MSNBC: More Guns, Less Crime

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

It does show that more guns isn't related to MORE crime.

No, it does not, as there is a probability that without the guns the drop in crime rate would be significantly larger. Maybe the U.S. murder rate even came down to U.K. rate.

Yes it does. It does show that more guns isn't related to MORE crime. The same would be true if the statement was "more guns isn't related to less crime".

It did not say that more guns cause less crime just that the two are not related. Read again. Don't miss the part where it says "isn't related".

Of course this does go against all the predictions that more guns would cause more crime.

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Of course this does go against all the predictions that more guns would cause more crime.

No it doesn't. Since the data are meaningless as they stand, they don't go for or against any predictions at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Of course this does go against all the predictions that more guns would cause more crime.

No it doesn't. Since the data are meaningless as they stand, they don't go for or against any predictions at all.

As far as the predictions made by the anti gun groups, yes it does.

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course this does go against all the predictions that more guns would cause more crime.

No it doesn't. Since the data are meaningless as they stand, they don't go for or against any predictions at all.

As far as the predictions made by the anti gun groups, yes it does.

Meaningless data are just meaningless. Look it up in a dictionary.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Yes it does. It does show that more guns isn't related to MORE crime.

No, this is just your speculation that it is. You cannot prove it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
don't believe I was replying to you. But if you feel like people here aren't taking you seriously, maybe my statement applies. Are you battling suppositions with suppositions?

I see you don't understand - just ask someone to explain to you

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Meaningless data are just meaningless. Look it up in a dictionary.

Is it tough to breathe with your head in the sand?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Quote

Meaningless data are just meaningless. Look it up in a dictionary.

Is it tough to breathe with your head in the sand?

What part of "meaningless" is so hard for you to understand?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

It does show that more guns isn't related to MORE crime.

No, it does not, as there is a probability that without the guns the drop in crime rate would be significantly larger.

Like DC, yes...

Quote

Maybe the U.S. murder rate even came down to U.K. rate.

Which? The decreasing use of fake guns, or the increasing use of real ones?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe the U.S. murder rate even came down to U.K. rate.

Which? The decreasing use of fake guns, or the increasing use of real ones?

Murder rate. What fake guns you're talking about?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Maybe the U.S. murder rate even came down to U.K. rate.

Which? The decreasing use of fake guns, or the increasing use of real ones?

Murder rate. What fake guns you're talking about?

Sorry, read too fast and figured it was your usual 'guns bad' drivel.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Maybe the U.S. murder rate even came down to U.K. rate.

Which? The decreasing use of fake guns, or the increasing use of real ones?

Murder rate. What fake guns you're talking about?

Sorry, read too fast and figured it was your usual 'guns bad' drivel.

First step on the road to recovery - admitting that you ignored what he wrote

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Maybe the U.S. murder rate even came down to U.K. rate.

Which? The decreasing use of fake guns, or the increasing use of real ones?

Murder rate. What fake guns you're talking about?

Sorry, read too fast and figured it was your usual 'guns bad' drivel.

First step on the road to recovery - admitting that you ignored what he wrote

So, when are YOU going to take that first step and admit you lied?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course this does go against all the predictions that more guns would cause more crime.

No it doesn't. Since the data are meaningless as they stand, they don't go for or against any predictions at all.

As far as the predictions made by the anti gun groups, yes it does.

Meaningless data are just meaningless. Look it up in a dictionary.

If a person or group makes a prediction and the prediction does not come true as specified, it is not meaningless. Go read Bill Coles end of the US/world thread.

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Maybe the U.S. murder rate even came down to U.K. rate.

Which? The decreasing use of fake guns, or the increasing use of real ones?

Murder rate. What fake guns you're talking about?

Sorry, read too fast and figured it was your usual 'guns bad' drivel.

First step on the road to recovery - admitting that you ignored what he wrote

So, when are YOU going to take that first step and admit you lied?

Only in your imagination, because you failed to read what I wrote and then ignored every time it was drawn to your attention. I guess you are back to your old ways already.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So, when are YOU going to take that first step and admit you lied?

Only in your imagination, because you failed to read what I wrote and then ignored every time it was drawn to your attention. I guess you are back to your old ways already.

And you never left yours.

You see, there's only TWO ways that your little screed on the 'gun lobby preventing enforcement of existing law' is true:

1. The original premise that NICS checks for private sales is the 'existing law' you spoke of (this is amply supported by your mention of states that don't require NICS for private sales, and by mention of bills in Congress supporitng NICS for private sales).

Or

2. The gun lobby is somehow forcing private sellers to make sales to known felons.

Not even YOU are going to claim that option 2 is the case.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, when are YOU going to take that first step and admit you lied?

Only in your imagination, because you failed to read what I wrote and then ignored every time it was drawn to your attention. I guess you are back to your old ways already.

And you never left yours.

You see, there's only TWO ways that your little screed on the 'gun lobby preventing enforcement of existing law' is true:

1. The original premise that NICS checks for private sales is the 'existing law' you spoke of (this is amply supported by your mention of states that don't require NICS for private sales, and by mention of bills in Congress supporitng NICS for private sales).

Please provide a link to the post where I wrote that a NICS check for private sales was "existing law". Or admit that it is YOUR strawman.

Edited to add - here's a HINT, your first failure to read what I actually wrote and the subsequent creation of your strawman was on March 4 2010.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, when are YOU going to take that first step and admit you lied?

Only in your imagination, because you failed to read what I wrote and then ignored every time it was drawn to your attention. I guess you are back to your old ways already.

And you never left yours.

You see, there's only TWO ways that your little screed on the 'gun lobby preventing enforcement of existing law' is true:

1. The original premise that NICS checks for private sales is the 'existing law' you spoke of (this is amply supported by your mention of states that don't require NICS for private sales, and by mention of bills in Congress supporitng NICS for private sales).

Please provide a link to the post where I wrote that a NICS check for private sales was "existing law".

Funny you should mention that, John - I happen to have it right here:

Quote

Quote

When are you planning on showing how the gun lobby is preventing enforcement of existing law, John?

Asked and answered previously. Austin (TX), MN, and VA for starters. Also check on gun lobby opposition to H.R. 2324, and S. 843

For the edification of the readers - Texas, Minnesota and Virginia don't require private sale NICS checks. HR 2324 and S 843 are pending bills to require NICS checks for ALL sales at gunshows, private or not.

So, John's "existing law", isn't - first lie.

Quote

Or admit that it is YOUR strawman.

Second lie.

Quote

Edited to add - here's a HINT, your first failure to read what I actually wrote and the subsequent creation of your strawman was on March 4 2010.

Here's one back - your own words showing your lie were on March 9th, as linked above. Maybe you should write them down, so you can remember what lie you told what person.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, when are YOU going to take that first step and admit you lied?

Only in your imagination, because you failed to read what I wrote and then ignored every time it was drawn to your attention. I guess you are back to your old ways already.

And you never left yours.

You see, there's only TWO ways that your little screed on the 'gun lobby preventing enforcement of existing law' is true:

1. The original premise that NICS checks for private sales is the 'existing law' you spoke of (this is amply supported by your mention of states that don't require NICS for private sales, and by mention of bills in Congress supporitng NICS for private sales).

Please provide a link to the post where I wrote that a NICS check for private sales was "existing law".

Funny you should mention that, John - I happen to have it right here:

Quote

Quote

When are you planning on showing how the gun lobby is preventing enforcement of existing law, John?

Asked and answered previously. Austin (TX), MN, and VA for starters. Also check on gun lobby opposition to H.R. 2324, and S. 843

For the edification of the readers - Texas, Minnesota and Virginia don't require private sale NICS checks. HR 2324 and S 843 are pending bills to require NICS checks for ALL sales at gunshows, private or not.

So, John's "existing law", isn't - first lie.

Quote

Or admit that it is YOUR strawman.

Second lie.

Quote

Edited to add - here's a HINT, your first failure to read what I actually wrote and the subsequent creation of your strawman was on March 4 2010.

Here's one back - your own words showing your lie were on March 9th, as linked above. Maybe you should write them down, so you can remember what lie you told what person.

FAIL.

NOWHERE in that quote did I say that existing law required NICS checks for private sales. That was your imagination running amok.

The March 4 post shows very clearly that the 'existing law' under discussion was the prohibition on sales of guns to felons.

"Right, so saying there's already a law against straw purchase so we don't need to do anything more is absurd; enforcement of the law is pathetic. Yet the gun lobby continues to oppose any measures that will enable better enforcement of a law that already exists, all the while paying lip service to it." JK, 3/4/2010, 1:35pm


This was explained to you over and over and over, for example March 7: "It IS illegal for a felon to buy a gun, but the gun lobby has consistently opposed NICS checks on private sales (at gunshows or anywhere else). "

Also on March 7: "Fact is, a felon can buy a gun and avoid a NICS check by going to a gun show and buying from an unlicensed seller. This method of circumventing the existing law prohibiting the sale of a gun to a felon EXISTS, and continues to exist because the gun lobby has opposed all attempts to extend the NICS check to cover such sales."

It's pretty clear which existing law was being discussed to anyone except you.


Yet because you consistently ignore what people actually write and substitute your own erroneous interpretation, you continue to repeat the same lame strawman over and over again.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

NOWHERE in that quote did I say that existing law required NICS checks for private sales.

Odd - I clearly stated 'existing law' in my question, and you answered with non-private NIC states and pending NIC bills.

So, yes...you FAIL.

Quote

The March 4 post shows very clearly that the 'existing law' under discussion was the prohibition on sales of guns to felons.

Should've thought of that before you made that answer on the 9th, then.

Quote

This was explained to you over and over and over, for example March 7: "It IS illegal for a felon to buy a gun, but the gun lobby has consistently opposed NICS checks on private sales (at gunshows or anywhere else). "

Ibid

Quote

Also on March 7: "Fact is, a felon can buy a gun and avoid a NICS check by going to a gun show and buying from an unlicensed seller. This method of circumventing the existing law prohibiting the sale of a gun to a felon EXISTS, and continues to exist because the gun lobby has opposed all attempts to extend the NICS check to cover such sales."

It's pretty clear which existing law was being discussed to anyone except you.

Ibid

Quote

yet you continue to repeat your lame strawman.

But you set me SUCH a good example in that regard.

Lemme know when you decide to go after the 80% of guns instead of the 1% of guns, m'kay? You might actually be taken seriously at that point.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Quote

NOWHERE in that quote did I say that existing law required NICS checks for private sales.

Odd - I clearly stated 'existing law' in my question, and you answered with non-private NIC states and pending NIC bills.

You have a serious comprehension problem. What part of "existing law prohibiting the sale of a gun to a felon" is so hard to understand?

Opposing bills at the state and federal level that would require NICS checks on private sales IS opposing the effective implementation of EXISTING law prohibiting sales to felons, which was the "existing law" that had been under discussion since March 4.

If you paid more attention to what was written instead of inventing strawmen to attack you'd fare better in debate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

NOWHERE in that quote did I say that existing law required NICS checks for private sales.

Odd - I clearly stated 'existing law' in my question, and you answered with non-private NIC states and pending NIC bills.

You have a serious comprehension problem.

And you have a serious veracity problem - have a point?

Quote

What part of "existing law prohibiting the sale of a gun to a felon" is so hard to understand?

What part of

"When are you planning on showing how the gun lobby is preventing enforcement of existing law, John?

Asked and answered previously. Austin (TX), MN, and VA for starters. Also check on gun lobby opposition to H.R. 2324, and S. 843

is so hard to understand?

Quote

Opposing bills at the state and federal level that would require NICS checks on private sales IS opposing the effective implementation of EXISTING law prohibiting sales to felons, which was the "existing law" that had been under discussion since March 4.

No, you said 'enforcement' - guess you should have written THAT one down, too.

Quote

If you paid more attention to what was written instead of inventing strawmen to attack you'd fare better in debate.

I bow the strawman master.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,099]

If all you can do to support your claim is bicker over the difference between implementing a law and enforcing it, you don't have much of a case.

EXISTING law prohibits the sale of guns to felons.

NICS checks are a way of enforcing that law. NICS checks are only required by federal law of sales by licensed dealers.

NICS checks are not required of private purchases.

Bills to require NICS checks of private purchases have been introduced at the state and federal level.

The gun lobby has opposed such bills at the state and federal level. Cites were provided by me.

That has been my position all along, and all of it is true.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If all you can do to support your claim is bicker over the difference between implementing a law and enforcing it, you don't have much of a case.

EXISTING law prohibits the sale of guns to felons.

Correct, at least since GCA '68.

Quote

NICS checks are a way of enforcing that law. NICS checks are only required by federal law of sales by licensed dealers.

Correct.

Quote

NICS checks are not required of private purchases.

Also correct, on a Federal level.

Quote

Bills to require NICS checks of private purchases have been introduced at the state and federal level.

Also correct.

Quote

The gun lobby has opposed such bills at the state and federal level. Cites were provided by me.

Also correct.

Quote

That has been my position all along, and all of it is true.

None of the above proves your 'gun lobby preventing enforcement of existing law' claim, sorry.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

It does show that more guns isn't related to MORE crime.

No, it does not, as there is a probability that without the guns the drop in crime rate would be significantly larger. Maybe the U.S. murder rate even came down to U.K. rate.

with the non gun related homicide rate in the US being roughly a third greater than all UK homicides, seems rather unlikely.

so yes, it has a non zero probability, just as Bill Cole has a non zero chance of getting his prediction right one of these days. Maybe it will be that Mayan asteroid in 2012.

But if you want to show any sort of relationship between a declining murder rate and a huge increase in the number of guns, feel free to keep entertaining us. Rhys seems to have run out of energy on his latest 1000 post crusade on 9/11.