Gun Free Zones

[Symmetry]

Full disclosure, I didn't check all their numbers from the above graphs. If you want to cross check the data, have at it.

Full disclosure, I checked your sources.

http://www.aboutus.org/JustFacts.com

Thanks for that, they seem very reliable.

So they are a 0 based on 0 ratings. Can you repudiate any of the statistics they provided or would you have to agree with the statistics being accurate?

I'm not certain that you understand what "repudiate" means. That however, is the least of your problems. It's an issue easily solved by purchasing a dictionary. Your wider issues may take some time. I would suggest that you start (after you buy a dictionary) with taking a critical look at the sources you invest your gullibility in.

The problem you have encountered here is that I tend to check the things that people tell me. You may well find that annoying, but believe me, you'll be better off trying it before you post inane garbage next time you type.

[WILLIAMS5232]

well regardless, i'm satisfied.

Of course, if you start with a set opinion and mould the data to fit it regardless you will always be satisfied.

2-shay ( touche )

but ti's always a two-way street

I'm genuinely unsure as to whether that means you're giving up the point in favour of a lazy platitude or you gave in to lazy platitudes long before I came across you.

Either way, I salute you, and pity your driving instructor.

you didn't like my source. so i provided another more credible source, and also added a bit more detail towards my reasoning. so then you accused me of cherry picking data like you and everyone else does that uses broad information to support their view.

i thought that we settled it at that point. you say guns are bad, get rid of guns, i say guns are bad in criminals hands, get rid of criminals.

[Symmetry]

well regardless, i'm satisfied.

Of course, if you start with a set opinion and mould the data to fit it regardless you will always be satisfied.

2-shay ( touche )

but ti's always a two-way street

I'm genuinely unsure as to whether that means you're giving up the point in favour of a lazy platitude or you gave in to lazy platitudes long before I came across you.

Either way, I salute you, and pity your driving instructor.

you didn't like my source. so i provided another more credible source, and also added a bit more detail towards my reasoning. so then you accused me of cherry picking data like you and everyone else does that uses broad information to support their view.

i thought that we settled it at that point. you say guns are bad, get rid of guns, i say guns are bad in criminals hands, get rid of criminals.

Perhaps, and I say this as gently as possible, if everyone accuses you of cherry picking data, you might want to consider that you might be cherry picking data. The alternative, of course, would be that everyone else is wrong and somehow they keep coming up, independent of one another, with the same critique of your logic.

[patrickaa317]

Full disclosure, I didn't check all their numbers from the above graphs. If you want to cross check the data, have at it.

Full disclosure, I checked your sources.

http://www.aboutus.org/JustFacts.com

Thanks for that, they seem very reliable.

So they are a 0 based on 0 ratings. Can you repudiate any of the statistics they provided or would you have to agree with the statistics being accurate?

I'm not certain that you understand what "repudiate" means. That however, is the least of your problems. It's an issue easily solved by purchasing a dictionary. Your wider issues may take some time. I would suggest that you start (after you buy a dictionary) with taking a critical look at the sources you invest your gullibility in.

The problem you have encountered here is that I tend to check the things that people tell me. You may well find that annoying, but believe me, you'll be better off trying it before you post inane garbage next time you type.

LOL. No idea what word i even meant to use there. Was trying to do like 5 things at once and apparently I got a word wrong and i didn't read it first. Refute maybe? Either way, you haven't said what statistics from my post are wrong. You just said you didn't like the website I linked to. What is garbage about the actual statistics from the website? Are they skewed? Are the just blatantly incorrect?

Here's a Harvard study. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Also, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011 California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011. They also ranked #1 by the Brady Campaign for gun control. http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/feb/16/california-tops-ranking-states-gun-control-laws/

[Symmetry]

You were probably aiming for "refute".

[patrickaa317]

LOL. No idea what word i even meant to use there. Was trying to do like 5 things at once and apparently I got a word wrong and i didn't read it first. Refute maybe? Either way, you haven't said what statistics from my post are wrong. You just said you didn't like the website I linked to. What is garbage about the actual statistics from the website? Are they skewed? Are the just blatantly incorrect?

You were probably aiming for "refute".

Ah, thanks for helping me out there.

[Symmetry]

Now Pat, dumb Brit as I am, even I know that California is the most populous state, so yeah- more murders than, say, Wyoming.

[WILLIAMS5232]

well regardless, i'm satisfied.

Of course, if you start with a set opinion and mould the data to fit it regardless you will always be satisfied.

2-shay ( touche )

but ti's always a two-way street

I'm genuinely unsure as to whether that means you're giving up the point in favour of a lazy platitude or you gave in to lazy platitudes long before I came across you.

Either way, I salute you, and pity your driving instructor.

you didn't like my source. so i provided another more credible source, and also added a bit more detail towards my reasoning. so then you accused me of cherry picking data like you and everyone else does that uses broad information to support their view.

i thought that we settled it at that point. you say guns are bad, get rid of guns, i say guns are bad in criminals hands, get rid of criminals.

Perhaps, and I say this as gently as possible, if everyone accuses you of cherry picking data, you might want to consider that you might be cherry picking data. The alternative, of course, would be that everyone else is wrong and somehow they keep coming up, independent of one another, with the same critique of your logic.

who is everyone?
why am i cherry picking data and you are not?

[thegreekdog]

Of course I wanted examples of increased gun ownership and relaxed gun legislation resulting in lower gun crime. I'm happy to discuss it anywhere, and I apologise for forcing you to dodge around the question. I should have been more direct.

Was I being unreasonable in my gleaning in light of this statement?

It's nice that you've gone back and actually looked at the conversation as it has evolved, though not so nice that you're cherry-picking to suit your needs. Still, as the statistics I posted show that the statistics posted earlier were probably wrong, I find your gleaning misguided.

Okay.

Thoughts on this post?

patrick - Here are two jurisdictions gleaned from Symmetry's map.

(1) Washington DC (19)
(2) Phoenix (10)

Washington DC has more restrictive gun control laws than Arizona (where Phoenix is located).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_i ... f_Columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_i ... te#Arizona

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure if "not having a father" is the cause of gun homicides, but I think we can say, with great certainty, based on available data in this thread (both Sym's data and patrick's data) that the lack of gun control legislation is also not the cause of gun homicides.

[Metsfanmax]

Or is it simply that Democratic voters themselves are just more likely to commit violent crimes than Republican voters?

Poor people generally vote Democrat and are also more likely to commit crimes. Note that most of the cities on that list that vote liberal have a significantly larger and denser population than the most conservative cities.

[mrswdk]

So we're looking for poor, criminal, black, inner city Democrat voters?

Not middle class white suburban boys like the ones who keep massacring the classrooms full of kids?

[thegreekdog]

So we're looking for poor, criminal, black, inner city Democrat voters who kill thousands of people a year with handguns?

Not middle class white suburban boys like the ones who keep massacring the classrooms full of kids who kill 10 to 15 people every two years?

I suspect that as long as poor, criminal, black, inner city kids kill other poor, criminal, black, inner city kids and no rich white school children get killed, politicians are fine with the status quo.

[patrickaa317]

Or is it simply that Democratic voters themselves are just more likely to commit violent crimes than Republican voters?

Poor people generally vote Democrat and are also more likely to commit crimes. Note that most of the cities on that list that vote liberal have a significantly larger and denser population than the most conservative cities.

I'm going to get a little off topic here so I apologize.

I know that's the typical standard that poor people vote democrat and rich people vote republican but yet I often think of the richer states like Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts go blue while poorer states like Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Montana, Arkansas go red.

[Symmetry]

Would it be fairer to say that poor people are more likely to be convicted of committing crimes? What was it the US President said before he was pardoned, "if you're powerful, it's not illegal". Something like that anyway.

[Metsfanmax]

Would it be fairer to say that poor people are more likely to be convicted of committing crimes? What was it the US President said before he was pardoned, "if you're powerful, it's not illegal". Something like that anyway.

Both statements are true.

[Gweeedo]

The only time I remember (as a student) of a shooting in School was when I was in Elementary School.
Back in the day if you got in trouble you were sent to the principals office, there you could (for me every day, every time) receive a paddling.
One day...A 4th grader did not like the fact that the Principal gave him a paddling. Next day the kid came to School with a Gun and Shot the Principal.
Immediately after that, No more paddling s were given to students in the Schools (across the Nation).

Not thinking about the tragic loss of a human life...I was OK with the fact that I would no longer get paddled at School (I WON)

Plain and Simple.
Schools are overcrowded, and it is the students of the School that are going on a rampage.
Junior High Schools are the worst for Overcrowding,..

[Metsfanmax]

More proof that all school shooters are crazy psychos that could never be talked down without a gun pointed at their face:

http://gma.yahoo.com/teacher-hailed-per ... ories.html

A New Mexico middle school teacher has been credited with saving many lives when he persuaded a 12-year-old boy into dropping his shotgun after he had wounded two students, according to officials.

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez said more students could've been injured if not for the heroics of teacher John Masterson, who confronted the alleged shooter Tuesday morning inside the gymnasium at Berrendo Middle School in Roswell, N.M.

"He starts to turn and see that the young man shoots and shoots, and then pointing the firearm at Mr. Masterson," Martinez said at a Tuesday night news conference. "Mr. Masterson then begins to talk to him -- to put it down. The young man put the gun down and raised his hands."

[SaviorShot]

You can be anti gun all you want. Its your right. You can be anti god. Its your choice. But when someone is threating you an or your family in a deadly way you are gonna call someone with a gun an pray he gets there in time. When seconds count cops are minutes away. Everyone has the right to defend thereselves an there loved ones. There is a difference from allowed an able. Soft targets (gun free zones) will continue to get hit until they are no longer gun free zones. Laws only effect the law abiding anyway. Tatics mindset guns gear. That is how u survive a gun fight.

[Metsfanmax]

Laws only effect the law abiding anyway.

Do you drive faster than the speed limit?

[Symmetry]

Laws only effect the law abiding anyway.

I'm not sure how to start on how inaccurate your thinking is on this. I suspect it might be considered a flame if I posted it.

[thegreekdog]

More proof that all school shooters are crazy psychos that could never be talked down without a gun pointed at their face:

http://gma.yahoo.com/teacher-hailed-per ... ories.html

A New Mexico middle school teacher has been credited with saving many lives when he persuaded a 12-year-old boy into dropping his shotgun after he had wounded two students, according to officials.

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez said more students could've been injured if not for the heroics of teacher John Masterson, who confronted the alleged shooter Tuesday morning inside the gymnasium at Berrendo Middle School in Roswell, N.M.

"He starts to turn and see that the young man shoots and shoots, and then pointing the firearm at Mr. Masterson," Martinez said at a Tuesday night news conference. "Mr. Masterson then begins to talk to him -- to put it down. The young man put the gun down and raised his hands."

Nice! I can only assume the kid shot who he wanted to shoot anyway.

Laws only effect the law abiding anyway.

Do you drive faster than the speed limit?

Yes, the law doesn't affect me as I'm not law abiding relative to that particular law. What's your point?

[Metsfanmax]

Laws only effect the law abiding anyway.

Do you drive faster than the speed limit?

Yes, the law doesn't affect me as I'm not law abiding relative to that particular law. What's your point?

Your answer makes the point for me -- "law abiding citizen" has no meaning free from the context of what law is being referred to; and if it's being used to refer to people who don't obey gun laws, then it's a tautological argument. In other words, SaviorShot's comment really means "gun laws only affect those who obey gun laws."

[thegreekdog]

Laws only effect the law abiding anyway.

Do you drive faster than the speed limit?

Yes, the law doesn't affect me as I'm not law abiding relative to that particular law. What's your point?

Your answer makes the point for me -- "law abiding citizen" has no meaning free from the context of what law is being referred to; and if it's being used to refer to people who don't obey gun laws, then it's a tautological argument. In other words, SaviorShot's comment really means "gun laws only affect those who obey gun laws."

It's not a tautological argument because the problem with the gun isn't "oh noes, he owns it illegally" it's "oh noes, he committed a [more serious] crime with it." That's ultimately the point of the gun advocates. If someone is going to break the law by murdering someone, why would they obey a gun control law?

If I speed, I'm breaking the law and that's it. If I speed with the intent to kill someone, I'm not going to be persuaded against killing the person because speeding is illegal. Caveat - stupid analogy.