Magical Thinking Disguised As Gun Control

[OldLady]

Good article. But you're not going to insult me into reading the book.

"But you're not going to insult me into reading the book."

This has to be one of the dumbest statements ever.

When you sober up, you'll agree.

Have you read this one?

May I suggest you're an anti-intellectual if you haven't?

Seems I embarrassed you, as you are making my point.

Excellent.

Don't be dishonest. Answer my question. Have you read it?

No.....

Let's go over your response.

1. Are you stating that you have read Diaz's book?

2. Are you producing this lawyer as your response to a recognized scholar, John Lott?
"...formerly employed at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and at the American Enterprise Institute conservative think tank. As of 2016, he is a columnist for FoxNews.com and the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, a nonprofit he founded in 2013. Lott holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA."
John Lott - Wikipedia

3. Are you admitting that I hit a nerve in asking if you have done any research on the issue, as I have, rather than simply imbibing the propaganda????


I fervently await your response.

Good. I like an honest answer. You haven't read my choice of gun book. Does that make you an anti-intellectual?
BTW, Goodreads lists Lott's book as one of the top 7 to read on the gun debate. They note that many have challenged Lott's conclusions, but that is the "bible" of the pro-gun folks.
ALL these stats can be cherry picked and studies chosen that shore up our argument. I'm aware of that. I know enough, thanks to reading the information shared by USMB posters, and doing some limited Google research on my own. I read both sides. For the past 48 hours I have been getting called a moron pretty consistently by all of you, and yes I'm sick and tired of it. So maybe you can continue to use it. That would be productive.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"But you're not going to insult me into reading the book."

This has to be one of the dumbest statements ever.

When you sober up, you'll agree.

Have you read this one?

May I suggest you're an anti-intellectual if you haven't?

Seems I embarrassed you, as you are making my point.

Excellent.

Don't be dishonest. Answer my question. Have you read it?

No.....

Let's go over your response.

1. Are you stating that you have read Diaz's book?

2. Are you producing this lawyer as your response to a recognized scholar, John Lott?
"...formerly employed at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and at the American Enterprise Institute conservative think tank. As of 2016, he is a columnist for FoxNews.com and the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, a nonprofit he founded in 2013. Lott holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA."
John Lott - Wikipedia

3. Are you admitting that I hit a nerve in asking if you have done any research on the issue, as I have, rather than simply imbibing the propaganda????


I fervently await your response.

Good. I like an honest answer. You haven't read my choice of gun book. Does that make you an anti-intellectual?
BTW, Goodreads lists Lott's book as one of the top 7 to read on the gun debate. They note that many have challenged Lott's conclusions, but that is the "bible" of the pro-gun folks.
ALL these stats can be cherry picked and studies chosen that shore up our argument. I'm aware of that. I know enough, thanks to reading the information shared by USMB posters, and doing some limited Google research on my own. I read both sides. For the past 48 hours I have been getting called a moron pretty consistently by all of you, and yes I'm sick and tired of it. So maybe you can continue to use it. That would be productive.

Quite a tap-dance you're doing....


Let's try again: see if you can shuck off the dishonesty this time.



1. Are you stating that you have read Diaz's book?

2. Are you producing this lawyer as your response to a recognized scholar, John Lott?
"...formerly employed at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and at the American Enterprise Institute conservative think tank. As of 2016, he is a columnist for FoxNews.com and the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, a nonprofit he founded in 2013. Lott holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA."
John Lott - Wikipedia

3. Are you admitting that I hit a nerve in asking if you have done any research on the issue, as I have, rather than simply imbibing the propaganda????


Don't bother answering the above if it's too embarrassing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"But you're not going to insult me into reading the book."

This has to be one of the dumbest statements ever.

When you sober up, you'll agree.

Have you read this one?

May I suggest you're an anti-intellectual if you haven't?

Seems I embarrassed you, as you are making my point.

Excellent.

Don't be dishonest. Answer my question. Have you read it?

No.....

Let's go over your response.

1. Are you stating that you have read Diaz's book?

2. Are you producing this lawyer as your response to a recognized scholar, John Lott?
"...formerly employed at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and at the American Enterprise Institute conservative think tank. As of 2016, he is a columnist for FoxNews.com and the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, a nonprofit he founded in 2013. Lott holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA."
John Lott - Wikipedia

3. Are you admitting that I hit a nerve in asking if you have done any research on the issue, as I have, rather than simply imbibing the propaganda????


I fervently await your response.

Good. I like an honest answer. You haven't read my choice of gun book. Does that make you an anti-intellectual?
BTW, Goodreads lists Lott's book as one of the top 7 to read on the gun debate. They note that many have challenged Lott's conclusions, but that is the "bible" of the pro-gun folks.
ALL these stats can be cherry picked and studies chosen that shore up our argument. I'm aware of that. I know enough, thanks to reading the information shared by USMB posters, and doing some limited Google research on my own. I read both sides. For the past 48 hours I have been getting called a moron pretty consistently by all of you, and yes I'm sick and tired of it. So maybe you can continue to use it. That would be productive.

I sure put a cork in your pie-hole, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. "Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"

As in this......


John Lott proves the premise.....the Aurora mass shooting....
"There are 20 theaters showing that movie close to his home

The one he chose wasn’t the closest one
It wasn’t the largest one.


But it was the only one that had a permanent sign saying that no guns were allowed.


With 12 dead and 58 wounded, the July 20th shooting at the Cinemark Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado was sure to result in a lawsuit. On Friday, the first suit was announced, claiming Cinemark has “primary responsibility.”

The theater did have responsibility for the attack, but not for the reasons that the lawyers bringing the case think.

So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.

A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.

There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.



So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.

Concealed carry is much more frequent than many people believe. With over 4 percent of the adult population in Colorado having concealed handgun permits, a couple hundred adults in Cinemark’s movie theater #9 means that there is an extremely high probability that at least one adult would have a permit.

Unfortunately, some have still not figured this out. A manager at the Harkins Northfield 18 five miles from the killer’s apartment told me, the theater changed its policy and started banning concealed handguns following the Cinemark attack."
Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?





The most effective gun control bill would be one that outlaws 'Gun Free Zones.'

How can Liberals be so stupid so often?????
And how can they claim to have any wish to protect our citizens??????

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Although when the Democrats controlled the Congress….for two years from 2009-2011, they authored zero gun control legislation…..


….and even when the data shows that all mass shooting are in ‘Gun Free Zones,’ and when nearly all mass shooters are on prescribed psychotropic drugs…..


…..they ignore those causes and, instead, revel in the slaughter as political treasure.





“Nothing Liberals relish more than searching for reasons for being morally indignant! This is because they can’t take the moral high ground on abortion, adultery, illegitimacy, the divorce rate, drugs, crime, a president molesting an intern and then lying to federal investigators. They stake out a clear moral position only on the issue of slavery…of course, when it mattered, they were on the wrong side of that, too.”
Coulter

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Memo to Liberals, i.e., those suffering from magical thinking….inordinate fear of inanimate objects:


"Armed Citizens Deter Terrorist Attacks In Detroit, Police Chief Says
DETROIT (CBS Detroit) More guns, fewer problems. That, at least, is Detroit Police Chief’s James Craig’s view of Detroit and fears about a possible terrorist attack.

While cities around the world are on heightened alert following a devastating ISIS attack in Paris, Detroit’s police chief says he believes the fear that armed citizens would return fire serves as a deterrent for a potential terrorist attack in the rust belt city."
Armed Citizens Deter Terrorist Attacks In Detroit, Police Chief Says





"Ulster County Sheriff: All Licensed Handgun Owners Should Carry Them
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – All licensed handgun owners in Ulster County should carry their pistols.

That’s the message Thursday from the Ulster County Sheriff.
Ulster County is located about two hours north of New York City.
“In light of recent events that have occurred in the United States and around the world I want to encourage citizens of Ulster County who are licensed to carry a firearm to please do so,” wrote Sheriff Paul J. Van Blarcum in a Facebook post.

“I urge you to responsibly take advantage of your legal right to carry a firearm. To ensure the safety of yourself and others, make sure you are comfortable and proficient with your weapon, and knowledgeable of the laws in New York State with regards to carrying a weapon and when it is legal to use it.”

Van Blarcum’s post comes a day after authorities said a married couple killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif."
Ulster County Sheriff: All Licensed Handgun Owners Should Carry Them




Clearly, guns aren’t the problem. These are:

a. Gun Free Zones

b. psychotropic drugs

c. Democrats

 

[PoliticalChic]

10.Need proof that the Democrats are flat out lying…..again???


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5214.pdf
"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.



Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings: some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases. One study indicated a statistically significant reduction in the rate of suicide by firearms among persons aged >55 years; however, the reduction in suicide by all methods was not statistically significant.


The systematic review development team identified 51 studies that evaluated the effects of selected firearms laws on violence and met the inclusion criteria for this review. No study was excluded because of limitations in design or execution. Information on violent outcomes was available in 48 studies, and the remaining three studies, which provided information on counts or proportions of regulated firearms used in crime, were used as supplementary evidence. Several studies examined more than one type of firearm law.

Several separate studies evaluated effects of the same law in the same populations during overlapping time periods. Such studies were considered nonindependent, and effect estimates from the best study in the group (as determined by the quality of design and execution and the length of the follow-up period) were chosen to represent the effects of the intervention. The total number of studies for each intervention, and the number of studies that actually contributed effect estimates to the body of evidence, are listed (Table). More extensive evidence tables will be available at http://www.thecommunityguide.org when the full evidence review is published."
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5214.pdf



Clearly, no laws pertaining to guns are the solution. Banning these are:

a. Gun Free Zones

b. psychotropic drugs

c. Democrats

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[PoliticalChic]

-------------------------------------------------

11. From the OP:

One is puzzled by how easily the drones will shut their eyes, ears and minds to clearly documented facts. Must be attributable to the training in government school.



a. How many of the news organizations, such as CNN, which choose to ignore the statistics on Gun Free Zones, ...

"Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"

....will pledge to make all of their studios Gun Free Zones



Know why???

Just in case a bad guy with a guy wanders in....they hire retired law enforcement to protect CNNers.



How about CNN in Washington?

...they hire retired law enforcement to protect CNNers.



That's right....armed men.....good guys with guns....at CNN Atlanta....at ABC News...and the others.......


...and guess what!


They tell them to bring their guns!!!!!





How long will it be before CNN declares itself a Gun Free Zone???

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[2aguy]

If more guns make us safer, we should have the lowest murder rate in the world. We certainly have the highest number of civilian owned guns. Care to explain that one?

First...as more Americans own and carry guns.....over 21 years our crime rates dropped....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[NYcarbineer]

-------------------------------------------------

11. From the OP:

One is puzzled by how easily the drones will shut their eyes, ears and minds to clearly documented facts. Must be attributable to the training in government school.



a. How many of the news organizations, such as CNN, which choose to ignore the statistics on Gun Free Zones, ...

"Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"

....will pledge to make all of their studios Gun Free Zones



Know why???

Just in case a bad guy with a guy wanders in....they hire retired law enforcement to protect CNNers.



How about CNN in Washington?

...they hire retired law enforcement to protect CNNers.



That's right....armed men.....good guys with guns....at CNN Atlanta....at ABC News...and the others.......


...and guess what!


They tell them to bring their guns!!!!!





How long will it be before CNN declares itself a Gun Free Zone???

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You idiot. A gun free zone does not exclude armed security personnel. Are you that stupid? why, yes, you are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many mass shootings done with fully automatic weapons have occurred in the US in the last, say, 50 years?

Who can name a few?

 

[2aguy]

If more guns make us safer, we should have the lowest murder rate in the world. We certainly have the highest number of civilian owned guns. Care to explain that one?

We don't have the highest murder rate, though.

Didn't say we did. If more guns make us safer, why do we have so many murders? We should have the lowest, or at least close the the lowest murder rate in the world.

Our problem isn't law abiding gun owners....doofus.....our problem is that democrats keep letting violent criminals out of jail....gun criminals with long histories of violent crime.....and gun crime......and they keep letting them out...and then blaming law abiding gun owners for the gun crime...

If the democrats would stop releasing the violent gun criminals...our gun murder rate would be even lower.....

Dart warns of 'dramatic increase' in people charged with gun crimes released on electronic monitors


By contrast, judges also boosted how often they ordered no bond for those charged with felony gun offenses, to more than 9 percent in 2017, compared with no cases at all in 2016, the analysis showed.

---------------

Dart, along with Preckwinkle and other elected county officials, has been a vocal opponent of the cash-bond system in which judges require defendants to put down money to secure their release from jail while awaiting trial.

Critics say the system unfairly punishes the poor and that defendants charged with violent offenses who sometimes have easy access to cash because of gang ties can be back out on the street within days.

In July, as part of the reform push, Chief Judge Timothy Evans announced that judges would be required to set bail only in amounts that defendants could afford to pay in an effort to ensure that people charged with nonviolent crimes weren’t languishing in jail simply because they didn’t have the cash, sometimes only a few hundred dollars, to post for bond.

firearmwhile committing a violent crime. A court struck down the law in 2016. Under the law, Florida’s firearmviolent crime rate plummeted to the lowest levels in the Sunshine State’s recorded history.


----------

John Boch: Lock Them Up! - The Truth About Guns

When you lock up violent criminals, you prevent them from victimizing other innocents. Crime in America dipped almost 50%after America abandoned “soft on crime” attitudes of the 1970s. Of course, many soft-on-crime politicians like Reitz have once more taken a love to “diversion” programs. And that’s how we get Robbie Patton (above), a local crime celebrity of sorts.

In 2015, he had an altercation at a Champaign Steak ‘n Shake restaurant commonly frequented by my friends and me. While none of us were enjoying a milkshake or steakburger at 5:30pm, Robbie was.

Robbie found himself in an altercation inside the restaurant. He felt one of his friends had been “disrespected”, so little Robbie went outside. He waited for the other group to emerge, pulled out of gun and tried to kill those other people.

He missed, and fled the scene with an Illinois State Trooper in hot pursuit. After a short, high-speed chase in a stolen car, Robbie crashed and escaped on foot.

Cops caught up with him. Local prosecutor Julia Reitz then went soft on little Robbie. She let him go to “boot camp”, even though that sentencing option is not supposed to be available for violent offenders. And squeezing off a bunch of shots at other people, trying to kill them, pretty much fits the bill as a violent crime.

After serving eight months on an eight-year sentence, Robbie returned to the streets of Champaign-Urbana. In less than two days, cops arrested him again for drugs and who knows what else. Not even three weeks after that, he’s illegally got agun. When someone “disrespects” another one of Robbie’s friends, guess what he does? He pulls out the gun and fires shots at those he believes responsible.




He misses his intended targets, but in the busy University of Illinois campustown district, his errant, not-so-late-night rounds found four innocent people within a block or two. George Korchev, the recent nursing school graduate due to start his career as a registered nurse at a hospital in Libertyville, IL, the following Monday morning, was struck and killed a blockaway from one of Robbie’s bullets.

----------

Democrats lower sentences in California...for gun criminals


California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.

and for all those anti-gunners who want to know where criminals get guns....well...this law lowers the prison time for those who give guns to criminals.....

Why is that?

Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


supplying a firearm to a gang member,

l
felon obtaining a firearm,

discharging a firearm on school grounds









Chicago's grim murder trend blamed on light sentencing, misguided reforms

Lamar Harris had seven felony convictions and 43 arrests when he shot three Chicago police officers. The same week, Samuel Harviley, who had just been paroled after serving less than half of his sentence for armed carjacking, shot yet another of the Windy City’s finest.

Police officials, researchers and many elected leaders all agree that the pair were prime examples of the violent pool of criminals driving the city’s historically high crime rate. Ex-cons well-known to police and with a proven propensity for violence are being let out early from prison or let off lightly by judges, only to wreak havoc on the city, they say.



------

“We have five districts that are driving the crime in the city,” Johnson said in a recent radio interview. “And within those districts, there is a small subset of individuals who are responsible for those crimes. They have multiple arrests for gun offenses and until we start holding these people accountable [the problem will persist].”



----





Illinois is one of several states implementing recommendations from prison reform commissions to reduce or even eliminate mandatory minimum sentences. Those groups seek to reduce prison populations by as much as 25 percent.

The movement to slash sentences and free inmates is given momentum by controversial, police-involved shootings that galvanize communities, as well as protests by Black Lives Matter and civil rights groups. But shortening sentences of violent offenders puts both police and law-abiding residents of the inner city at risk, say law enforcement officials.

 

[2aguy]

7. "Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"

As in this......


John Lott proves the premise.....the Aurora mass shooting....
"There are 20 theaters showing that movie close to his home

The one he chose wasn’t the closest one
It wasn’t the largest one.


But it was the only one that had a permanent sign saying that no guns were allowed.


With 12 dead and 58 wounded, the July 20th shooting at the Cinemark Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado was sure to result in a lawsuit. On Friday, the first suit was announced, claiming Cinemark has “primary responsibility.”

The theater did have responsibility for the attack, but not for the reasons that the lawyers bringing the case think.

So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.

A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.

There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.



So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.

Concealed carry is much more frequent than many people believe. With over 4 percent of the adult population in Colorado having concealed handgun permits, a couple hundred adults in Cinemark’s movie theater #9 means that there is an extremely high probability that at least one adult would have a permit.

Unfortunately, some have still not figured this out. A manager at the Harkins Northfield 18 five miles from the killer’s apartment told me, the theater changed its policy and started banning concealed handguns following the Cinemark attack."
Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?





The most effective gun control bill would be one that outlaws 'Gun Free Zones.'

How can Liberals be so stupid so often?????
And how can they claim to have any wish to protect our citizens??????

Do you have the link for this...I want to steal it............

Found it in your link.....

Thanks,

Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?

 

[2aguy]

You said what I said was all crap and those were the two main points of my response to your post so if you think those 2 statements are crap are you denying the veracity of them? If so please post a link to any proof that those 2 statements are in fact wrong

You're grabbing straws there Dumbo. Concentrate on what is actually said instead of what you wish would have been said. You can't change reality just by saying something different..

You said I have been spewing crap.

You said that after I posted 2 times in reply to you.

The main points of those two replies I posted were

Half of all murders occur in 2% of all the counties in the US

and

Most murders are criminals killing other criminals

I take it those 2 statements were a major part of the "crap I am spouting"

So refute them and stop being such a pussy by avoiding my question

The major part of your post had nothing to do with the question I asked. Your attempt to change the subject was crap.

Of course it did.

You asked why we have so many murders.

I gave facts regarding the number of murders and where and by whom most murders are committed

Now do you refute those facts or not?

I didn't ask ho many murders we have, where, or by whom. My question was quite simple. If more guns mean less crime, why does the country with the most civilian gun ownership in the world have such a high murder rate? More guns doesn't mean less crime.

Britain banned guns and has more crime than we do.....dumbass........and as we own and carry guns, our gun crime rate has gone down, Britain and Australia's are going up.....

 

[2aguy]

JOHN LOTT -

or does he now go by Mary ???


Defamation suit
On April 10, 2006, John Lott filed suit[48] for defamation against Steven Levitt and HarperCollins Publishers over the book Freakonomics and against Levitt over a series of emails to John McCall. In the book Freakonomics, Levitt and coauthor Stephen J. Dubner claimed that the results of Lott's research in More Guns, Less Crime had not been replicated by other academics. In the emails to economist John McCall, who had pointed to a number of papers in different academic publications that had replicated Lott's work, Levitt wrote that the work by several authors supporting Lott in a special 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics had not been peer reviewed, Lott had paid the University of Chicago Press to publish the papers, and that papers with results opposite of Lott's had been blocked from publication in that issue.[49]

A federal judge found that Levitt's replication claim in Freakonomics was not defamation but found merit in Lott's complaint over the email claims.[50]

Levitt settled the second defamation claim by admitting in a letter to John McCall that he himself was a peer reviewer in the 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics, that Lott had not engaged in bribery (paying for extra costs of printing and postage for a conference issue is customary), and that he knew that "scholars with varying opinions" (including Levitt himself) had been invited to participate.[51][52] The Chronicle of Higher Education characterized Levitt's letter as offering "a doozy of a concession."[53]

The dismissal of the first half of Lott's suit was unanimously upheld by The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 11, 2009.[54]

Charges that gun makers or the NRA have paid for Lott's research
In 1996 when Lott's research first received media attention, Charles Schumer wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "The Associated Press reports that Prof. Lott's fellowship at the University of Chicago is funded by the Olin Foundation, which is 'associated with the Olin Corporation,' one of the nation's largest gun manufacturers. Maybe that's a coincidence, too. But it's also a fact."[55] Olin Foundation head William E. Simon strongly denied Schumer's claims in a reply letter in which he stated that: Olin Foundation was funded by the personal estate of the late John M. Olin independently of Olin Corp. Like all candidates, Lott was selected to receive his Olin Fellowship by the faculty of the university, not by Olin Foundation and certainly not by Olin Corp.[56][57]

In a debate on Piers Morgan Tonight on July 23, 2012, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz claimed: "This is junk science at its worst. Paid for and financed by the National Rifle Association." Lott countered: "The NRA hasn't paid for my research." Dershowitz continued: "Your conclusions are paid for and financed—The National Rifle Association—only funds research that will lead to these conclusions."[58][59] Separately both Lott and the NRA have denied NRA funding of Lott's research.[60]

Disputed survey
In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999–2000,[61][62] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[62] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[63] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[64] but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy, quoting on his website colleagues who lost data in the hard drive crash.[65]

Use of econometrics as proof of causation
In 2001, Rutgers University sociology professor Ted Goertzel[66] considered multiple regression to be not of much use in proving causal arguments in studies by Lott (and by Lott's critics Levitt, Ayres and Donohue).[67]

The National Academy of Sciences panel that reported on several gun control issues in 2004 looked at Right-To-Carry laws in Chapter 6 and endorsed neither the Lott & Mustard (1997) level and trend models as definite proof nor the Ayres & Donohue (2003) hybrid model as definite refutation of Lott's thesis: the majority of the panel concluded that econometrics could not decide the issue, suggesting instead alternate research, such as a survey of felons to determine if RTC changed their behavior.[68] The criminologist on the NAS panel, James Q. Wilson, wrote a dissent from the econometricians' conclusion. Wilson noted in the report that all the panel's estimates on murder rates supported Lott's conclusion on the effect of RTC on murder.[69] The Committee responded that "[w]hile it is true that most of the reported estimates [of the policy on murder rates] are negative, several are positive and many are statistically insignificant."[70] They further noted that the full committee, including Wilson, agreed that there was not convincing evidence that RTC policies affected other kinds of violent crime.

In a 2011 article for ALER, Donohue claimed the NRC panel results published from the hybrid model "could not be replicated on its data set".[71] Lott replicated the NRC's results using the NRC's copy of the Ayres & Donohue model and data set, pointing out that the model used for the ALER article was different and introduced a truncation bias.[72]

Mary Rosh persona
In response to the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used "Mary Rosh" as a sock puppet to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Mary Rosh persona.[64] Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself "the best professor I ever had".

Many commentators and academics accused Lott of violating academic integrity, noting that he praised himself while posing as one of his former students,[73][74] and that "Rosh" was used to post a favorable review of More Guns, Less Crime on Amazon.com. Lott has claimed that the "Rosh" review was written by his son and wife.[74]

"I probably shouldn't have done it—I know I shouldn't have done it—but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously," Lott told the Washington Post in 2003.[74]

"...despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. "
https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?&tag=ff0d01-20
ie=UTF8&qid=1519315314&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime+john+lott




Have you read any books on the issue?


And....if the answer is 'no,' would you describe yourself as anti-intellectual?

Good article. But you're not going to insult me into reading the book.

"But you're not going to insult me into reading the book."

This has to be one of the dumbest statements ever.

When you sober up, you'll agree.

Have you read this one?

May I suggest you're an anti-intellectual if you haven't?

Can you explain how this book is accurate......since over the last 21 years our gun murder rates have gone down, our gun crime rates have gone down as more Americans have bought, owned and now carry guns?

Care to explain that?

Can you see how reality makes the premise of that book silly....?

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

How many mass shootings done with fully automatic weapons have occurred in the US in the last, say, 50 years?

Who can name a few?

All of the mass shootings in France.....where fully automatic, military weapons....are completely illegal......

 

[PoliticalChic]

JOHN LOTT -

or does he now go by Mary ???


Defamation suit
On April 10, 2006, John Lott filed suit[48] for defamation against Steven Levitt and HarperCollins Publishers over the book Freakonomics and against Levitt over a series of emails to John McCall. In the book Freakonomics, Levitt and coauthor Stephen J. Dubner claimed that the results of Lott's research in More Guns, Less Crime had not been replicated by other academics. In the emails to economist John McCall, who had pointed to a number of papers in different academic publications that had replicated Lott's work, Levitt wrote that the work by several authors supporting Lott in a special 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics had not been peer reviewed, Lott had paid the University of Chicago Press to publish the papers, and that papers with results opposite of Lott's had been blocked from publication in that issue.[49]

A federal judge found that Levitt's replication claim in Freakonomics was not defamation but found merit in Lott's complaint over the email claims.[50]

Levitt settled the second defamation claim by admitting in a letter to John McCall that he himself was a peer reviewer in the 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics, that Lott had not engaged in bribery (paying for extra costs of printing and postage for a conference issue is customary), and that he knew that "scholars with varying opinions" (including Levitt himself) had been invited to participate.[51][52] The Chronicle of Higher Education characterized Levitt's letter as offering "a doozy of a concession."[53]

The dismissal of the first half of Lott's suit was unanimously upheld by The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 11, 2009.[54]

Charges that gun makers or the NRA have paid for Lott's research
In 1996 when Lott's research first received media attention, Charles Schumer wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "The Associated Press reports that Prof. Lott's fellowship at the University of Chicago is funded by the Olin Foundation, which is 'associated with the Olin Corporation,' one of the nation's largest gun manufacturers. Maybe that's a coincidence, too. But it's also a fact."[55] Olin Foundation head William E. Simon strongly denied Schumer's claims in a reply letter in which he stated that: Olin Foundation was funded by the personal estate of the late John M. Olin independently of Olin Corp. Like all candidates, Lott was selected to receive his Olin Fellowship by the faculty of the university, not by Olin Foundation and certainly not by Olin Corp.[56][57]

In a debate on Piers Morgan Tonight on July 23, 2012, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz claimed: "This is junk science at its worst. Paid for and financed by the National Rifle Association." Lott countered: "The NRA hasn't paid for my research." Dershowitz continued: "Your conclusions are paid for and financed—The National Rifle Association—only funds research that will lead to these conclusions."[58][59] Separately both Lott and the NRA have denied NRA funding of Lott's research.[60]

Disputed survey
In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999–2000,[61][62] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[62] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[63] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[64] but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy, quoting on his website colleagues who lost data in the hard drive crash.[65]

Use of econometrics as proof of causation
In 2001, Rutgers University sociology professor Ted Goertzel[66] considered multiple regression to be not of much use in proving causal arguments in studies by Lott (and by Lott's critics Levitt, Ayres and Donohue).[67]

The National Academy of Sciences panel that reported on several gun control issues in 2004 looked at Right-To-Carry laws in Chapter 6 and endorsed neither the Lott & Mustard (1997) level and trend models as definite proof nor the Ayres & Donohue (2003) hybrid model as definite refutation of Lott's thesis: the majority of the panel concluded that econometrics could not decide the issue, suggesting instead alternate research, such as a survey of felons to determine if RTC changed their behavior.[68] The criminologist on the NAS panel, James Q. Wilson, wrote a dissent from the econometricians' conclusion. Wilson noted in the report that all the panel's estimates on murder rates supported Lott's conclusion on the effect of RTC on murder.[69] The Committee responded that "[w]hile it is true that most of the reported estimates [of the policy on murder rates] are negative, several are positive and many are statistically insignificant."[70] They further noted that the full committee, including Wilson, agreed that there was not convincing evidence that RTC policies affected other kinds of violent crime.

In a 2011 article for ALER, Donohue claimed the NRC panel results published from the hybrid model "could not be replicated on its data set".[71] Lott replicated the NRC's results using the NRC's copy of the Ayres & Donohue model and data set, pointing out that the model used for the ALER article was different and introduced a truncation bias.[72]

Mary Rosh persona
In response to the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used "Mary Rosh" as a sock puppet to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Mary Rosh persona.[64] Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself "the best professor I ever had".

Many commentators and academics accused Lott of violating academic integrity, noting that he praised himself while posing as one of his former students,[73][74] and that "Rosh" was used to post a favorable review of More Guns, Less Crime on Amazon.com. Lott has claimed that the "Rosh" review was written by his son and wife.[74]

"I probably shouldn't have done it—I know I shouldn't have done it—but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously," Lott told the Washington Post in 2003.[74]

"...despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. "
https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?&tag=ff0d01-20
ie=UTF8&qid=1519315314&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime+john+lott




Have you read any books on the issue?


And....if the answer is 'no,' would you describe yourself as anti-intellectual?

Good article. But you're not going to insult me into reading the book.

"But you're not going to insult me into reading the book."

This has to be one of the dumbest statements ever.

When you sober up, you'll agree.

Have you read this one?

May I suggest you're an anti-intellectual if you haven't?

Can you explain how this book is accurate......since over the last 21 years our gun murder rates have gone down, our gun crime rates have gone down as more Americans have bought, owned and now carry guns?

Care to explain that?

Can you see how reality makes the premise of that book silly....?

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s po
pulation grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

That poster hadn't read the book she provided....I asked her twice
Liberals don't read books....only bumper stickers.


And....this from a review of the Diaz book:

'This is an emotional book targeting the fearful. Written in a breathless style, it conveys little that's new. Diaz rehashes old claims by public health activists about guns that have been refuted by criminologists. He urges greater restrictions on gun owners to combat the conspiracy that Diaz sees between "the gun industry" and the NRA.'


John Lott is the acknowledged expert in this area.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. When it comes to gun control and prevention of mass shootings, Democrats/Liberals are as trustworthy as they are as usual.


For context, I recommend Schweizer’s book
“Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy “


Do these Democrat demagogues…..er, lawmakers walk the walk….or only talk the talk….
See how many of them have “Gun Free Zone” signs in front of their homes.

Nah…..instead, they want to make the whole nation a Gun Free Zone.



13. For Democrats/Liberals, it’s either hypocrisy, or….

“Magical thinking is the belief that one's own thoughts, wishes, or desires can influence the external world. ... Magical thinking is also colloquially used to refer more broadly to mystical, magicalthoughts, such as the belief in Santa Claus, supernatural entities, and miraculous occurrences.Mar 24, 2016"
Magical Thinking - GoodTherapy
Magical Thinking

 

[2aguy]

12. When it comes to gun control and prevention of mass shootings, Democrats/Liberals are as trustworthy as they are as usual.


For context, I recommend Schweizer’s book
“Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy “


Do these Democrat demagogues…..er, lawmakers walk the walk….or only talk the talk….
See how many of them have “Gun Free Zone” signs in front of their homes.

Nah…..instead, they want to make the whole nation a Gun Free Zone.



13. For Democrats/Liberals, it’s either hypocrisy, or….

“Magical thinking is the belief that one's own thoughts, wishes, or desires can influence the external world. ... Magical thinking is also colloquially used to refer more broadly to mystical, magicalthoughts, such as the belief in Santa Claus, supernatural entities, and miraculous occurrences.Mar 24, 2016"
Magical Thinking - GoodTherapy
Magical Thinking

Congress....535 members.

The police force that keeps 535 members of congress safe....2,100 officers.........