The politicians stated that gun control would lower crime, so causation was stated before the correlation. Now that the correlation does not match their claims, they want to claim the correlation is coincidence.
You believe in gun control based on an unfounded belief that without it more people will be harmed, but require hard evidence from people who disagree with you. I would prefer a counter proposal, since this is the land of the free. How about, you provide us with hard evidence that gun control will save lives and lower crime, and if you don't have hard evidence we let the people be free to own guns? Would it be too much to ask that we require evidence to take freedoms away rather than requiring proof that our freedom is beneficial?
I require hard evidence,
I never said MORE people would be harmed. I said it would introduce new problems, but the new problems might be outweighed by the problems it solves, or it might not.
I require hard evidence, yes. It works both ways, though. I require it from the pros and the cons. I haven't seen it from either side, so my stance is that gun control is not the issue here.
Do you guys enjoy telling me that I am pro-GC? lol..
Did you not mean to imply that reducing gun control would cause more harm with this statement? The only way I can see this as not being more harm is if you believe there would be offsets in other forms of harm, but you have stated you want proof that those offsets would occur.Revoking gun control would just introduce new problems such as accidental shootings, bullet ricochets, firing into a crowd and missing your target, etc. We're f'd either way as long as the root cause isn't handled - which is most likely gangs.
We can only ever have correlational statistics in relation to crime. The effect of adding police officers is correlational, just as the effect of jail time, and arrest rates. The statements of prisoners is very important, because it gives us a good reason to craft a theory of why the correlation exists. In this case we suspect CCW causes a drop in crime because criminals defer some crimes for fear of armed resistance. Then we look at the numbers to see if the theory holds up. And as time goes on, we can confirm if behavior continues to conform to the theory. It is important to note that Lott's study published in 1994 was based on data from 1977-1992. The studie's conclusions continue to hold when faced with data from 1992-2000. I posted a link to a review earlier. Note, the correlation only holds at the 10% significance level.
The baby boomer age argument is new one to me. If he has some study, to back this up I have never heard of it. However, I am aware that there are many studies on CCW, off the top of my head, I think 17 found it reduced crime, 4 found no significant effect, and one found it increased crime rates. I am only really familiar with the Lott study, which found a decrease and the Nagin study, which found no effect, so I can't comment on how good all of them are.
-----------------------------------
If you are interested in a quick overview of the information, the most non-biased source I know of would be the book "FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE" from the National Acadamies of the Sciences.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=10881&page=R1 (this is a free online version of the book from their website, the review is rather short, but it helps to be familiar with stats to understand the debate.)
Lott is covered in Chapter 6, appendix A, B, and D.
Brief overview of their findings, they can confirm Lott's basic findings from his data, several other studies also find similiar effects, but other studies find no effect or even an opposite effect. Furthermore, while almost every test shows a reduction in crime, the effects are almost all statistically insignificant at the 5% level. His original paper covered 1977-1992. The effects he published held true with new data from 1992-2000, but the effects were less pronounced.
However, they do not cover any of the other studies that have found a connection between concealed carry and violent crime.
Apparently you do not, since I posted a link to the hard evidence, and you said it was too long.
It doesnt fit his agenda so he wont read it
John, I asked if you could provide the information I requested among a 105-page PDF that was filled with lots of irrelevant info with the answer possibly buried somewhere in there. You didn't respond, which is fine, but I just didn't feel like sorting through all of that if very little of it pertained to the discussion.
Liberals just make up their facts.
Here is what the Police Department Says in Chicago. These murders for the last 365 day broken down by Police District with a nice map will show you that there have not been that many murders over a lot of Chicago. A lot of crime is in only a few police districts.
http://gis.chicagopolice.org/websit...wer.htm?SUMTYPE=BEAT&SUMCATA=N01A&SUMTIME=365
This does not really require the national guard. I think it is just a big lie. However, look at the map and decide for yourself.
Warning Takes a while to load, but it is worthwhile.
This does not mean that they dont have some room for improvement. Chicago is a really large city.
I live here. I can tell you it's 99.9% of the problem.
The bad guys have zero fear of doing anything they want because they know whoever they attack will not be armed.
Where the fuck haven't you lived?
Obviously I have not landed a permanent job in 10 years
Obviously I have not landed a permanent job in 10 years so overseas position is not out of the question.
Today, 08:56 AM Remove user from ignore list
nick1985 This message is hidden because nick1985 is on your ignore list.
View PostToday, 01:27 PM Remove user from ignore list
blanghorst This message is hidden because blanghorst is on your ignore list.
Not going to be able to see anything posted in here soon.
Dave, why can't you find a "permanent" job?
Can't refute facts, so might as well hide them I guess.
Well I'm not alone. It's the new design,
American Nomadic workers when you can find a job.
damn blanghorst, whatever will we do?
That's the Dave McOwned way. I asked him several times in debates we were having to provide facts, links, etc. and he never could. He could hurl insults but when insulted himself and pressed for details, he runs like a scared little schoolgirl and whines.
I will still respond to his posts regardless of whether he has me hidden or not. You might want to quote this so he can see it.
Well, I am going to do what I always do -- I will continue responding to Dave's BS, therefore doing the rest of the forum a favor and calling him on his crap.
Poor widdle Davey, we hurt his widdle feelings!