mnealtx 0
kallend 2,117
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe trend is clear.
Ya, it is. But, when all things are taken into consideration, the "trend" as you put it, does not support your assertions.
Not my assertions, the analysis came from Harvard.
On the whole I find them more believable than you, especially when I have looked at the raw data they use and find it consistent with the UCR.
Then maybe you should look again with a more critical eye.
Here's your top 10 "guns=murder states" and their murder rates per UCR stats.
State Rate / 100k
Wyoming 1.87
Alaska 6.03
Montana 2.27
South Dakota 2.43
West Virginia 4.13
Mississippi 11.42
Idaho 2.46
Arkansas 10.46
Alabama 13.32
North Dakota 1.67
Here's the bottom 10:
Maryland 26.33
California 6.88
Illinois 14.31
New York 6.00
Connecticut 3.94
Rhode Island 2.54
Massachusetts 3.06
New Jersey 5.00
Hawaii 1.86
DC 29.06
Yes, I included DC - deal with it. Don't make the mistake of confusing the *CITY* of Washington with the Federal District of Columbia. Cities don't get congressional representatives OR their own state code for postal service.
Anyway, to sum up... looks like gun ownership has dick-all to do with murders... which pretty much anyone that was pro-Second Amendment could have told you.
Why don't you write to Harvard and tell them they're full of shit, then?
Or it COULD be you didn't actually read the paper at all, or you wouldn't have made the data error that you have.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
You're absolutely correct - I didn't read the paper, as I'm not interested in the latest crackpot theory about blaming a tool for the action of the user.
Why haven't you written the FBI and told them that THEY'RE full of shit?
And what error is that, Professor...other than showing that your scatter chart and the assertions that more people owning guns means more murders is bullshit?
QuoteWhy don't you write to Harvard and tell them they're full of shit, then?
Why haven't you written the FBI and told them that THEY'RE full of shit?
Quoteor you wouldn't have made the data error that you have.
And what error is that, Professor...other than showing that your scatter chart and the assertions that more people owning guns means more murders is bullshit?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rushmc 23
QuoteYou're absolutely correct - I didn't read the paper, as I'm not interested in the latest crackpot theory about blaming a tool for the action of the user.
QuoteWhy don't you write to Harvard and tell them they're full of shit, then?
Why haven't you written the FBI and told them that THEY'RE full of shit?Quoteor you wouldn't have made the data error that you have.
And what error is that, Professor...other than showing that your scatter chart and the assertions that more people owning guns means more murders is bullshit?
SOB, he cant even admit when he is beaten!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteQuoteThe trend is clear.
Ya, it is. But, when all things are taken into consideration, the "trend" as you put it, does not support your assertions.
Not my assertions, the analysis came from Harvard.
On the whole I find them more believable than you, especially when I have looked at the raw data they use and find it consistent with the UCR.
Well don't feel bad, anyone can make a mistake.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
kallend 2,117
QuoteYou're absolutely correct - I didn't read the paper, as I'm not interested in the latest crackpot theory about blaming a tool for the action of the user.
?
If you read the paper, which you admit you have NOT, you wouldn't be making these silly claims.
You are arguing against something that simply isn't there, and your admission that you haven't even read it makes you look rather foolish.
Sorry, but you just lost every shred of credibility.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,117
QuoteQuoteYou're absolutely correct - I didn't read the paper, as I'm not interested in the latest crackpot theory about blaming a tool for the action of the user.
QuoteWhy don't you write to Harvard and tell them they're full of shit, then?
Why haven't you written the FBI and told them that THEY'RE full of shit?Quoteor you wouldn't have made the data error that you have.
And what error is that, Professor...other than showing that your scatter chart and the assertions that more people owning guns means more murders is bullshit?SOB, he cant even admit when he is beaten!!
You should stick with 95% incomprehensibility - your posts make more sense that way.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
1969912 0
A bit off-topic, but guess how many years, between 1950 and 2005, has the US murder rate has been less then the 2005 rate?
How many years between 1966 and 2005 has the rate been lower than that in 2005?
Any ideas about how the "availability" of guns changed over that period up/down?
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
How many years between 1966 and 2005 has the rate been lower than that in 2005?
Any ideas about how the "availability" of guns changed over that period up/down?
"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG
dannydan 5
QuoteQuoteAh, yes... the "I'm too sophisticated to believe in guns" gambit.
I’ll say one last thing to that. The part of the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution that prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is a clear failure. The right to bear arms has created a society that robs and kills with guns more than anyone else in this world. This culture has proven that as a mass it is too immature to handle any warfare objects, and the results show the highest gun murder rate on this planet. When you evaluate issues that affect masses, you can’t look at them from an individualistic point of view, which is precisely what we are doing here in this thread. That’s all. I’m finished.
YEP YEP I agree that the USA is to "IMMATURE" (broadly speaking).... basically because WE THE PEOPLE have ALLOWED and looked the other way when our gvt institutes and keeps policy (s) that KEEPs us dependent on "big brother" re welfare for one. (which has led to the ABUSE of the 2A)
Around the turn of the 20th century is when we started seeing sweeping changes in what our republic was meant to be according to our founding fathers vision. late 1800s early 1900s is when WE started become "sheeple" YES policies were meant to help, but per usual, these policy changes/implementation(s) have backfired and we are seeing the ramifacations from them...
Actually a little bit of communisum and socialisim are not totally bad ideals... With the correct balance of comm, social and democracy a nation could be a near perfect societal utopia.... Hope that sorta makes sense.... Having a brainlock for words and meanings at the moment arrghhh
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteYou're absolutely correct - I didn't read the paper, as I'm not interested in the latest crackpot theory about blaming a tool for the action of the user.
?
If you read the paper, which you admit you have NOT, you wouldn't be making these silly claims.
You are arguing against something that simply isn't there, and your admission that you haven't even read it makes you look rather foolish.
Sorry, but you just lost every shred of credibility.
I was answering YOUR claim that the paper said more gun ownership equalled more murders - are you saying now that you LIED?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,117
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou're absolutely correct - I didn't read the paper, as I'm not interested in the latest crackpot theory about blaming a tool for the action of the user.
?
If you read the paper, which you admit you have NOT, you wouldn't be making these silly claims.
You are arguing against something that simply isn't there, and your admission that you haven't even read it makes you look rather foolish.
Sorry, but you just lost every shred of credibility.
I was answering YOUR claim that the paper said more gun ownership equalled more murders - are you saying now that you LIED?
Coming from someone whose top ten list has nine entries
, and admits to NOT reading the article in question, why should anyone believe that anything you write on this topic makes any sense at all?...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou're absolutely correct - I didn't read the paper, as I'm not interested in the latest crackpot theory about blaming a tool for the action of the user.
?
If you read the paper, which you admit you have NOT, you wouldn't be making these silly claims.
You are arguing against something that simply isn't there, and your admission that you haven't even read it makes you look rather foolish.
Sorry, but you just lost every shred of credibility.
I was answering YOUR claim that the paper said more gun ownership equalled more murders - are you saying now that you LIED?
Coming from someone whose top ten list has nine entries
Coming from someone that believes that firearms somehow satisfy Koch postulates and that believes that doctors know more about criminology than criminologists, this doesn't mean much.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Not my assertions, the analysis came from Harvard.
On the whole I find them more believable than you, especially when I have looked at the raw data they use and find it consistent with the UCR.
Then maybe you should look again with a more critical eye.
Here's your top 10 "guns=murder states" and their murder rates per UCR stats.
State Rate / 100k
Wyoming 1.87
Alaska 6.03
Montana 2.27
South Dakota 2.43
West Virginia 4.13
Mississippi 11.42
Idaho 2.46
Arkansas 10.46
Alabama 13.32
North Dakota 1.67
Here's the bottom 10:
Maryland 26.33
California 6.88
Illinois 14.31
New York 6.00
Connecticut 3.94
Rhode Island 2.54
Massachusetts 3.06
New Jersey 5.00
Hawaii 1.86
DC 29.06
Yes, I included DC - deal with it. Don't make the mistake of confusing the *CITY* of Washington with the Federal District of Columbia. Cities don't get congressional representatives OR their own state code for postal service.
Anyway, to sum up... looks like gun ownership has dick-all to do with murders... which pretty much anyone that was pro-Second Amendment could have told you.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706