Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Since the University of Chicago gave us the Chicago School of criminologists (they did some really good on the ecology of crime and I think it's still being pursued there), no-one can say it's crappy.
But I think Friedman was there, so maybe I'm wrong
Dodge what? The fact you think 15000 deaths a year are reason to remove a Constitutional protection but that 50000 deaths a year are just the price of society?
Larkinn does not think so. He thinks that murder of 3000 people in a couple hours by 19 madmen is the same as a years worth of accidents and shootings.
As for Lott being 'debunked', that seems so far to be wishful thinking and spin by the Brady backers:
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/guncontrol.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry
Dodge what? The fact you think 15000 deaths a year are reason to remove a Constitutional protection but that 50000 deaths a year are just the price of society?
Not at all. As I said before, been through this before on a couple of other boards. The end result being that even the most rabid or pro gunnies agreed his methodology had more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese. To be fair, the studies the anti gunnies pulled out did, too.
and the Chicago school of demographics. Hey, I'm biased it's one of my schools. It's also one the the few elite schools off either coast, along with Northwestern.
That's interesting and Northwestern's in Evanston from memory (we send our vehicle accident reconstruction people there for training). But what about UT, that's not on the coast
I don't see what the point to all these "studies" is except to confuse a pretty common sense issue. The pro-gun argument is based on logic and common sense. The anti-gun argument is based on neither.
The paper was twenty pages of explanation, results, and conclusion with twenty six or so pages of mind numbing statistical tables which I would not be able to begin to explain.
The conclusion, which I find hard if not impossible to disagree with, essentially says that, even though the perpetrators of such crimes intend to die, the idea that they may not get to inflict as much carnage as they hope due to citizens with concealed weapons, makes some, not all, decide not to carry out their plans. It also says that when the mass public shootings do occur in shall issue states, the number of victims is significantly reduced.
The study is eight years old but I can't imagine the the conclusions have changed since it's initial relase.
I will say that carry laws are a factor I consider when looking at places I want to live. In the next two or three years I hope to be out of California and my intention is to live somewhere with more liberal gun laws.
Its not common sense to say that removing something that kills people means that less people will be killed by that thing?
Disagree with it all you want on one side or the other, but the issue is anything but "common sense". Ignore the nuances of it at your own risk.
Except you can NOT remove them from criminals hands, all you can do is disarm law abiding citizens MAKING it easier for criminals to murder them.
Unless you have a magic wand that can make all firearms and the ability to produce them vanish from the world your claim is ignorant.
Its not common sense to say that removing something that kills people means that less people will be killed by that thing?
Disagree with it all you want on one side or the other, but the issue is anything but "common sense". Ignore the nuances of it at your own risk.
Wait, you mean the issue might be nuanced and require more than a simple, bullshit "common sense" solution?
There is no "removing something" going to happen. There is no common sense to that expectation at all.
Criminals by definition do not abide the law. It is illogical to assume that a law making firearms illegal is in any way going to affect criminals. It will do nothing but disarm law-abiding citizens, and ensure criminals know they have absolutely nothing to fear while preying upon the law-abiding citizenry.
Nothing BUT logic and common sense to that argument. Your argument, on the other hand, relies on an ineffective method attempting to achieve an unrealistic goal.
Play your games, Gunny already told you off Mensa boy.
There is no "removing something" going to happen. There is no common sense to that expectation at all.
Criminals by definition do not abide the law. It is illogical to assume that a law making firearms illegal is in any way going to affect criminals. It will do nothing but disarm law-abiding citizens, and ensure criminals know they have absolutely nothing to fear while preying upon the law-abiding citizenry.
Nothing BUT logic and common sense to that argument. Your argument, on the other hand, relies on an ineffective method attempting to achieve an unrealistic goal.
