GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[Blindgreed1]

"My statement that more mass-shootings occur during a Democrat presidency was an attempt to make an absurd correlation, relating to gun violence."

You're either an exemplary idiot or a terrible troll, Gunnar.

In any case, I'll wait for Tiki to answer about the point she was making, if she feels like it.

You can tell that my questions weren't aimed at you because (a) I specifically addressed them to "Tiki", and (b) even if you missed that subtle hint, I'm certain no one has ever had to ask you to dumb your thoughts down -- ain't no lower than your natural state of mind.

To date I think it's just you in regards to social media.

[HairOfTheDog]

I miss or fail to see people's points sometimes, Gunnar. That's true. So, I admit it and ask for clarification, if I'm interested.

The majority of your moments, on the other hand, are blonde ones -- based on your posts at Mock at least.

You miss an awful lot unless it's explicitly stated for you, and can't see that or won't admit it. But, you're harmless and it's funny, and every once in a while you make a valid point. So, don't go changing.

P.s. I think your assertion that Facebook causes more mass shootings is wrong; I didn't miss your point. I just disagreed with it, still do.

[Maggot]

Tiki,

Only have a few words for you....let's see if I can dumb it down enough for YOU to understand....In my travels through life, I find that people who consistently and constantly put other people down, do so because of
massive insecurities....You resort to name calling and insults when other persons of equal or superior intelligence disagree with you....When I was in High School, we called such people, bullies......
I find that your dry humor turns sour at some point in your quest to showcase just how "special" you are...
I fail to understand why you can't make your points (for us dummies) without personal insults. I just think that reflects immaturity on your part....

............The kettle is black because the pot says its true.

Oh, yeah, Mister......Tiki would never be a black kettle so you are making no sense as usual....and I am not a pot...I only smoke it....for medical reasons......so there, you, FU, and Tiki need to go on a trip together since you suck up to each other all the live long day.
And I will have you know, that I am the most mature person I know. I would never act like some of you.

Sadly people like BH continue to attack law abiding citizens and not the root cause of gun violence which is violent criminal activity. Taking away rights does not solve problems although I do believe stricter gun buying practices would be in order. With better background checks I fear people like BH would not be satisfied with that. Would you concede this BH or will you continue until the 2^nd amendment is gone?
I also do not believe a mental illness check is workable yet it should still be addressed. Better security and better enforcement of current gun laws should be both used together to protect innocent people from the psychopathic element society has created and enhanced.

[Blindgreed1]

I pointed out that Tiki prefaced her statement in her post, which you questioned. You start in with name calling. It's a defense mechanism. I get it.

[HairOfTheDog]

I thought you were trolling me Gunnar and I was playing back. I see now you were serious.

I'm not a big name-caller in general, and not as a "defensive" measure -- sometimes it's fun in response to a head-pat or another form of insult or hounding; tit for tat banter. But, you should go ahead and consider yourself as really having me on the ropes here, Gunnar.

I read Tiki's post and had already seen what you quoted and re-posted. I think Tiki will probably see what I did in response to what she did. If she misses it, like you did, she can ask for clarification or ignore my questions.

[Maggot]

Here is the conclusion from the Harvard journal of law in 2007.

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.


harvard law research data

Its rather long but it asserts that more guns do not create more suicides and murders.

An interesting note from the study:

Critically, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser note that "the fall in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world," where 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office suffered violent crime increases during that same period.

Furthermore, the authors highlight the important point that while the American gun murder rate often exceeds that in other nations, the overall per capita murder rate in other nations (including other means such as strangling, stabbing, beating, etc.) is oftentimes much higher than in America.

The reason that gun ownership doesn't correlate with murder rates, the authors show, is that violent crime rates are determined instead by underlying cultural factors. "Ordinary people," they note, "simply do not murder." Rather, "the murderers are a small minority of extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership" in their society.

Therefore, "banning guns cannot alleviate the socio-cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates." According to Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser, "there is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults because such people virtually never commit murder. If one accepts that such adults are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than to commit it, disar ming them becomes not just unproductive but counter-productive."

[HairOfTheDog]

I didn't read the full article Maggot; only the snip you posted.

But, for me, reducing gun violence is not primarily about fewer guns; it's instead about guns in fewer hands.

I understand that some people see reducing the number and types of guns available as a means to accomplishing guns in fewer of the wrong hands. I also understand the argument in favor of banning high capacity guns/ammo and do believe that such guns/ammo probably results in a higher number of shooting victims for certain types of shooters.

If the number and types of guns/ammo is restricted based on those beliefs, but guns aren't banned, it won't be a violation of anyone's Second Amendment rights to bear arms and it won't bother me. It might do some good.

But, I remain convinced that doing everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, ALL domestic abusers, children, and those with mental illnesses (particularly illnesses and individuals bearing symptoms or histories of suicidal and homicidal tendencies) would be the most effective way to reduce intentional and unintentional gun violence and increase public safety.

That means closing background check loopholes (private transactions, internet sells...), reporting mental illness court decisions and criminal histories consistently across states into NICS, invoking criminal action against negligent gun owners who leave unlocked loaded guns (or unlocked guns and ammo) in reach of unsupervised minors, making straw purchasing a federal crime....

In order to accomplish those goals, stronger mandates and better execution/enforcement of existing laws, expanding/modifying a couple of existing laws to make the penalties harsher, and a new federal law in regards to child safety would be needed. I don't care when people scream that my advocating for those measures makes me a liberal, gun-shy, law-happy harlot who's greasing the slippery slope. Those screams sound funny and ignorant to my ears.

But, I do think the fear-based resistance and screaming objections against such moderate proposals as violations of Second Amendment rights is inaccurate, ineffective, and really starting to work against gun enthusiasts. I think such (irrational, in my opinion) resistance is pushing more of the public towards more drastic measures that would restrict all gun owners in the attempt to "well-regulate" the bearing of arms in this country.

[Maggot]

I see screaming advocates on both sides equally. But when the evidence is shown that gun free zones have higher murder rates than non gun free zones I tend to view it as important input. I cannot change anyone's viewpoint and that is not my intent. The information is out there for all to see.

[Blindgreed1]

I thought you were trolling me Gunnar and I was playing back. I see now you were serious.

I'm not a big name-caller in general, and not as a "defensive" measure -- sometimes it's fun in response to a head-pat or another form of insult or hounding; tit for tat banter. But, you should go ahead and consider yourself as really having me on the ropes here, Gunnar.

I read Tiki's post and had already seen what you quoted and re-posted. I think Tiki will probably see what I did in response to what she did. If she misses it, like you did, she can ask for clarification or ignore my questions.

I was just trying to help you out. I wasn't trying to put you on the ropes.

[Blindgreed1]

And for the record... I never wanna see Aussies beard. *shudders*

[Maggot]

And for the record... I never wanna see Aussies beard. *shudders*

Its probably not bad and looks like a new car.

[HairOfTheDog]

We're all just exchanging and expressing our opinions here, Maggot.

The conclusions drawn from gun research/information out there for all to see are often conflicting and often subjective. But, I like reading it all and find the objective raw data the most interesting. I'll read the report you linked when I get some uninterrupted time; I've only read a section of it before. Thanks for posting it.

Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion about gun free zones and there are various reports drawing opposite conclusions about them based on the information/data available. Most recently, I read a report debunking the idea that mass shooters choose gun-free zones because they are soft targets.

Instead, the recent data showed that almost all domestic mass shooters choose the place because they have some personal affiliation with it or the people there (their workplace, their school, recreational place they frequently visit...). And, the idea of a good guy carrying a gun stopping shootings in non gun-free zones rarely plays out in reality. If that's true, then the fact that the sites are gun-free zones wouldn't have much or anything to do with why more gun violence occurs there.

There's no funding for professional, unbiased, complete, timely gun violence research in America. That funding keeps getting blocked (no matter who's sitting in the Oval Office). I've said it before I know, but I hope that changes soon (and think it might). The report you linked stipulates that it's based on international data and "some" domestic evidence; it's almost 8 years old with many of its cited sources dating back decades.

If we had dedicated expert researchers on the case, it would help in crafting effective policies based on objective evidence and conclusions. I suspect some long-held assertions on both sides would be proven false.

I don't know if that would reduce the screaming from both sides, but I think it might make it more focused.

[Blindgreed1]

And for the record... I never wanna see Aussies beard. *shudders*

Its probably not bad and looks like a new car.

I had a hairy pot of boiled bologna pictured, so new car sounds great.

[Maggot]

We're all just exchanging and expressing our opinions here, Maggot.

The conclusions drawn from gun research/information out there for all to see are often conflicting and often subjective. But, I like reading it all and find the objective raw data the most interesting. I'll read the report you linked when I get some uninterrupted time; I've only read a section of it before. Thanks for posting it.

Most recently, I read a report debunking the idea that mass shooters choose gun-free zones because they are soft targets. I would be interested in that report.



The report you linked stipulates that it's based on international data and "some" domestic evidence; it's almost 8 years old with many of its cited sources dating back decades.
I don't think 8 yrs is that long ago but that's OK

If we had dedicated expert researchers on the case, it would help in crafting effective policies based on objective evidence and conclusions. I suspect some long-held assertions on both sides would be proven false.
Was the report not from a certifiable source? Although its the only one I could find that objectively looked at the issue.

Hopefully the reading gives you some insight into the issue. I love reading your posts and most of the time your links and reports are reliable. thanks!

[HairOfTheDog]

This is the last report I read about gun free zones, Maggot.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...n/2015657/

[Maggot]

This is the last report I read about gun free zones, Maggot.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...n/2015657/

Is USA today a reliable source? Just wondering. That looks like an opinion piece. I do see Mother jones in there I'm not familiar with that source.

[blueberryhill]

Tiki,

Only have a few words for you....let's see if I can dumb it down enough for YOU to understand....In my travels through life, I find that people who consistently and constantly put other people down, do so because of
massive insecurities....You resort to name calling and insults when other persons of equal or superior intelligence disagree with you....When I was in High School, we called such people, bullies......
I find that your dry humor turns sour at some point in your quest to showcase just how "special" you are...
I fail to understand why you can't make your points (for us dummies) without personal insults. I just think that reflects immaturity on your part....

............The kettle is black because the pot says its true.

Oh, yeah, Mister......Tiki would never be a black kettle so you are making no sense as usual....and I am not a pot...I only smoke it....for medical reasons......so there, you, FU, and Tiki need to go on a trip together since you suck up to each other all the live long day.
And I will have you know, that I am the most mature person I know. I would never act like some of you.

Sadly people like BH continue to attack law abiding citizens and not the root cause of gun violence which is violent criminal activity. Taking away rights does not solve problems although I do believe stricter gun buying practices would be in order. With better background checks I fear people like BH would not be satisfied with that. Would you concede this BH or will you continue until the 2^nd amendment is gone?
I also do not believe a mental illness check is workable yet it should still be addressed. Better security and better enforcement of current gun laws should be both used together to protect innocent people from the psychopathic element society has created and enhanced.

Sadly, your reading comprehension sucks. Please reference any statement wherein I attacked a law abiding citizen over the gun issue.
What I continue to say to deaf ears is that guns are too available to everyone. One reason is due to all the current loopholes in the laws. If you don't support more effective legislation, then you, Mister Maggots, are in the minority. I just read my trusty newspage which stated that 90% of the American population support tighter enforcement and changes in the control and tracking of guns. Why should that "scare" law abiding citizens....Noone is going to take your fucking guns away from you....You need to open your mind to the pros of this argument and if it will prevent one death, it will be worth it, especially if it is one of our own loved ones.


w

[F.U.]

I keep hearing this 90% number being thrown around. Where the hell did this number come from? 90% of the people I know and talk to disagree with tighter enforcement. I don't ever remember being polled , nor does anyone that I have asked and/or talk to.

[HairOfTheDog]

This is the last report I read about gun free zones, Maggot.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...n/2015657/

Is USA today a reliable source? Just wondering. That looks like an opinion piece. I do see Mother jones in there I'm not familiar with that source.

I consider mainstream media a reliable source if it cites/quotes its facts and sources.

Obviously, opinions are just opinions no matter where they originate or get published, and unsubstantiated rumors are too. I wouldn't insist either are facts.

I came across the USA Today article when searching for info about whether Umpqua College was a gun free zone or not last week, so it's the last report on the subject that I've seen. I didn't attest to its veracity or claim that the conclusions drawn by it or USA Today are objective, and I won't now. I don't know.

I used it as an example of how different sources draw different conclusions and why I support federal funding for dedicated/current professional gun violence research.

Anyway, Mother Jones is a liberal-leaning site tracking gun-related violence by extracting and compiling it from news source in conjunction with Ted Miller, an economist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, from what I just looked up.

Since there is no government-backed current research, I've seen the data cited in other media sources as well. Whether you consider it reliable is up to you; I personally wouldn't claim their conclusions to be facts.

As I've said before, I don't care what people post. But, when anyone drags ludicrous rumors with no sources and insists they're true, I think they should expect people who suspect or know better to call them out and not cry about it.

[crash]

You'd think the Australian papers would be less interested in lecturing America, and more interested in addressing Islamic extremists shooting up police stations.

One 15 year old kid was given one, yes one, handgun by somebody yet to be determined and managed to shoot one guy out the front of a police station.

I'd say we're still winning the whole gun argument.

Just a further to this, it's come out in the press here this morning that the cell who brainwashed and armed this kid had been trying to source weapons since March this year and had hoped to get some kind of semi-automatic rifle. The best they could do was one handgun in six months.

I say we're still winning on guns.