Do more guns equal more crime? Prove it.

My dick is big, my woman screams at orgasm and then says she can take no more. Would feeling that the missions is accomplished be a spurious relationship? Do I need to study and measure each stroke, amount of penetration, any variance in strokes, plot it on a bell curve to find out I am in the top two SDs or can I just use the fact that I have kept her for 23 years as evidence that I have a satisfied woman?

 

You didn't have to post the whole review, friend. If you took the time to read it yourself, you could have culled out the relevant portions for us all here. This is just plain laziness, really. A discussion such as this deserves more than simple-minded copy/paste antics.

As it so happens, I AM familiar with this review. It would be hard not to be, seeing how the review is thirteen years old now. They repeatedly asked for more studies in this review which, ironically I believe Reiver has supplied you. There has been much research done since this review.

Also ironically, this review found huge flaws in the works of a popular anti-control researcher named John Lott. A gentleman who made claims as to the association between guns and crime in his work titled "More Guns, Less Crime". I assume by your posting this that you agree with this conclusion.

I'm not sure whom you're talking to, but it's clear that you are using a poison the well fallacy. I would expect nothing less from you.

 

No; most studies are started to find the conclusion that is wanted. If this were not the case there would be no assumptions. I also did not post all of this and if you were familiar with it, as you claim, you would know this. I posted all that for lazy third graders like you.

 

Revisionism doesn't interest me. I could tell you that I slew a dragon. Would that impress YOU?

I suspect your memory of that exchange is quite different from Reiver's recollections. Your recollections have most likely been swayed by the collective back-slapping of your tag-team.

Once again, you try to use the old 'poison the well fallacy'. Silly, really. You should aim a little higher, friend.

What really jumps out at me is your close minded intransigence. You actually are boasting to have come to a preconceived conclusion, which is innumeracy at its worst, in my opinion. For you to dismiss science BEFORE you even see it is frankly amazing.

I won't play your silly games.

 

Excuse me? You're asking me to make a valid conclusion from your own bluster? I see you STILL haven't referred to my link that would logically help you with this. Learn what spurious relationship means and then get back to me.

 

Actually I posted the definition.

 

Such cynical views are not constructive, nor are they valid. The very review (granted it wasn't a study) you posted was commissioned by then President Clinton with the hopes of finding definitive proof as to the dangers of guns. He was sadly disappointed, as I'm sure you can imagine. The point is that good research will take you where it leads you. This doesn't mean that you cannot begin with assumptions. I would proffer to you that a study NEEDS to begin with assumptions. This is what defines the research.

Ha, Ha. Is this what you did with Reiver? Low-brow name calling? really? I suppose you feel this qualifies your claim that you "tore Reiver a new one". Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand the difference between schoolyard theatrics and logical debate. Pity.

 

Fail!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

No you didn't......sigh,..........I don't know why I bother. You posted the dictionary definition of "spurious". This isn't what I asked to to look up though was it? As I already explained to you:

"I fully know what the meaning of "spurious relationship" is, friend. For you to post the dictionary definition of "spurious" only confirms your naivete on this matter. Apparently, in spite of my repeated references to it, you are unaware of its application still to this day. The term "spurious relationship" has nothing to do with a bastard child. Ha! No. the term is a mathematical term used to describe correlations. Look here. You'll see that your adherence to raw data on this is a classic spurious relationship and that it should be discounted. Simple."
​

This was way back here.



You forget that our own words are recorded here and fairly easy to go back and retrieve. Attempts at such deception by yourself will always be found out.

Sorry.

 

Once again, You Don't Seem To Understand The Difference Between Schoolyard Theatrics And Logical Debate. Pity.

 

Could you actually post something relevant to the topic?

 

Your name calling pulled the topic where we are. Remember? I would welcome any logical or factual evidence you would like to provide if you'd like to get back on track without the ad hominem attacks.

 

The burden is on you.

 

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."BF


The quote above is my mantra. The real problem is not whether firearms do this or do that. No I would not give a whit if firearms were every bit as dangerous and evil as many of the liberal safety nuts have whined about since the dawn of the printing press or before soap boxes were fastened together with hand made nails. No, the truly important thing is our rights and the umbrella of freedoms that they cover, and in many cases depend upon is whats important . We the free people in the United States and a few other God blessed countries and nations have the RIGHT to KEEP AND BEAR firearms. I said we have THE RIGHT. Not the right if they are safe, or they reduce or increase crime, or are a danger to the owner and who they are pointed at, NO, WE HAVE THE FREAKING RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS PERIOD!!!!!That is all I need to know to exercise and defend those rights. Trust me I will sleep well knowing that my ACP .45 is tucked in under my pillow and the 12 ga is beside the bed and the M-16 type bushmaster is behind the door. The icing on the cake is that those facts will irritate every gun hating liberal I tell about it! That alone gives me a happy face when I fall asleep and dream of owning 20 mm cannons and hand grenades. I am so exceedingly happy that we kicked the arse of the hand wringing liberals in the USA that would force their backwards Orwellian moral concepts of right and wrong on me or my (armed family) ! Hell, I would even arm Bogie my basset hound if I could teach him weapon safety and marksmanship.

reva



They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

Then it's my mistake for erroneously attacking the OP. I am involved with many gun-related threads.

Yes, we are both of like mind. More guns do not equal more crime.

 

I would like to add to my comment that I do not detest all anti gun-people. I know that many of them are hoping to save lives etc. So I do not have a problem with them personally, only their misconstrued attempts to save us from ourselves. Those that I do not like personally and highly disagree with concerning moral ethical and even intellectually are the Reviers of the world that would enslave everyone equally. (unless he has changed his ways or that I have misunderstood him completely). In my opinion only dictators and despots force their ideas of morals upon the citizens by the force of law, and/or attempt to withhold or eliminate the citizens natural rights.

reva

 

The people like Reiver, live in comfortable lifes. They don't need guns for protection or anything else. It is pure academic for them.

It should be the same for you, unless enjoy the odd hunting for wild game. But where this argument falls down is when it turns hysterical. The view everyone should have guns because some forum members have very bad enviroments and they do genuially need a gun for real protection.

 

The Sad thing is some people do need guns for protection I personally take mine out to go target shooting out back, go to the shooting range or if I have animal issues. I am not a big fan of carry laws because I feel that most of the people carrying have no business with a gun.

 

I can appreciate that also. For some guns are fun. It is a hobby. My uncle collects exotic weapons. Samuria swords etc... He never uses them only collects but he enjoys it.

Although i have read forum members who seem very scared of their own enviroments they live in. They want and have to be armed as it seems for their own protection from in their views of 'crminals'

And as much as i find this a sad way to live, it shoulden't dictate the rest of society.

 

It doesn't. I am glad criminals are not a problem where you live even with the shooting you mentioned.

 

If you look at who they are scared of it really shows what the issue in our society is. I think that if criminals were actually rehabilitated or kept imprisoned the accidental firearm death rate would fall because many people would just lock them up until they wanted to go to the range. Not need to have them at the ready.

How do we fix this? Fix our employment situation. Though I do not believe that crime is necessarily related to income I do feel it is related to employment. When a person is at work they have less free time to cause problems.

So America needs to.

1. Stop selling out to China.
2. Increase the tax base.
3. Stop playing games with illegal immigration.
4. Start enforcing our laws.
5. Stop punishing kids harshly for a little pot. Just stop the pot from getting to them.
6. Properly fund mental health care in the US and make mental health a requirement in HS. Let kids know what to look for in each other, their family and friends outside of school and themselves.

Just what is listed above would do more to prevent crime and the use of guns in crime than any ban or gun regulation ever could. The issue is liberals don't have the balls to stand up to crime and they want to take the easy way out and blame guns and gun owners.

 

Yet carry license holders are still not a problem.

 

They are not, thankfully. Although we all have odd stories of violence of some form or another.

And they are just that, the odd tales of experiences. But by and large, people live decent lifes. Never needing firearms. As too busy with everything else.

 

I don't think they don't have the balls to stand up to crime, they just think they will never be the victim of it. That is called living in a dream world.

 

It is not necessarily any one group when they have their guns on them it is when they do not properly store them. I would assume that licensed carriers properly stored their weapons but half of them cant shoot and this I blame on the licensing agency.

Mainly I believe it is those with no training and/or common sense that do not have any business with a gun. These are the people that have a child get a gun out of their purse or glove box and kill themselves. These are the people that let their children get hold of a gun and then the kid takes it to school or the mall and kills someone.