Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

    Although you would never know it from the loud, repeated bleating here, gun violence is down sharply in the US over the past two decades:

    Gun-related homicides and crime are "strikingly" down from 20 years ago, despite the American public's belief that firearm crime is on the upswing, a new study said Wednesday.

    Looking back 50 years, a Pew Research Center study found U.S. gun homicides rose in the 1960s, gained in the 1970s, peaked in the 1980s and the early 1990s, and then plunged and leveled out the past 20 years.

    "Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago," the researchers say.

    A Pew survey of Americans in March found 56% believed gun-related crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% said it's lower. The survey said 26% believed it stayed the same and 6% didn't know.

    Study: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years - CNN.com
    Of course, the media hypes the crap out of shootings, so it is no surprise that the majority of Americans are ignorant of the truth. As are the majority of our foreign posters.

    Gun violence is declining, while gun ownership is rising steadily. This does not prove that more guns = less crime, but it absolutely and irrefutably proves that the more guns = more crime paradigm intrinsic to the positions of folks like Danny, CowboyTed, and PeterUK is completely and totally wrong.

  • #2
    Re: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

    this was covered ONLINE by the MSM....but i doubt it will see the light of day on the evening news.

    This does not fit the liberal talking points so they keep spinning and people stay stupid

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

      Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
      ...
      Gun violence is declining, while gun ownership is rising steadily. This does not prove that more guns = less crime, but it absolutely and irrefutably proves that the more guns = more crime paradigm intrinsic to the positions of folks like Danny, CowboyTed, and PeterUK is completely and totally wrong.
      Actually, the rate of gun ownership is also declining: Analysis: Fewer U.S. gun owners own more guns - CNN.com. The people who own guns tend to own more and more of them, but the percentage of households and individuals who own guns at all has been going down for the last 20 or so years.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

        clapping.gifWhen "like" just isn't good enough.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

          Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
          Actually, the rate of gun ownership is also declining: Analysis: Fewer U.S. gun owners own more guns - CNN.com. The people who own guns tend to own more and more of them, but the percentage of households and individuals who own guns at all has been going down for the last 20 or so years.
          Ah, but I made no mention of rate, only overall ownership. Which still completely refutes the "more guns = more gun crimes" meme popular among certain observers here.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

            Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
            ....., but it absolutely and irrefutably proves that the more guns = more crime paradigm intrinsic to the positions of folks like Danny, CowboyTed, and PeterUK is completely and totally wrong.
            Proves nothing of the sort (just as it does not prove the reverse)

            Crime is complex and it varies with numerous factors. Demographics, economic conditions, population density, people perceptions about the future many things.

            Just about every study I have read that supports either position will ignores at least some of these factors. In other words the statistical controls of all these studies suck.

            From a statistical viewpoint variables that co-vary i.e. those that have feedback loops among the variables, are very difficult to discern which are the dominant variable. In a complex social situation like guns, demographics, economics and crime you have multiple relationships and both positive and negative feedback loops amongst the variables.

            For example in crime economic situation plays a part so does the demographic as the high crime committing age group so is a young community with a high crime rate that way because young people tend not to earn as much, because of their age or some other factor.


            And just so you know, statistics cannot prove or disprove anything. All they can do is point out a correlation between two or more variables and give a level of confidence as to whether or not this relationship is random or not.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

              Originally posted by RDK View Post
              Proves nothing of the sort (just as it does not prove the reverse)

              Crime is complex and it varies with numerous factors. Demographics, economic conditions, population density, people perceptions about the future many things.

              Just about every study I have read that supports either position will ignores at least some of these factors. In other words the statistical controls of all these studies suck.

              From a statistical viewpoint variables that co-vary i.e. those that have feedback loops among the variables, are very difficult to discern which are the dominant variable. In a complex social situation like guns, demographics, economics and crime you have multiple relationships and both positive and negative feedback loops amongst the variables.

              For example in crime economic situation plays a part so does the demographic as the high crime committing age group so is a young community with a high crime rate that way because young people tend not to earn as much, because of their age or some other factor.


              And just so you know, statistics cannot prove or disprove anything. All they can do is point out a correlation between two or more variables and give a level of confidence as to whether or not this relationship is random or not.
              It most assuredly does.

              The argument more guns = more crime takes the form if A then B. So, all that is required to disprove the argument is a case of A not followed by B.

              And that is what we have here. More guns (A), but not more crime (B).

              This is elementary stuff. You are correct that crime is a complex issue, and of course multiple factors are involved. In fact, your argument is also refuting the more guns = more crime argument.

              Correlation is not causation, something neither of us would dispute. So more guns = less crime is not proven (it may be a correlation, but not causative). But it is an absolute, mathematically proven fact that more guns = more crime is a false relationship.

              Basic logic.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

                I suspect it is because we have an awful lot of Americans involved with the penal system either behind bars or on parole.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

                  Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                  I suspect it is because we have an awful lot of Americans involved with the penal system either behind bars or on parole.
                  And a lot more concealed carry since 1993.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

                    Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
                    .....
                    This is elementary stuff. You are correct that crime is a complex issue, and of course multiple factors are involved. In fact, your argument is also refuting the more guns = more crime argument.

                    Correlation is not causation, something neither of us would dispute. So more guns = less crime is not proven (it may be a correlation, but not causative). But it is an absolute, mathematically proven fact that more guns = more crime is a false relationship.

                    Basic logic.
                    Prefect example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

                    A single instance of a not following B does not prove anything. If A, C D and E all are casual factors on B some positive and some negative then A not following B may mean that the negative influence of C and D was stronger than the positive influence of A.

                    Let’s for a minute assume we are testing your hypothesis that more guns = less crime. However we know that say better economic conditions = less crime as does an aging population ( the 15 to 24 demographic is the age group most likely to engage in criminal activity,.

                    Now we have a population that is aging and becoming more financially stable, as a result crime will drop if guns remain constant.

                    Now let’s assume that over time the number of guns in the population increases, people are more affluent and go out and buy more weapons for hunting and sport shooting for an example.

                    We see crime drop. Was the drop in crime due to the aging population? Was it due to the increased affluence? Was it due to the increased number of guns?

                    Since these variables are also correlated ( affluence meant more guns but also less crime independently of the effect of number of guns on more crime as was aging also correlated with affluence)

                    Your position is that the more guns resulted in less crime is "proof" that the reverse of less guns = less crime is an impossibility is simply wrong. Remember statistics cannot prove anything.

                    My position is that there is the possibility that there would have been even less crime than was observed if the number of guns remained constant or even less had the number of guns been reduced.

                    In any statistically based social study there is the pesky issue of controls. Controls means that you somehow attempt to isolate the effect on the target variable from all other effects than those caused by the input variable.

                    So to demonstrate a relationship just between number of guns and crime rate you would need to control for these by one of two ways. You can isolate the population and hold steady all conflicting variables or you can have a large enough sample size so that you can do a detailed statistical analysis of the impact of the possible multiple input variables on the target variable.

                    Both are very difficult to so especially in a large population social setting. How would you control economic conditions for long enough period of time to make a meaningful sample size to show the correlation between numbers of guns and crime?

                    A large enough sample over a long enough period of time simply does not exist to make a strong statistical statement on the impacts of all the other variables on the gun and crime argument.

                    Here is a list of things that off the top of my head would have to be controlled for in a proper statistical study.

                    Crime
                    Demographics how many in the crime prone age group
                    Drugs not only number but types (crack cocaine was a drug associated with much more crime than some other drugs)
                    Economic conditions
                    Legal framework, laws and regulations about guns.
                    Social conditions, after a popular violent movie copycat crimes are a possibility
                    Recent events, gain the copycat effect.

                    Can you show me any studies, supporting either position that controls or accounts for all these issues as well as the ones I did not think of off the top of my head? As far as I know there are no studies out there that do an adequate job of controlling for all the variables out there.

                    If there is one, done by an independent entity not associated with one side of the argument or the other then I would really like to read it.

                    My belief is that less guns = less crime especially less serious injury from crime.

                    Guns, especially handguns, simply allow more people to kill than would otherwise be the case.
                    Accidental shootings resulting in death would be more common than accidental stabbings resulting in death.

                    Suicide by gun is more likely, IMHO, to be successful than by other mean, especially where the attempt is not a serious attempt but a cry for help.

                    Yes the substitution effect can occur. If someone wants to kill then if no gun available they will use a knife or other means. Same for suicide but since guns are designed for killing; someone can do a much better job with one than with something not especially designed for the task.

                    Yes people can use guns to stop crimes but in countries where there are stronger gun controls all have lower crime rates than the US, that should mean something. ( but again how does one report crimes, do the same definitions mean the same thing across different countries, are all or at least similar proportions of crimes being reported across all countries, what about things that are crimes in one place and not crimes in another place etc)

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

                      Originally posted by RDK View Post
                      Prefect example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
                      Yes, your posts prove that every day. (See, when you choose to be insulting, I can return the favor. Too bad you couldn't just be civil.)

                      Originally posted by RDK View Post
                      A single instance of a not following B does not prove anything. If A, C D and E all are casual factors on B some positive and some negative then A not following B may mean that the negative influence of C and D was stronger than the positive influence of A.
                      Irrelevant. I never mentioned that scenario. The argument presented is that B follow A, without C, D, and E. In that case, you are correct. But that is not what I said, nor what I was responding to. As usual, you move the goalposts and pat yourself on the back for kicking a field goal.

                      Try - just fucking try for once - to examine what I wrote WITHOUT inventing a bunch of shit you wish I said and pretending I said it.

                      The argument more guns = more crime is strictly an if A then B argument. That is what I am addressing, and it is the ONLY thing I am addressing. Your pedantic addition of additional variables is simply changing my statement to suit your needs. Your insistance on doing so is very dishonest.

                      Originally posted by RDK View Post
                      Let’s for a minute assume we are testing your hypothesis that more guns = less crime. However we know that say better economic conditions = less crime as does an aging population ( the 15 to 24 demographic is the age group most likely to engage in criminal activity,.
                      Oh, for fuck's sake. That is not my hypothesis, and I clearly said it is not in any way supported by the data. This is yet another example of your inability to honestly discuss what others post. You invariably twist, distort, and outright fabricate things and claim others have posted them.

                      I omitted the rest of your self-serving fabricated argument, because it doesn't address what I actually said. I have no interest in continuing to play that game with you. You'll have to continue playing with yourself.

                      The funny thing here is that we both agree that the crime issue is far to complex to distill to a single variable (although that did not stop you from posting an utterly retarded poll reducing the issue to a single variable). But even though we agree on this, you insist on being dishonest, arrogant, and pedantic.

                      Pathetic.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

                        Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
                        .....

                        The argument more guns = more crime is strictly an if A then B argument. That is what I am addressing, and it is the ONLY thing I am addressing. Your pedantic addition of additional variables is simply changing my statement to suit your needs...... .
                        That is where your fundamental flaw in your reasoning lies.

                        It is not a single pair of factors but many factors.

                        You have to realize that the world is a complex place. Trying to reduce any complex set of interrelationships to a single factor is imposable at best and foolish at worst.

                        Any my poll on dead kids was not a statistical study but was intended to make gun owners think about the cost of their "freedom" to own guns and the cost of this freedom.

                        Freedom has costs, we know that soldiers have died and will die in defense of our freedom and pay homage to their sacrifice.

                        Why cannot we realize that posession of guns as practiced in the USA results in the death of kids and that is the cost of the "freedom" of owning a gun?

                        What price are you wiling to pay for this "freedom"?

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

                          Do you truly not fucking comprehend that I am NOT the fucking person who made the fucking argument I am fucking responding to? Seriously, what the fuck is your fucking problem?

                          I answered your stupid fucking question in your stupid fucking poll. And you STILL fucking pretend I have not fucking answered it so you can climb on your high fucking horse and repeatedly fucking demand the fucking answer I have already fuckin given you.

                          Fuck.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

                            Originally posted by RDK View Post
                            Yes people can use guns to stop crimes but in countries where there are stronger gun controls all have lower crime rates than the US, that should mean something.
                            It would seem to mean nothing as the U.K, Germany, and France all have higher reported crime rates and stronger gun contrl laws. Of course if you've got links and numbers, feel free to include them.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years

                              Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                              It would seem to mean nothing as the U.K, Germany, and France all have higher reported crime rates and stronger gun contrl laws. Of course if you've got links and numbers, feel free to include them.
                              You are, of course, correct. Unfortunately, RDK is immune to facts, and he'll just misrepresent your position - or fabricate one outright and pretend it to be yours - instead of engaging in honest discussion.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X