places too, but I question how big the effect of it is overall. Mostly because the sharpest reductions in crime, which drive the nationwide statistics most significantly, have been in major cities, which tend to have more stringent gun regulations. I bet if you looked at a map showing where gun ownership has increased the most and laid it over a map showing the sharpest decreases in crime for the same period, that they wouldn't line up exactly.
2013-05-09 8:26 AM
in reply to: #4734395

User image

Elite
2733
200050010010025
Venture Industries,
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-09 6:50 AM
tuwood - 2013-05-08 7:58 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 6:08 PM
tuwood - 2013-05-08 5:33 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 1:21 PM
tuwood - 2013-05-08 8:43 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 6:42 AM
DanielG - 2013-05-08 5:59 AM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-08 5:45 AM I think the pro gun crowd hammers the "more guns=les crime" just as vigorously. How many times do we hear "an armed society is a polite society"? It's equally fallacious. I agree that simply restricting guns won't necessarily reduce gun related crime, but it doesn't serve the pro-gun cause either to continue to try to perpetuate a myth that is demonstrably false that adding more guns to a given population will automatically reduce crime.
"Perpetuate a myth" and "demonstrably false" poor choice of words. There are more firearms in circulation than ever before. Crime, including crime using firearms, is down to levels not seen for 50 some years. Both of those statements are true. Whether one has anything to do with the other is irrelevant, just the fact that both are true at the same time mean your statements are not absolute and may very well be incorrect. You may not like that but both of those statements are facts.
Right, but correlation does not imply causation. The mere fact that these two conditions exist simultaneously does not in any way prove that they are directly related. is also a fact that some of the cities with the highest crime in the nation are in states with less stringent gun laws (Houston, for example). Again, the degree to which these two facts are related to one another is debatable, but the statement that more guns always equals less crime is false. At best, it's an unprovable theory, one which is not supported consistently by the facts.

I agree about correlation not implying causation and I think that's what most people on here have argued.  However, the anti-gun crowd has lived in the causation without correlation world which is pretty silly.

Also, you say that more guns=less crime is "demonstrably false" and not "supported consistently by the facts".  Yet all the facts that I've seen on this topic show it being demonstrably true and consistently supported.  Yes, it doesn't mean causation but at the very least one can logically conclude that the opposite position that "more guns=more crime" is demonstrably false and "not supported consistently by the facts".  So, only one or the other is true because both sides can't be demonstrably false.

Why do you hate science? 

Of course you can have two arguments that are demonstrably false. I guess you could say, "Both might be right" or "They are equally hypothetical" if you prefer, but the bottom line is that neither argument holds true 100% of the time, so neither can be held up as fact. How do you account for the fact that Houston and Phoenix (large cities, lenient gun laws) has more violent crime than New York City (larger city, more stringent gun laws)? NYC has less guns and less crime. Houston has more guns and more crime. The answer is, because NYC has better police or a better economy or colder weather or better public schools (I don't know for sure if any or all of these are true, I'm just using them as examples of other factors that could be contributors). Would NYC have more crime if it had more guns? No way to know definitively. Maybe. Perhaps it would have less. Same goes for Houston.

I completely agree that it doesn't hold true 100%.  We could give everyone in prison guns and I suspect crime would go up quite a bit.  lol (ok, dumb example)

When it comes to stuff like this we have to look at a national, or at the least a state level and we can certainly state for fact that gun ownership has gone up a lot, and gun crimes have gone down a lot.  Those are both facts, and I'm not implying causation.

Now, taking the opposite point of view that more guns equals more crime.  In order for that to be true I feel it would be impossible for violent crimes to drop almost 50% while adding an additional ~150M guns to the market since 1993.  Yes, you still have the causation argument but from a statistical standpoint I'm going to call it impossible.

I know you're not arguing that more guns equals more crime, but the proponents of the gun legislation are, so that's why I mention it.

I probably know the answer to this, but do you think that the increased gun regulation that the country has seen over the last 20 years (the ones gun advocates are always complaining about) have had anything to do with the fact that gun-related crime has not increased at the same rate that gun ownership has? If not, how do you account for it? Because clearly, to get back to my Houston/NYC example above, the increased rates of gun ownership and simultaneous crime rate reductions aren't always taking place in the same locations. In other words, even if you believe that the increased gun ownership nationwide over the past 20 yrs contributed to crime reduction nationwide, you still have places where gun ownership went up a little or not at all and crime went down a lot, and other places where crime went up.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe any new Federal gun legislation has passed since the 1994 AWB, so I guess I'd say that the new regulations haven't had any effect. 

I know there have been various laws here and there from state to state, but honestly I think most of them have been to relax gun regulations such as allowing CCW.  I'm sure some states/cities have passed tougher gun laws (talking prior to 2013) but they would be mostly in the Blue states.

There's no question the crime rate going down is a lot more complex than just guns in the population, and I absolutely agree that more guns is not the only "reason" crime rate is down.  I personally believe it's a contributing factor, but there's no way to prove it so it really doesn't matter.

Really? Then why are gun advocates constantly bemoaning the erosion of their rights? Seems to me that with no new federal legislation passed in 20 years and more than a 50% increase in the number of guns in the US, I'd say the 2A is looking pretty robust. I also think more guns is probably a contributing factor to less crime in some places too, but I question how big the effect of it is overall. Mostly because the sharpest reductions in crime, which drive the nationwide statistics most significantly, have been in major cities, which tend to have more stringent gun regulations. I bet if you looked at a map showing where gun ownership has increased the most and laid it over a map showing the sharpest decreases in crime for the same period, that they wouldn't line up exactly.

Answer:  Laws like D.C. Code sections 7-2501.01(12); 7-2502.011(a); and 7-2502.02(a)(4) or as some may know them as the specific laws that were PASSED and then challenged all the way to the U.S. Supreme COurt in the Heller case.

2013-05-09 11:28 AM
in reply to: #4734395

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-09 4:50 AM  Really? Then why are gun advocates constantly bemoaning the erosion of their rights? Seems to me that with no new federal legislation passed in 20 years and more than a 50% increase in the number of guns in the US, I'd say the 2A is looking pretty robust. I also think more guns is probably a contributing factor to less crime in some places too, but I question how big the effect of it is overall. Mostly because the sharpest reductions in crime, which drive the nationwide statistics most significantly, have been in major cities, which tend to have more stringent gun regulations. I bet if you looked at a map showing where gun ownership has increased the most and laid it over a map showing the sharpest decreases in crime for the same period, that they wouldn't line up exactly.

I'm going to agree with you here. Heller was the first real 2A test in a very long time, and it was handed down exactly like I read it. It is an individual right.... EVEN if you say it is an individual right for a militia... well you can't have the militia without armed members. And locking all the guns up in an armory does not accomplish what the 2A intended.

The second land mark case was McDonald, which said it applies to the states... DUH.

The first AWB was pretty funny. I heard the b****ing and moaning for 10 years... but the thing was nothing but swiss cheese, it was useless. And at the same time, semi-auto rifles popularity rose sharply. When it expired, it was like Christmas. Behind the scenes, states have been rolling back many laws and relaxing carry requirements.

So ya, the last 20 years, besides the AWB, has been very good for gun rights... but just so we are clear, that's the way it SHOULD be. The 2A itself should be all I need to carry when ever and where ever I want.

Why gun people complain so much is because it is no secret what the objective is of gun control advocates... not you... the gun control lobby. The DC law is what they want nation wide. And then they will want more until there are no guns. So even though gun rights may be in a sort of a hay day, it isn't compared to "just" the 2A. And when the other side has indeed declared war on gun rights... then indeed we are in fight for them... and we do. And judging from the last 200+ years... gun rights advocates are tired of giving inches.



Edited by powerman 2013-05-09 11:30 AM
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » 'The' Gun Thread Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 48