Topic: Gun free zone - page 3. (Read 21969 times)

I am of a different opinion: "pro-gay" seems just a politically correct way to say "gay". But I am anti-semantic. But that term is used by the author of that research. So you can go to argue with him.

"Pro-gay" doesn't mean anything. "Anti-homophobe", on the other hand, does.

Since you're keen on generalising, are you implying pro gun advocates are predominantly homophobic? That helps me a bit. I have a hypothesis about correlations between people with unreasoning fears and being pro gun for "protection".

You can account for the effect of local jurisdictions with different gun control laws in a careful study.

Studying US states and their differences is the best way to eliminate extraneous variables.  There are still drastic cultural differences, but you're at least an order of magnitude better than comparing against other countries.

Lots of people have pointed out serious flaws with the dataset you chose to restrict yourself to.  Yet all you can say is that "only the data I picked matter".

They are all in the same country. Local regulations have little effect as city and state lines are easily crossed. That's actually why Australia moved to federal gun regulation. So, in truth, I might not try to compare those violent crime rates. Thanks for trying to push your anti-helpful and poorly thought out solution for studying gun crime to further your own agenda though.

Then you might compare violent crime rates and gun possession/regulation between, let's say metropolitan LA or NYC and rural Texas. Or maybe one of them is third world too?

[edit] BTW: a "first world" social scientist found that males in favor of gun control are predominatly pro-gay and know-nothing about guns, and females kind of pro-castration (metaphorically) types: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/gun-control-as-castration/

This seems to me a more interesting correlation.

As explained in the above post, it should be very clear what the purpose and intention is. I never declared any desire, nor value, in studying the methods of some third world country with a vastly different economy and style of living. I linked to a list of countries and essentially pointed out that "these countries are doing so much better than the US. What gives?"

If you personally want to explore the methods, laws and policies in other countries that are not on that list and are often not doing well at all, feel free to do so, as I'm sure you think its significant.

I stand by what I said. You've picked your specific filter which supports your general assertion and you're sticking with it.

And it wasn't I that brought that list into the discussion. Keep it straight.

Show where I moved the goalposts. What you'll find is that I planted goal posts, based on countries listed in a chart. I said let's discover what these countries are doing that we are not, as they obviously are doing much better than we (the US) is doing. And I stick to those countries. Along comes Richy_T, and says, out of context, to look at all countries - which is rather stupid, due to extreme differences the US has to many countries. The goal isn't (nor has it ever been) to desire to emulate some tin pot dictatorship. In fact, the goal is to discover methods employed by countries which clearly do better than us in this arena.

Note the words in boldface? They indicate a constancy. Thus, I render your accusation of me moving the goalposts to be a flat out false accusation, which I would call being dishonest, in an attempt to corrupt what I am suggesting in favor of whatever your agenda is. And your dishonesty further qualifies you as a hypocrite, I'm sorry to say.

FirstAscent, you're just moving the goalposts like you did earlier. That's dishonest.

Just concede your point if the data doesn't support it.

No. Need I repeat myself? If we're comparing New York apartments, we don't bring Salt Lake condos into the discussion.

Because you can use such a strategy to filter to get the results you are looking for rather than gauging the situation as it actually stands. You end up in a no-true-Scotsman situation.

I sure as heck could and would if we were discussing jet engines on wide bodies. Back to the main point, why in the hell would we use tin pot dictatorships for comparison?

A man or a woman cannot 'delegate their action' when in face of an imminent physical attack.


People have no moral obligation to learn to defend themselves and a right of self-defense cannot be delegated.


If you do not have a duty to defend people, people also do not have a duty to defend whoever they choose, including themselves!


No, self-defense is not my duty.


A private school have no moral obligation to protect you after you VOLUNTARILY agree to enter without a gun, except if there was a previous explicit agreement between you and the school to determine the protection.

Some interesting statistics about what use to happen to disarmed populations:

Gun Control and Genocide - by Gary North
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north367.html

If we were discussing some property of jet engines, you couldn't suddenly turn around and say "Oh, but only commercial passenger carrying aircraft with at least 200 capacity"

The simple truth is that guns and/or gun control are not good predictors of violence. Violence is generally low, pretty much everywhere and people intent on committing violence tend to go ahead and commit violence regardless. Guns have several small effects, both positive and negative on the amount and quality of violence. Combine these competing and complex and small effects on a fairly low level of violence and overlay that on the immensely complex and inseparable factors that lead to different levels of violence though different cultures and countries and you have a signal that is completely flooded by the noise. This is why it is possible to have two sides so opposed. And this is also why there is no good justification to remove the right of the people to own and bear firearms.

As someone above noted, the only semi-fair way to judge things is to study what happens before and after legislation. What happens after "assault weapon" bans? Gun bans in Australia and the UK? Carry permit legislation? Castle doctrine legislation? And none of this "gun violence" or "gun deaths" bullshit, you have to look at general levels of the outcome you're looking for. And even then, there are other societal and time-based effects that could make your results completely worthless.

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

You're out to lunch, dude. It's not cherry picking. If we were talking about the environment in jet airliners, we wouldn't use data from open canopy biplanes, even though both are clearly aircraft.

Quit cherry picking. Because developed nations tend to end up enacting gun control and because developed nations tend to have lower rates of violence does not mean that one implies the other.

The first link says -with some telling authoritative data backing- that one thing is whatever policy on guns, and a completely different thing is what ppl actually do and own, in the US and elsewhere, regardless of the law.

Developed the kind of cancer we have in America.  There is nothing wrong with agriculturally based society.  It doesn't need "developed".  Sure, basic infrastructure and healthcare is important, but they don't need the kind of eternal distraction most Americans live in.  They can actually stand to sit still without getting fidgety.  To take that away from them in pursuit of a "higher standard of living", as defined by consumerists, is the greatest sin we can commit.