rushmc 23 #276 January 6, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Not what I was referring to. The dog ate Mary's hard drive with all her his "survey" data on it so no-one could check it. Hey, it worked for CRU. He has not followed up on that one either (I suspect there may be another he may not bring up) The loss of his hard drive was verified by others. Then with help, he rebuilt the data which is now available on his web site. But, that info is so today Oh, yes, Mary's Lott's web site. What a reliable source of per reviewed information. You are somewhat of an expert related to that huh. He admitted it. I hear that this good for ones soul. What do you think?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #277 January 6, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Not what I was referring to. The dog ate Mary's hard drive with all her his "survey" data on it so no-one could check it. Hey, it worked for CRU. He has not followed up on that one either (I suspect there may be another he may not bring up) The loss of his hard drive was verified by others. Then with help, he rebuilt the data which is now available on his web site. But, that info is so today Oh, yes, Mary's Lott's web site. What a reliable source of rebuilt _ peer reviewed believable information. Worked for CRU (and GISS).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #278 January 6, 2010 Quote What do you think? I think he's a liar who only admitted it after he was caught with his pants on fire.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #279 January 6, 2010 Quote Even comparing only gun ownership, the situation is not as easy as you tried to suggest it is. For example, if none of them has a gun, but the criminal does, it makes no big difference to the criminal in his target selection. Same result if both of them have guns. Scenario 1: sounds like you're arguing for CCW laws. Scenario 2: it makes a big difference. If all the victims are armed, the criminal has to be pretty desperate or confident that he'll get a good haul, to engage. Again, it's risk/reward. Just review the number of cases (including recent cop attack in WA) where the attacker and the victim both die. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #280 January 6, 2010 Quote Quote What do you think? I think he's a liar who only admitted it after he was caught with his pants on fire. Well, he is the only one that admitted it. but he is not the only one that got caught huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #281 January 6, 2010 Quote Scenario 1: sounds like you're arguing for CCW laws. Scenario 2: it makes a big difference. If all the victims are armed, the criminal has to be pretty desperate or confident that he'll get a good haul, to engage. Considering the scenario when everyone is armed, a criminal doesn't have a choice anyway, so he might work it Brazilian way - shooting first, and then searching for money. A "gentler" way would be approaching victims in armed group. At least some countries full of guns (Brazil, Mexico, Somali) have a lot of violent crime, so arming most of the population or even everyone does not work as crime prevention solution.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #282 January 6, 2010 QuoteAt least some countries full of guns (Brazil, Mexico, Somali) have a lot of violent crime, so arming most of the population or even everyone does not work as crime prevention solution. Wright/Rossi did a study of some 15-20k prison inmates in the 1980's. They found that the inmates avoided areas where they knew the homeowners were armed. So, a deterrent effect IS demonstrated - whether that effect transfers to concealed carry holders is unknown, but I think it possible, at least to a limited degree. There *IS* evidence of violent crime reductions in the immediate period post adoption of CCW laws - Texas and Florida both had immediate and dramatic reductions in violent crimes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dks13827 3 #283 January 6, 2010 what they mean is that fewer guns in east L.A. means less crime ( as opposed to fewer guns in, say, Salt Lake City ). big difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #284 January 6, 2010 It's a good thing we have little in common with those nations (aside from gun ownership), isn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #285 January 6, 2010 Quote Wright/Rossi did a study of some 15-20k prison inmates in the 1980's. They found that the inmates avoided areas where they knew the homeowners were armed. Do you have any references to the study?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #286 January 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteAt least some countries full of guns (Brazil, Mexico, Somali) have a lot of violent crime, so arming most of the population or even everyone does not work as crime prevention solution. Wright/Rossi did a study of some 15-20k prison inmates in the 1980's. They found that the inmates avoided areas where they knew the homeowners were armed. What about the ones that DIDN'T get caught? Quote So, a deterrent effect IS demonstrated - whether that effect transfers to concealed carry holders is unknown, but I think it possible, at least to a limited degree. There *IS* evidence of violent crime reductions in the immediate period post adoption of CCW laws - Texas and Florida both had immediate and dramatic reductions in violent crimes. Trouble with that statistic is that violent crime reduced across the USA as a whole in that time frame, including in states that didn't adopt CCW laws.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #287 January 6, 2010 QuoteQuote Wright/Rossi did a study of some 15-20k prison inmates in the 1980's. They found that the inmates avoided areas where they knew the homeowners were armed. Do you have any references to the study? Only references talking *about* the study, not the study itself, and not from 'anti-gun approved sources'. Link QuoteWright and Rossi produced another study for the National Institute of Justice, this one involving the habits of America's felons. Interviewing felony prisoners in 10 state correctional systems in 1981, Wright and Rossi found that gun-control laws had no effect on criminals' ability to obtain guns. Only 12 percent of criminals, and only 7 percent of the criminals specializing in handgun crime, had acquired their last crime handgun at a gun store. Of those, about one quarter had stolen the gun from a store; a large number of the rest, Wright and Rossi suggested, had probably procured the gun through a legal surrogate buyer, such as a girlfriend with a clean record. For the few remaining felons who actually did buy their own guns, the purchase might have been lawful because the purchaser as yet had no felony record. The survey further indicated that 56 percent of the prisoners said that a criminal would not attack a potential victim who was known to be armed. Seventy-four percent agreed with the statement that "One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime." Thirty-nine percent of the felons had personally decided not to commit a crime because they thought the victim might have a gun, and 8 percent said the experience had occurred "many times." Criminals in states with higher civilian gun-ownership rates worried the most about armed victims. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #288 January 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteAt least some countries full of guns (Brazil, Mexico, Somali) have a lot of violent crime, so arming most of the population or even everyone does not work as crime prevention solution. Wright/Rossi did a study of some 15-20k prison inmates in the 1980's. They found that the inmates avoided areas where they knew the homeowners were armed. What about the ones that DIDN'T get caught? They must have moved to that parallel universe of yours, upthread. I believe it was called the "fucking stupid absurd request" universe. QuoteQuoteSo, a deterrent effect IS demonstrated - whether that effect transfers to concealed carry holders is unknown, but I think it possible, at least to a limited degree. There *IS* evidence of violent crime reductions in the immediate period post adoption of CCW laws - Texas and Florida both had immediate and dramatic reductions in violent crimes. Trouble with that statistic is that violent crime reduced across the USA as a whole in that time frame, including in states that didn't adopt CCW laws. Yup, it did - and in the case of Texas and Florida, they reduced at rates MUCH faster than the national rate.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #289 January 6, 2010 Quote Only references talking *about* the study, not the study itself, and not from 'anti-gun approved sources'. The reason I asked it is because by manipulating with questions and samples it is possible (and most times very easy) to see whether the study was biased to achieve specific result. That is why a reference *about* the study is useless here. Actually it's not even obvious whether David Kopel read the study himself - i.e. he never indicates, even implicitly, that he did, and the way he presents the information from the study looks pretty much like a quote. A funny part is also implicit acknowledgment that gun ban works in reducing crime: "The only control that reduced crime was a strict penalty for carrying an illegal gun, which seemed to lower the robbery rate." So if guns are illegal, carrying any gun would be illegal, thus lowering the robbery rate :)* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #290 January 6, 2010 QuoteIt's a good thing we have little in common with those nations (aside from gun ownership), isn't it? It represents quite clearly what happens with the country when there is no enforceable gun control.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #291 January 6, 2010 QuoteQuote Only references talking *about* the study, not the study itself, and not from 'anti-gun approved sources'. The reason I asked it is because by manipulating with questions and samples it is possible (and most times very easy) to see whether the study was biased to achieve specific result. That is why a reference *about* the study is useless here. Actually it's not even obvious whether David Kopel read the study himself - i.e. he never indicates, even implicitly, that he did, and the way he presents the information from the study looks pretty much like a quote. Then by all means, feel free to purchase a copy and read it for yourself. QuoteA funny part is also implicit acknowledgment that gun ban works in reducing crime: "The only control that reduced crime was a strict penalty for carrying an illegal gun, which seemed to lower the robbery rate." So if guns are illegal, carrying any gun would be illegal, thus lowering the robbery rate :) Incorrect assumption, but I'm hardly surprised at the conclusion you came to.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #292 January 6, 2010 Quote Then by all means, feel free to purchase a copy and read it for yourself. Why should I? You mentioned the study, it's your duty to prove the facts you claim it introduces. Quote Incorrect assumption, but I'm hardly surprised at the conclusion you came to. It is not assumption, the quoted part was taken directly from the article you posted the link to.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #293 January 6, 2010 QuoteQuote Then by all means, feel free to purchase a copy and read it for yourself. Why should I? You mentioned the study, it's your duty to prove the facts you claim it introduces. Duty? I have no duty to you. If you want the straight info, buy the damn book yourself. QuoteQuote Incorrect assumption, but I'm hardly surprised at the conclusion you came to. It is not assumption, the quoted part was taken directly from the article you posted the link to. I wasn't taking about what Kopel said.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #294 January 6, 2010 Quote Duty? I have no duty to you. If you want the straight info, buy the damn book yourself. No, I just want to verify your claim (which seems to be groundless, as usual, as you apparently didn't read the study yourself). Quote I wasn't taking about what Kopel said. Then it was a conclusion, not assumption.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #295 January 6, 2010 QuoteQuote Duty? I have no duty to you. If you want the straight info, buy the damn book yourself. No, I just want to verify your claim (which seems to be groundless, as usual, as you apparently didn't read the study yourself). Of course - isn't ANYTHING that doesn't come from YOU or the anti-gun forces "groundless"? QuoteQuote I wasn't taking about what Kopel said. Then it was a conclusion, not assumption. QuoteSo if guns are illegal, False assumption - guns are NOT illegal, since hundreds of thousands are legally sold every year. Quotecarrying any gun would be illegal, thus lowering the robbery rate Conclusion based on a false assumption. It also assumes that the robbers in question did not obtain another weapon and continue their crimes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #296 January 6, 2010 Quote Of course - isn't ANYTHING that doesn't come from YOU or the anti-gun forces "groundless"? Sorry, but I've learned from my mistakes, and now will not believe anything pro-gun lobby says without verification. Quote False assumption - guns are NOT illegal, since hundreds of thousands are legally sold every year. I didn't say guns ARE illegal. I said "IF guns are illegal, then..." I should have probably used "were" there instead of "are", but "if" seems to be pretty obvious. Quote Conclusion based on a false assumption. It also assumes that the robbers in question did not obtain another weapon and continue their crimes. Assumption "if the guns are banned" cannot be false by definition. A conclusion may be invalid, but you need to blame Kopel for that as it is his conclusion.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #297 January 6, 2010 QuoteQuote Of course - isn't ANYTHING that doesn't come from YOU or the anti-gun forces "groundless"? Sorry, but I've learned from my mistakes, and now will not believe anything pro-gun lobby says without verification. Sweet - when are you going to give us the telepathy readings of that robber that you KNEW 'wasn't going to kill anyone', then? QuoteQuote False assumption - guns are NOT illegal, since hundreds of thousands are legally sold every year. I didn't say guns ARE illegal. I said "IF guns are illegal, then..." I should have probably used "were" there instead of "are", but "if" seems to be pretty obvious. Yes, it was obviously a false assumption. QuoteQuote Conclusion based on a false assumption. It also assumes that the robbers in question did not obtain another weapon and continue their crimes. Assumption "if the guns are banned" cannot be false by definition. A conclusion may be invalid, but you need to blame Kopel for that as it is his conclusion. Kopel didn't make THAT conclusion, either.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #298 January 6, 2010 Quote Sweet - when are you going to give us the telepathy readings of that robber that you KNEW 'wasn't going to kill anyone', then? It's already there - you just need to travel to parallel universe, and pick it up. Quote Yes, it was obviously a false assumption. Yet another silly statement. QuoteKopel didn't make THAT conclusion, either. Of course he didn't, NRA would not pay for such conclusion. But the DATA he published confirms this conclusion, no matter what you think.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #299 January 6, 2010 QuoteOf course he didn't, NRA would not pay for such conclusion. Proof he was paid by NRA? QuoteBut the DATA he published confirms this conclusion, no matter what you think. Your OPINION, yet again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #300 January 6, 2010 Quote Proof he was paid by NRA? How is it relevant to discussion? QuoteYour OPINION, yet again. Of course.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next Page 12 of 19 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
georgerussia 0 #292 January 6, 2010 Quote Then by all means, feel free to purchase a copy and read it for yourself. Why should I? You mentioned the study, it's your duty to prove the facts you claim it introduces. Quote Incorrect assumption, but I'm hardly surprised at the conclusion you came to. It is not assumption, the quoted part was taken directly from the article you posted the link to.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #293 January 6, 2010 QuoteQuote Then by all means, feel free to purchase a copy and read it for yourself. Why should I? You mentioned the study, it's your duty to prove the facts you claim it introduces. Duty? I have no duty to you. If you want the straight info, buy the damn book yourself. QuoteQuote Incorrect assumption, but I'm hardly surprised at the conclusion you came to. It is not assumption, the quoted part was taken directly from the article you posted the link to. I wasn't taking about what Kopel said.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #294 January 6, 2010 Quote Duty? I have no duty to you. If you want the straight info, buy the damn book yourself. No, I just want to verify your claim (which seems to be groundless, as usual, as you apparently didn't read the study yourself). Quote I wasn't taking about what Kopel said. Then it was a conclusion, not assumption.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #295 January 6, 2010 QuoteQuote Duty? I have no duty to you. If you want the straight info, buy the damn book yourself. No, I just want to verify your claim (which seems to be groundless, as usual, as you apparently didn't read the study yourself). Of course - isn't ANYTHING that doesn't come from YOU or the anti-gun forces "groundless"? QuoteQuote I wasn't taking about what Kopel said. Then it was a conclusion, not assumption. QuoteSo if guns are illegal, False assumption - guns are NOT illegal, since hundreds of thousands are legally sold every year. Quotecarrying any gun would be illegal, thus lowering the robbery rate Conclusion based on a false assumption. It also assumes that the robbers in question did not obtain another weapon and continue their crimes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #296 January 6, 2010 Quote Of course - isn't ANYTHING that doesn't come from YOU or the anti-gun forces "groundless"? Sorry, but I've learned from my mistakes, and now will not believe anything pro-gun lobby says without verification. Quote False assumption - guns are NOT illegal, since hundreds of thousands are legally sold every year. I didn't say guns ARE illegal. I said "IF guns are illegal, then..." I should have probably used "were" there instead of "are", but "if" seems to be pretty obvious. Quote Conclusion based on a false assumption. It also assumes that the robbers in question did not obtain another weapon and continue their crimes. Assumption "if the guns are banned" cannot be false by definition. A conclusion may be invalid, but you need to blame Kopel for that as it is his conclusion.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #297 January 6, 2010 QuoteQuote Of course - isn't ANYTHING that doesn't come from YOU or the anti-gun forces "groundless"? Sorry, but I've learned from my mistakes, and now will not believe anything pro-gun lobby says without verification. Sweet - when are you going to give us the telepathy readings of that robber that you KNEW 'wasn't going to kill anyone', then? QuoteQuote False assumption - guns are NOT illegal, since hundreds of thousands are legally sold every year. I didn't say guns ARE illegal. I said "IF guns are illegal, then..." I should have probably used "were" there instead of "are", but "if" seems to be pretty obvious. Yes, it was obviously a false assumption. QuoteQuote Conclusion based on a false assumption. It also assumes that the robbers in question did not obtain another weapon and continue their crimes. Assumption "if the guns are banned" cannot be false by definition. A conclusion may be invalid, but you need to blame Kopel for that as it is his conclusion. Kopel didn't make THAT conclusion, either.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #298 January 6, 2010 Quote Sweet - when are you going to give us the telepathy readings of that robber that you KNEW 'wasn't going to kill anyone', then? It's already there - you just need to travel to parallel universe, and pick it up. Quote Yes, it was obviously a false assumption. Yet another silly statement. QuoteKopel didn't make THAT conclusion, either. Of course he didn't, NRA would not pay for such conclusion. But the DATA he published confirms this conclusion, no matter what you think.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #299 January 6, 2010 QuoteOf course he didn't, NRA would not pay for such conclusion. Proof he was paid by NRA? QuoteBut the DATA he published confirms this conclusion, no matter what you think. Your OPINION, yet again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #300 January 6, 2010 Quote Proof he was paid by NRA? How is it relevant to discussion? QuoteYour OPINION, yet again. Of course.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
