Blues Man
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2016
- 35,513
- 14,899
- 1,530
I was talking about suicide, Idiot.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gun murder is up in democrat party cities, but gun crime in general is down....... More guns, less gun crime....
- Thread starter 2aguy
- Start date
Well, it was their choice not to be armed, right idiot?I was talking about suicide, Idiot.
Blues Man
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2016
- 35,513
- 14,899
- 1,530
Children don't have that choice, Moron.Well, it was their choice not to be armed, right idiot?
woodwork201
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2021
- 4,595
- 2,813
- 1,938
Actually, jbander and the left do not believe at all in the right of a person to choose to live or die. 60 million deaths a year are supported by jbander and the left. It's not death they hate, it's guns they hate.yes I know you hate the idea of people having choices.
The concept that all people have the absolute right to choose to live or die interferes with your ability to control them
This is the best he has , 100% wrong and typically stupid. What an ass. Like I said, the right has it easy, all they have to do to get their bullshit across is to tell it to other stupid people, and these maga Maggots will all be slapping them on the back and high-fiving them. There has never been a larger group of dumb fucks in our history.Actually, jbander and the left do not believe at all in the right of a person to choose to live or die. 60 million deaths a year are supported by jbander and the left. It's not death they hate, it's guns they hate.
Has anyone explained to this dumb fuck how stupid he is yet. These people are too stupid to realize that if their fact that hate party states are worse off only because of the democratic city's, Then the worst states would of course be democratic states with their democratic city's in them, but that's not the case, the worst states by far a Hate party states. No comparison. Like I said there are 19 states that have a higher homicide rate than New York, yup you guessed it, they are hate party states. Highest rape numbers, the highest crime rate across the board, The Highest welfare recipients, the highest food stamp recipients, hate party states cost Democratic states massive amounts of money because they take out way more federally then they contribute. Worst States to bring up children, the worst education systems, Most hate groups, The Lowest wages, Then worst health care, And the BEST city's in the US over 200,000 the majority are democratically run city's.No...moron....blue cities are dangerous, even in Red States, you doofus...I notice you didn't name the cities, because we have already dont it for you in numerous other threads...we named the cities and pointed to the decades of total democrat party control in those cities...you moron...
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,968
- 52,237
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #147
Yeah.. no….please link to any of your BSHas anyone explained to this dumb fuck how stupid he is yet. These people are too stupid to realize that if their fact that hate party states are worse off only because of the democratic city's, Then the worst states would of course be democratic states with their democratic city's in them, but that's not the case, the worst states by far a Hate party states. No comparison. Like I said there are 19 states that have a higher homicide rate than New York, yup you guessed it, they are hate party states. Highest rape numbers, the highest crime rate across the board, The Highest welfare recipients, the highest food stamp recipients, hate party states cost Democratic states massive amounts of money because they take out way more federally then they contribute. Worst States to bring up children, the worst education systems, Most hate groups, The Lowest wages, Then worst health care, And the BEST city's in the US over 200,000 the majority are democratically run city's.
Don't tell the OP that there is no democrat party in power in the US it will invalidate their ignorance of bias.
Yeah.. no….please link to any of your BS
EasyYeah.. no….please link to any of your BS
Attachments
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,968
- 52,237
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #152
Most dependent on the fed
View attachment 651666
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,968
- 52,237
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #153
Most dependent on the fed
View attachment 651666
Yeah.,......you are not a deep thinker......
Now it’s true that the average taxpayer in blue states pays a higher per capita income tax than the average taxpayer in red states. But that’s because those states — particularly Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and California — have more rich people. Don’t the Democrats want the rich paying their fair share?
As for blue states allegedly getting back less, what numbers are they looking at? It is true that red states receive 35.75 percent on average of their budgets from the federal government, while blue states receive 30.80 percent.
But this is because the blue states’ budgets are far larger due to all the bloat and waste.
The 10 states in the best fiscal condition are almost all red states.
The 10 states with the worst numbers in the red are almost all blue states.
----
The higher the taxes, the more mismanaged a state is. CNBC examined the infrastructure of every state — roads, airports, water systems and ports — and found that the places with the worst-rated infrastructure are six Democratic states, which also rank among the highest in taxes collected per resident: Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.
----
Kyle Sammin at The Federalist found that if you look at the amount of money the federal government gives to states on a per capita basis instead, blue states get more; $2,124 per resident. Red states receive just $1,879 on average.
Matt Palumbo writing at The Dan Bongino Show found that even if red states receive more in federal welfare, it’s not going to Republicans. Those on public assistance, as well as long-term unemployment, are overwhelmingly Democrats.
Behind the Misleading Statement That Blue States Subsidize Red States
Most hate groupsYeah.. no….please link to any of your BS
Yeah.. no….please link to any of your BS
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,968
- 52,237
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #156
The truth.....
New Study Finds Firearms Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides
But what jumps out at you when you read Fleegler’s article is that the decrease in fatalities that he documents relates almost exclusively to suicides. What his study really shows is that strict gun laws have little or no impact on gun homicides:
Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).
http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a/1
Do Gun Laws Stop Gun Crimes?
The same week Kristof's column came out, National Journal attracted major media attention with a showy piece of research and analysis headlined "The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths." The subhead lamented: "But there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions."
Critics quickly noted that the Journal's Libby Isenstein had included suicides among "gun-related deaths" and suicide-irrelevant policies such as stand-your-ground laws among its tally of "gun laws."
That meant that high-suicide, low-homicide states such as Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho were taken to task for their liberal carry-permit policies. Worse, several of the states with what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considers terribly lax gun laws were dropped from Isenstein's data set because their murder rates were too low!
Another of National Journal's mistakes is a common one in gun science: The paper didn't look at gun statistics in the context of overall violent crime, a much more relevant measure to the policy debate. After all, if less gun crime doesn't mean less crime overall—if criminals simply substitute other weapons or means when guns are less available—the benefit of the relevant gun laws is thrown into doubt. When Thomas Firey of the Cato Institute ran regressions of Isenstein's study with slightly different specifications and considering all violent crime, each of her effects either disappeared or reversed.
Another recent well-publicized study trying to assert a positive connection between gun laws and public safety was a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine article by the Harvard pediatrics professor Eric W. Fleegler and his colleagues, called "Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States." It offered a mostly static comparison of the toughness of state gun laws (as rated by the gun control lobbyists at the Brady Center) with gun deaths from 2007 to 2010.
"States with strictest firearm laws have lowest rates of gun deaths," a Boston Globeheadline then announced. But once again, if you take the simple, obvious step of separating out suicides from murders, the correlations that buttress the supposed causations disappear. As John Hinderaker headlined his reaction at the Power Line blog, "New Study Finds Firearm Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides."
Among other anomalies in Fleegler's research, Hinderaker pointed out that it didn't include Washington, D.C., with its strict gun laws and frequent homicides. If just one weak-gun-law state, Louisiana, were taken out of the equation, "the remaining nine lowest-regulation states have an average gun homicide rate of 2.8 per 100,000, which is 12.5% less than the average of the ten states with the strictest gun control laws," he found.
Public health researcher Garen Wintemute, who advocates stronger gun laws, assessed the spate of gun-law studies during an October interview with Slate and found it wanting: "There have been studies that have essentially toted up the number of laws various states have on the books and examined the association between the number of laws and rates of firearm death," said Wintemute, who is a medical doctor and researcher at the University of California, Davis. "That's really bad science, and it shouldn't inform policymaking."
Wintemute thinks the factor such studies don't adequately consider is the number of people in a state who have guns to begin with, which is generally not known or even well-estimated on levels smaller than national, though researchers have used proxies from subscribers to certain gun-related magazines and percentages of suicides committed with guns to make educated guesses. "Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association," Wintemute wrote in a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine paper. "But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low—there will be less opposition to them—and firearm ownership confounds the association."
Would Cracking Down on Guns in the U.S. Really Reduce Violence? , by Robert VerBruggen, National Review
There is actually no simple correlation between states’ homicide rates and their gun-ownership rates or gun laws.
This has been shown numerous times, by different people, using different data sets.
A year ago, I took state gun-ownership levels reported by the Washington Post (based on a Centers for Disease Control survey) and compared them with murder rates from the FBI: no correlation.
The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has compared states’ gun laws (as rated by the anti-gun Brady Campaign) with their murder rates: no correlation.
David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner, a former National Review reporter, failed to find a correlation even between gun ownership in a state and gun murders specifically, an approach that sets aside the issue of whether gun availability has an effect on non-gun crime. (Guns can deter unarmed criminals, for instance, and criminals without guns may simply switch to other weapons.)
, I recently redid my analysis with a few tweaks. Instead of relying on a single year of survey data, I averaged three years. (The CDC survey, the best available for state-level numbers, included data on gun ownership only in 2001, 2002, and 2004. Those were the years I looked at.)
And instead of comparing CDC data with murder rates from a different agency, I relied on the CDC’s own estimates of death by assault in those years. Again: no correlation.
------
Left-leaning media outlets, from Mother Jones to National Journal, get around this absence of correlation by reporting numbers on “gun deaths” rather than gun homicides or homicides in general.
More than 60 percent of gun deaths nationally are suicides, and places with higher gun ownership typically see a higher percentage of their suicides committed with a gun.
Focusing on the number of gun deaths practically guarantees a finding that guns and violence go together. While it may be true that public policy should also seek to reduce suicide, it is homicide — often a dramatic mass killing — that usually prompts the media and politicians to call for gun control, and it is homicide that most influences people as they consider supporting measures to take away their fellow citizens’ access to guns.
There are large gaps among the states when it comes to homicide, with rates ranging all the way from about two to twelve per 100,000 in 2013, the most recent year of data available from the CDC. These disparities show that it’s not just guns that cause the United States to have, on average, a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries do. Not only is there no correlation between gun ownership and overall homicide within a state, but there is a strong correlation between gun homicide and non-gun homicide — suggesting that they spring from similar causes, and that some states are simply more violent than others. A closer look at demographic and geographic patterns provides some clues as to why this is.
Read more at: Would Cracking Down on Guns in the U.S. Really Reduce Violence? | National Review
New Study Finds Firearms Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides
But what jumps out at you when you read Fleegler’s article is that the decrease in fatalities that he documents relates almost exclusively to suicides. What his study really shows is that strict gun laws have little or no impact on gun homicides:
Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).
http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a/1
Do Gun Laws Stop Gun Crimes?
The same week Kristof's column came out, National Journal attracted major media attention with a showy piece of research and analysis headlined "The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths." The subhead lamented: "But there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions."
Critics quickly noted that the Journal's Libby Isenstein had included suicides among "gun-related deaths" and suicide-irrelevant policies such as stand-your-ground laws among its tally of "gun laws."
That meant that high-suicide, low-homicide states such as Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho were taken to task for their liberal carry-permit policies. Worse, several of the states with what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considers terribly lax gun laws were dropped from Isenstein's data set because their murder rates were too low!
Another of National Journal's mistakes is a common one in gun science: The paper didn't look at gun statistics in the context of overall violent crime, a much more relevant measure to the policy debate. After all, if less gun crime doesn't mean less crime overall—if criminals simply substitute other weapons or means when guns are less available—the benefit of the relevant gun laws is thrown into doubt. When Thomas Firey of the Cato Institute ran regressions of Isenstein's study with slightly different specifications and considering all violent crime, each of her effects either disappeared or reversed.
Another recent well-publicized study trying to assert a positive connection between gun laws and public safety was a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine article by the Harvard pediatrics professor Eric W. Fleegler and his colleagues, called "Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States." It offered a mostly static comparison of the toughness of state gun laws (as rated by the gun control lobbyists at the Brady Center) with gun deaths from 2007 to 2010.
"States with strictest firearm laws have lowest rates of gun deaths," a Boston Globeheadline then announced. But once again, if you take the simple, obvious step of separating out suicides from murders, the correlations that buttress the supposed causations disappear. As John Hinderaker headlined his reaction at the Power Line blog, "New Study Finds Firearm Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides."
Among other anomalies in Fleegler's research, Hinderaker pointed out that it didn't include Washington, D.C., with its strict gun laws and frequent homicides. If just one weak-gun-law state, Louisiana, were taken out of the equation, "the remaining nine lowest-regulation states have an average gun homicide rate of 2.8 per 100,000, which is 12.5% less than the average of the ten states with the strictest gun control laws," he found.
Public health researcher Garen Wintemute, who advocates stronger gun laws, assessed the spate of gun-law studies during an October interview with Slate and found it wanting: "There have been studies that have essentially toted up the number of laws various states have on the books and examined the association between the number of laws and rates of firearm death," said Wintemute, who is a medical doctor and researcher at the University of California, Davis. "That's really bad science, and it shouldn't inform policymaking."
Wintemute thinks the factor such studies don't adequately consider is the number of people in a state who have guns to begin with, which is generally not known or even well-estimated on levels smaller than national, though researchers have used proxies from subscribers to certain gun-related magazines and percentages of suicides committed with guns to make educated guesses. "Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association," Wintemute wrote in a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine paper. "But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low—there will be less opposition to them—and firearm ownership confounds the association."
Would Cracking Down on Guns in the U.S. Really Reduce Violence? , by Robert VerBruggen, National Review
There is actually no simple correlation between states’ homicide rates and their gun-ownership rates or gun laws.
This has been shown numerous times, by different people, using different data sets.
A year ago, I took state gun-ownership levels reported by the Washington Post (based on a Centers for Disease Control survey) and compared them with murder rates from the FBI: no correlation.
The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has compared states’ gun laws (as rated by the anti-gun Brady Campaign) with their murder rates: no correlation.
David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner, a former National Review reporter, failed to find a correlation even between gun ownership in a state and gun murders specifically, an approach that sets aside the issue of whether gun availability has an effect on non-gun crime. (Guns can deter unarmed criminals, for instance, and criminals without guns may simply switch to other weapons.)
, I recently redid my analysis with a few tweaks. Instead of relying on a single year of survey data, I averaged three years. (The CDC survey, the best available for state-level numbers, included data on gun ownership only in 2001, 2002, and 2004. Those were the years I looked at.)
And instead of comparing CDC data with murder rates from a different agency, I relied on the CDC’s own estimates of death by assault in those years. Again: no correlation.
------
Left-leaning media outlets, from Mother Jones to National Journal, get around this absence of correlation by reporting numbers on “gun deaths” rather than gun homicides or homicides in general.
More than 60 percent of gun deaths nationally are suicides, and places with higher gun ownership typically see a higher percentage of their suicides committed with a gun.
Focusing on the number of gun deaths practically guarantees a finding that guns and violence go together. While it may be true that public policy should also seek to reduce suicide, it is homicide — often a dramatic mass killing — that usually prompts the media and politicians to call for gun control, and it is homicide that most influences people as they consider supporting measures to take away their fellow citizens’ access to guns.
There are large gaps among the states when it comes to homicide, with rates ranging all the way from about two to twelve per 100,000 in 2013, the most recent year of data available from the CDC. These disparities show that it’s not just guns that cause the United States to have, on average, a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries do. Not only is there no correlation between gun ownership and overall homicide within a state, but there is a strong correlation between gun homicide and non-gun homicide — suggesting that they spring from similar causes, and that some states are simply more violent than others. A closer look at demographic and geographic patterns provides some clues as to why this is.
Read more at: Would Cracking Down on Guns in the U.S. Really Reduce Violence? | National Review
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,968
- 52,237
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #158
cRIME RATE
View attachment 651670
Moron.......the blue cities in Red states cause all the crime rates........
If that was so then the blue cities in blue states would be the worst and that is not even close. You fricken lame idiot. The worst states for everything are all right wing hate sates. Y0u are too fucking dumb to understand that, but there are people who can actually think here. And they are rolling on the floor over your blatant stupidity.Moron.......the blue cities in Red states cause all the crime rates........
Similar threads
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 219
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 252
- Replies
- 71
- Views
- 928
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 788
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 10
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 52
- Replies
- 41
- Views
- 184
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-