Gun control working!

[Richard-H]

Look no further than London, England, where civilian firearm ownership is de facto banned. Heck, their dear leader had good common sense to ban not only firearms, but sharp, pointy objects as well.

Sorry, you just can't argue the good results, right?

Through March of 2018:

• The murder rate is up 44 percent over the last twelve months
• Violent crime is up 33% over the preceding twelve months
• Home robbery is also up, by a third
• Rape is up 18 percent

Guess those 100lb English ladies are finding the notion of fighting off a 250lb rapist with their fists to be a bit of a sticky wicket???

But hey, but at least there's no gun or knife crime, right?

• Knife crime up 21 percent
• Shootings up 23 percent from the previous year
• More

Hmm...

Well, we all know the only reason London sees this crime is because of all the lax gun laws in nearly Indiana...

Oh, wait. Crap. Never mind.

Your analysis is disingenuous.

If there were 2 murders last year and there were 3 murders this year, it would be true to say that the murder rate increased by 50%.

It's the per capita rate that counts.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's the per capita rate that counts.

Bingo. Always difficult finding reliable workers to do all the crap work required to keep the streets clear and trains on time. Forget paying people enough to compensate for the drudgery and bodily sacrifice.The haves always demand maximum profit. "Let the (labor) market decide!" meaning "We can always hire immigrants or move the plant to Malaysia." And so they eventually do just that. Meanwhile, they leave the city in droves for McMansions in gated suburban fortresses, then begin jumping up and down, pointing back to the now revenue starved "inner city" or "urban" areas where "only them Negroes" remain, and yell, "Look, stupid, no good criminals are shooting each other! Told ya so!"
Anti-gun control advocacy is part of the same. Economic self-interest posing as public interest policy.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If it is crap, by all means point out how it is crap. Why is it crap?

One develops an eye for it with time. Nose helps too. Too late once you've stepped in it!

 

[bgrouse]

Tired, worn out, repeated ad nauseum, and

Very good, "repeated ad nauseum" indeed. Close. Try "Hey, I got my marching orders from the reformed NRA leadership directly from FOX media. Now all I do is cluelessly repeat their tired, worn out, think tank generated talking points ad nauseum, of course never providing any genuine reasoned argument, let alone backup because, well, obviously none exists. Never a problem though. I just keep screaming 'Prove me wrong!' Hell, I was convinced so smell me!"
Ha ha.

I'm not an NRA member and I don't get any "marching orders" from them. That's just more fallacy from you. Ad hominem this time.

 

[harmonica]

England's murder rate is 4 times lower than the US
if guns decrease murder and crime, the US should have the lowest--but it doesn't

 

[sakinago]

If it is crap, by all means point out how it is crap. Why is it crap?

One develops an eye for it with time. Nhelps too. Too late once you've stepped in it!

At this point I’m going to assume that you’ve either looked it up and didn’t like what you saw. Are

If it is crap, by all means point out how it is crap. Why is it crap?

One develops an eye for it with time. Nose helps too. Too late once you've stepped in it!

If it is crap, by all means point out how it is crap. Why is it crap?

One develops an eye for it with time. Nose helps too. Too late once you've stepped in it!

Ok I assume at this point you have either looked it up and did not like what you saw. Or what is more likely, you are hesitant to look up something that flys in the face of your world view.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

This even graphs out the increase in policing, and yet the rates still climb up. Mind you this only takes into consideration gun crime. It doesn’t even dive into “sharp objects” which also skyrockets.

You have not offered anything. Just accused me of going off on marching orders from the NRA. I’m not even a friggen member. I only have 2 guns, handgun and a 12 gauge. I’m left eye dominant but am right handed so I can’t even shoot rifles. But my guns come in handy, when raccoons go after your chickens, they do not give a fuck, until you start shooting at them. I have videos of them going stonewall Jackson while my Doberman charges them, and they just hiss and swipe at him and he runs away (BC he’s a pussy and is the poster child for “his bark is worse than his bite). Raccoons are dicks. And since Jersey banned hunting bears, they’ve overun that state and are now crossing the boarder and creeping into my area. There is a viral video of a brown bear mauling a deer in someone’s backyard that happened like maybe 10 miles from my house. That was a tangent, but just displaying I’m not even an avid gun owner/hobbyist, just illustrating that I straight up need them. I’m definitely not going to be the next hiker from Rutgers to get mauled by a bear, nor am I going to let those asshole coons murder my girls. And I live in the burbs, work in the city, and have these problems.

Anyway, gun control folks don’t have any facts, at least not complete ones, just snapshots. What they have is feelings, and the feeling is, I think guns are dangerous, and I want them to be hard to get for people. That’s it, prove me wrong, I’m waiting.

 

[boedicca]

Look no further than London, England, where civilian firearm ownership is de facto banned. Heck, their dear leader had good common sense to ban not only firearms, but sharp, pointy objects as well.

Sorry, you just can't argue the good results, right?

Through March of 2018:

• The murder rate is up 44 percent over the last twelve months
• Violent crime is up 33% over the preceding twelve months
• Home robbery is also up, by a third
• Rape is up 18 percent

Guess those 100lb English ladies are finding the notion of fighting off a 250lb rapist with their fists to be a bit of a sticky wicket???

But hey, but at least there's no gun or knife crime, right?

• Knife crime up 21 percent
• Shootings up 23 percent from the previous year
• More

Hmm...

Well, we all know the only reason London sees this crime is because of all the lax gun laws in nearly Indiana...

Oh, wait. Crap. Never mind.

Gun control is working exactly how the promoters of it attend: to make the law abiding population terrified and dependent upon the government for protection.

 

[sakinago]

England's murder rate is 4 times lower than the US
if guns decrease murder and crime, the US should have the lowest--but it doesn't

Wow you’re jumping in late. That’s faulty logic for numerous reasons. 1. England’s murder rate has always been lower than the US (at least for the past century or so), before and after they (the UK) implemented gun control (they didn’t always have it). 2 After the UK implemented gun control, gun crimes doubled within a decade. Not just fun crime, but mender rates and stabbings, etc. 3. Every single country that has implemented gun control has seen murder rates go up, even while crime statistics worldwide, including in the US and abroad, have been going down and down. 4. If guns are the problem, then why is it in Switzerland, where you are issued and fully automatic assault rifle that you can sling across your shoulder and go fist pump to some techno (or whatever the Swiss do for fun), and yet it is the safest place on the planet (full autos are essentially banned in the US). 5. Gun sales in the US have been skyrocketing (have recently took a dip), yet during that period gun crime has been going down and down. 6. The US not only has a black market, but boarders countries (it is more dangerous to live in mexico than it is Afghanistan) that are heavily involved in that black market. If you were to decriminalize drugs, America would almost instantly become one of the safest places on earth.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[Grumblenuts]

My god, so you posted a link. Finally!
Here ya go son. Sincerely sorry you got suckered in by the second coming of such a shameless fraud.

 

[sakinago]

My god, so you posted a link. Finally!
Here ya go son. Sincerely sorry you got suckered in by the second coming of such a shameless fraud.

Ad hominem, you just hit a home run cycle of the logical fallacies. Whose operating on marching orders again?

And yea I finally feed into your appeal to ignorance. Would you like me to wipe your ass too?

Here I go what exactly? Sorry I got suckered in by the UK own crime stats?

Come with something of substance please. I’m practically begging you to tell me where I’m going wrong here. Door is wide open, you just got to walk through it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Cool your jets and
READ THE LINK, SON!
Be sure to read the material linked within that link. All the answers you seek are there. Why would I waste my time explaining things to you in detail when truly unbiased experts with credentials you can easily check have published their detailed analyses of this fraudster's works and made them freely available for all to read and contrast and see for themselves what an incredibly despicable charlatan he truly is. Also, having done you this favor, I want something from you in return. I want you to provide me evidence of anyone trying to take your guns or stop you shooting raccoons that are killing your chickens. If you can supply any, I'll be right by your side giving them the what for!

 

[sakinago]

Cool your jets and
READ THE LINK, SON!
Be sure to read the material linked within that link. All the answers you seek are there. Why would I waste my time explaining things to you in detail when truly unbiased experts with credentials you can easily check have published their detailed analyses of this fraudster's works and made them freely available for all to read and contrast and see for themselves what an incredibly despicable charlatan he truly is. Also, having done you this favor, I want something from you in return. I want you to provide me evidence of anyone trying to take your guns or stop you shooting raccoons that are killing your chickens. If you can supply any, I'll be right by your side giving them the what for!

No link

 

[Grumblenuts]

Click HERE.

 

[bgrouse]

England's murder rate is 4 times lower than the US
if guns decrease murder and crime, the US should have the lowest--but it doesn't

They also have about 4 times lower the rate of negroes in their population. To decide whether it's negroes or guns that drive our murder rate up, ask yourself this question:

Does murder in the USA happen in:
A. Places with more guns and fewer (uncaged) negroes, like white suburban police station.
or
B. Black inner cities with very strict gun laws.

 

[sakinago]

Cool your jets and
READ THE LINK, SON!
Be sure to read the material linked within that link. All the answers you seek are there. Why would I waste my time explaining things to you in detail when truly unbiased experts with credentials you can easily check have published their detailed analyses of this fraudster's works and made them freely available for all to read and contrast and see for themselves what an incredibly despicable charlatan he truly is. Also, having done you this favor, I want something from you in return. I want you to provide me evidence of anyone trying to take your guns or stop you shooting raccoons that are killing your chickens. If you can supply any, I'll be right by your side giving them the what for!

Ok this link is one big ad hominem...show me the numbers. It’s splitting quite the ridiculous hairs on issues like what is considered a gun free zone (to which we have very substantial evidence that mass shootings, especially the more notorious ones take place in gun free zones). And then it does the same exact thing it accuses this guy of “bending the numbers”, when it says “when you don’t include terrorism, the gap gets even bigger.” How the fuck can you not include terrorism shootings in that stat? Terrorism happens a lot more in Europe than it has in America since 9/11. And sure Europe has gang violence, no where near the level we do. Anyone with a carry permit knows, DO NOT TAKE YOUR GUN INTO A BAR. If you ever have to pull it after you’ve had a few drinks, you are better off dead, because you will get charged. You hope it’s just a non-lethal bar fight, and take your chances. Goddammit I can’t even keep up with how many problems there are in the article.
“As a BuzzFeed investigation later revealed, Lott, who is neither a young female nor a stalking victim, was the one who penned the piece. Indeed, Woolrich’s article is almost a copy and paste rendition of a previous articlepublished by Lott on the Daily Caller.”
This whole piece is utter dog shit, this poor girl got fucking harassed and her life ruined worse than from her stalker for that piece. No wonder she changed her tune and changed her number...Jesus Christ, how the hell do you blow over the fact that she had to change her number, and not ask why?

Bear with me, I’m trying to read this article and post points as I go so I don’t forget them (which I have left out a ton, that I will get back to later on).

The fake student part is fucked up, but still show me the numbers. I don’t give a shit about this guy, I care about the numbers. This article does nothing to throw a wrench into the FACT THAT GUN CRIMES DOUBLED IN THE UK WITHIN A DECADE. Because it can’t, because I’m looking at the UK own damn numbers.

Now I’m going back up through the article to patch up what I didn’t mention.

So the they’re disputing the gun free zones stats because of two cases in which Lott considers them to essientially gun free zones (which they essentially are). Those two cases are Oregon and the restaurant in Florida. Clap. Clap. What the fuck about the rest of the cases you assholes? You can’t just gloss over those. The friggen pulse nightclub shooter was staking out Disney for months, that was the definite plan, only problem is, there are armed guards at Disney. The whole “he was a closet gay,” thing was proven to be 100% BULLSHIT. I don’t here thinkprogressive coming out with a correction on that. And they use those two cases as part of the ad hominem, saying see he’s a liar, its all bullshit. No...give me the fucking numbers. The numbers could be coming from a tard, I don’t care, I’m not going to say he’s a tard, therefore it’s false. Moving on.

“As Ian Ayres and Donohue described in a brutal takedown of Lott and his allies’ research, there were at least two previous cases where Lott used this tactic. The first time, Lott presented a series of graphs to the National Academy of Sciences, which David Mustard, one of Lott’s allies, then decided to include in a comment for a 2003 Brookings Institute book. When Donohue demonstrated the results were the product of fatal coding errors, Lott’s ally was forced to withdraw those graphs from the book. Also in 2003, Lott supported (and initially co-authored) a paper appearing in the Stanford Law Review by Plassman and Whitley that also appeared to support the more guns, less crime hypothesis. Again, Donohue proved that their results were based on coding errors, undermining the authors’ central claim.”

First off notice the language. “Brutal”, “fatal”. Spare me the indulgent adjectives. What were the errors? Did it not seem odd to you that this article so eager to point out everything wrong with Lott, but didn’t seem to specify what those errors were? Indulgent adjectives should set off red flags for everyone, they are still just a data point. However in this case, they didn’t back up the indulgent adjectives, so now I’m wondering “so what, was it off by .0001, you didn’t give me anything and with the adjectives it seems like you’re overcompensating.” Show me the numbers. Moving on.

“As Table 3 on page 7 (pictured below) clearly demonstrates, the increase in aggravated assault for county level data is statistically significant, yet is not bolded by the authors like all the other statistically significant findings. In statistics, a result is usually considered significant if there is a less than 5 percent chance that the result is due to random chance, meaning it has a “t-statistic” greater than 1.96. A significant result in turn means that the authors of a study can put a higher degree of confidence in their finding. As the table below shows, the “stat” for the “post-law trend” for “Assault” (highlighted with a red box) has t-statistics of 2.8 and 2.25 for the general and specific model respectively. Further, the result itself is a positive number, indicating an increase in assault.”

Let me break down what this is saying. It’s saying you didn’t account for random chance (margin of error), so it rose, but within the margin of error. Whoa whoa whoa, gun control
Is supposed to work, so the fact that you could maybe make an argument in the parameters (parameters by who exactly) of the margin of error that gun crimes maybe didn’t increase, therefore gun control works....NO that’s a total BS argument. And I assume is the same BS to an even more BS extant is what the whole indulgent adjectives were about in the last paragraph. If the glove fits. Moving on.

Ok now I’m back, at least close to where I started on this one big ad hominem of an article. And I know I left out plenty of objections, but I don’t want to get carpel tunnel over the pile of dog shit. Why is it a pile of dog shit? It does nothing to disapprove the fact that gun crimes doubled after implementation of gun control in the UK. All this article was, was that this guy Lott, who makes similar (not at all identical points as me, since I never have or will attest that the us is per capita is just as safe as Europe). Actually that’s the complete opposite of the point I’ve been making. This article just says he and his crony’s didn’t account for margin of error, he wrote a story for a girl who later backed out, and he faked a female student. Therefore anything you hear positive about guns is BS. There’s your ad hominem. I will say it 20 times now because you do not have an answer for it (would’ve heard it by now), SWITZERLAND, SWITZERLAND, SWITZERLAND, SWITZERLAND,SWITZERLAND SWITZERLAND SWITZERLAND. If guns are the problem Switzerland should be patient zero, no holds barred. They aren’t even close. They are actually the complete opposite. What is the deal with that? I’ve wrote enough I’m done.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Thanks for reading this time before spewing. You're entitled as am I. Clearly you didn't read many of the devilish details from the underlying linked studies. So no evidence to present of people trying to grab your guns?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Let me break down what this is saying. It’s saying you didn’t account for random chance (margin of error), so it rose, but within the margin of error. Whoa whoa whoa, gun control
Is supposed to work, so the fact that you could maybe make an argument in the parameters (parameters by who exactly) of the margin of error that gun crimes maybe didn’t increase, therefore gun control works....NO that’s a total BS argument.

Teehee! Hilarious! Kudos for at least taking a glance, grabbing your balls, and taking a stab at critically analyzing it. Keep it up and I'm confident true wisdom shall begin emerging some day despite your curmudgeonly obstinance. Look, Einstein, when the data all falls within margin of error it means no trend is statistically discernible. Who asserted "therefore gun control works...."? Only you, bonehead. "NO that’s a total BS argument." Correct, now slap yourself silly with a wet noodle.
Your injection of "(parameters by who exactly)" is quite revealing. See there's this thing called science that develops standards for the evaluation and reporting of... ah, screw it, that would take years. It ain't the same people who check and certify the gas pumps. Nuff said.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Here's a bit of true wisdom (or timeless, unassailable truth) from a (working) link to something you were stupidly crapping your pants over above:

While Lott and Mustard have energetically catalogued the situations in which armed citizens have protected themselves or others, they never acknowledge cases on the other side of the ledger where the presence of guns almost certainly led to killings. 12 In the end, one must acknowledge that there are both costs and benefits to either allowing or prohibiting the carrying of handguns, and the task for the scholar is to try to determine which effects dominate.

"Brutal"
-ly thorough and honest.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I’ve wrote enough I’m done.

Told ya so. And still nothing genuinely original. Oh, you like screaming "SWITZERLAND!" do ya? Think you're the first? Really??? Never checked? Ah, there, there. Poor little fella, it's all gonna be just fine. Sing!

No one's trying take my gun's away!
Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!
...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Oh, by the way,

I’m looking at the UK own damn numbers.

Where? Tell ya why I ask. 'Cause if you still think this sort of garbage:

was created by www.homeoffice.gov.uk, think again. The link provided below the chart is dead, BUT the entire source indicated remains available >HERE<
Scroll the whole thing, I'll wait... Good, no such chart, right? Can you say FRAUD? I knew you could!