• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

misinformation is epidemic; the media lies to you

You haven't read my past posts again. I have changed my mind: I no longer believe in an outright ban on handguns nationwide. I did attribute that change to your efforts. So thanks.
.

I missed that. I guess I'll have to recategorize this as a worthwhile discussion.

As for the rest of the argument, I would submit only this: IMO, laws that are designed to impede the entire population have little effect. Laws that target problem people, such as felons, drug addicts, etc., are going to have some effect. Also, increased penalties for gun crimes are a great idea. In Florida we have 10-20-Life; if you commit a violent crime with a gun, 10 years minimum; fire the gun, 20 years minimum even if you don't shoot anyone; shoot someone, life minimum, even if they don't die.

I would support this law on a nationwide scale. It only has one flaw in my eyes: it should be 20-40-Life.
 
I still don't understand your idea of choosing data selectively in the context of prevailing homicide rates, robbery and agg. assault.

It's nothing personal, but I recognized the statistics used by PERF for what they were: non-biased material submitted by the cops themselves. Now you may have issue with the author of the report that utilizes that data (appendix II), but it's hard to debate the numbers themselves considering the genesis of that data.

You're on. Monday it'll be cheeseburgers and smokes at 20 paces....oh wait, that's my duel with Maniclion....


--Decker el Diablo
Because ...el Diablo lol ... these types manipulate that data. You did it yourself. Dallas has an 18% reduction in gun related violence ... yet that was minimized as the stats from San Antonio were shown with emphasis. Add that no causal relationship has been established or even mentioned between the results of the state's gun legislation and those stats (there are others who's stats are more clearly defined with relation to antecedent and effect) and you get a neat bow on the entire package of shit.

You're on. Monday it'll be cheeseburgers and smokes at 20 paces....oh wait, that's my duel with Maniclion....

So we have a deal then ... you get to be pro-choice on guns (not just on abortion) at the end of the weekend if we show that gun ownership resulting from no gun control laws doesn't increase crime rates.
 
I missed that. I guess I'll have to recategorize this as a worthwhile discussion.

As for the rest of the argument, I would submit only this: IMO, laws that are designed to impede the entire population have little effect. Laws that target problem people, such as felons, drug addicts, etc., are going to have some effect. Also, increased penalties for gun crimes are a great idea. In Florida we have 10-20-Life; if you commit a violent crime with a gun, 10 years minimum; fire the gun, 20 years minimum even if you don't shoot anyone; shoot someone, life minimum, even if they don't die.

I would support this law on a nationwide scale. It only has one flaw in my eyes: it should be 20-40-Life.
Great.

Your statement about blanket nationwide prophylactic laws is worth repeating
 
Because ...el Diablo lol ... these types manipulate that data. You did it yourself. Dallas has an 18% reduction in gun related violence ... yet that was minimized as the stats from San Antonio were shown with emphasis. Add that no causal relationship has been established or even mentioned between the results of the state's gun legislation and those stats (there are others who's stats are more clearly defined with relation to antecedent and effect) and you get a neat bow on the entire package of shit.
Bonecrusher I know I ask alot of you when I expect you to read my posts but you don't. I did mention that there were municipal examples that buck (counter examples) the current surge in crime...I think that I even mentioned Arlington TX by name but you discount this.

Your argument about causality is interesting but irrelevant. The thesis of this thread is, "gun control doesn't work..." and we know this b/c in concealed/carry states the crime rate has dropped after the enactment of such legislation therefore more guns mean less crime and more safety. The causality gauntlet was thrown down before me.

All I did was kick that plank out from under that argument by showing that crime is growing across this country, even in concealed/carry states.

If you don't like the crime surge stats in the concealed/carry states for the last 2-3 years, take it up with the 54 nationwide cities reporting and the FBI.
So we have a deal then ... you get to be pro-choice on guns (not just on abortion) at the end of the weekend if we show that gun ownership resulting from no gun control laws doesn't increase crime rates.
I don't agree to that. With the double negatives in that sentence, I'm not even sure what you mean.
 
It's also why armed robbers don't wave a pack smokes around to intimidate cashiers.
That gun they're waving isn't one they bought from a gunshop as a registered user either, in fact it could be one brought in through the borders by MS13...

Now if we really wanted to destroy a country we would put a McDonalds on every corner and hand out Big Macs for free and wait for the country to become a sluggish blob of lard....
 
Misinformation is epidemic. Check out this article regarding the media misrepresenting the rise in violent crime:

John Lott's website


Apparently nationwide murder only rose by 2 percent, certain media outlets selected a limited number of cities and reported that murder rose by more than 6%.
 
Misinformation is epidemic. Check out this article regarding the media misrepresenting the rise in violent crime:

John Lott's website


Apparently nationwide murder only rose by 2 percent, certain media outlets selected a limited number of cities and reported that murder rose by more than 6%.

Good one, clemson357.

Selectively (and inaccurately) using localized statistics to make a broad generalization.


We are fed so much bogus information both intentionally and unintentionally, that how are we really supposed to know what's going on?

Bot inside the U.S. and in particular, internationally.


Even when the annual inflation statistics come out, the Federal Government used the lower set (looks better) than other economists who study and report the higher number. :thinking:
 
Misinformation is epidemic. Check out this article regarding the media misrepresenting the rise in violent crime:

John Lott's website


Apparently nationwide murder only rose by 2 percent, certain media outlets selected a limited number of cities and reported that murder rose by more than 6%.
Lott's note that violent crime fell for 13 years does nothing to diminish the fact that it is now rising.

"The news bite that the media focused on is the claim that murder rates increased by 6.8 percent from 2004 to 2005, 10.2 percent from 2004 to 2006."

I read a lot of articles but I did not see that claim by PERF. PERF's report says that the increase in homicide rates btn 2004-2005 is 3.4% for participating municipalities and not 6.8%

Lott has a problem with PERF and the participating cities. He claims that "They (PERF) selectively pick 56 jurisdictions (mainly cities but some counties) with populations over 70,000."

Those cities are members of PERF. Are the excluded cities also members? We don't know. Why? B/c some of the links supporting his paper don't work. But he sure tears a new one on that topic going on for several paragraphs.

His article is a mess. He spends almost no time discussing the 2006 findings. His excuse for rising crime in Philadelphia is almost comical--"poorly managed police departments..." No factual support is offered for that conclusion.

Apparently this guy can't read his own sources. He certainly doesn't expect someone to check his work I guess:
2004-2005
Violent crime up nationwide by 1.3%;
Murder +2.4%
Robbery +2.9%
Agg. Assault +.9%
Forcible Rape -2.1%
Table 1A - Crime in the United States 2005

As for 2005-06: "Table 3 reflects the percent change within the Nation for consecutive years (each year compared to the prior year)."
Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, 2006

violent crime rises 3.7% (murder +1.4, Rape less than 1/10th of % change, Robbery +9.7%, Agg Assault +1.2%)
 
Lott's note that violent crime fell for 13 years does nothing to diminish the fact that it is now rising.

The important question here is "Why has crime started to increase?".
 
The important question here is "Why has crime started to increase?".
I don't know.

For this type of crime, I think it is tied to socio economic conditions, the availability of a lot of illegal firearms, factors exlusive to some geographic areas--influx of gangs, etc.

I really don't know.
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
I don't know.

For this type of crime, I think it is tied to socio economic conditions, the availability of a lot of illegal firearms, factors exlusive to some geographic areas--influx of gangs, etc.

I really don't know.

I really think that it's because of an influx of another (sub-par) culture.

There have been plenty of reports. Including on that stated that the vast majority (over 90% I believe) of gang affiliated Mexicans are here illegally.

The is an exogenous influence that would skew any conclusions that you're trying to reach regarding crime.
 
I don't know.

For this type of crime, I think it is tied to socio economic conditions, the availability of a lot of illegal firearms, factors exlusive to some geographic areas--influx of gangs, etc.

I really don't know.
Influx of what type of gangs, MS13 types is what, coming through our borders that are supposed to be heavily protected since 9/11 is on the foreminds of every Republican, I mean thats why we're playing that card in Iraq/Afghanistan now right? Thats why anytime Bush gets a chance to speak he works that in somehow, yet there our southern border sits wide open for any evil-doer to creep through undetected...it is beyond my wildest imagination why things are so backwards all of the time...:hmmm:
 
Lott's note that violent crime fell for 13 years does nothing to diminish the fact that it is now rising.

I don't know why this is always about splitting hairs. I think the article is clear why it is relevant that crime fell for 13 years. The media is screaming "LARGEST CRIME SPIKE IN 13 YEARS!!!!" It is deceptive. If crime falls for 13 straight years, any increase in crime at all is the largest increase in 13 years. I am not an expert on the subject but 2% doesn't sound like an awful lot. My guess is that the papers knew they would get as much attention if their headline was "CRIME MODESTLY INCREASES BY 2% AFTER YEARS OF DECREASING!!!"
 
I don't know.

For this type of crime, I think it is tied to socio economic conditions, the availability of a lot of illegal firearms, factors exlusive to some geographic areas--influx of gangs, etc.

I really don't know.

I am not trying to harp on you, but you might want to use different terminology. The Brady Campaign puts the word "illegal" in front of the words "gun" or "firearm" every time they use it, as if making you read the words in conjunction will subliminally force it into your brain that guns are illegal. The fact is, there is no such thing as a "illegal gun." There are people who can't own any guns, people who can't own certain guns depending on what state they live in, and there are people who own machine guns and tanks subject to the proper federal paper work. No gun is illegal, it is the purchase, manufacture, use, and possession that is illegal for certain people.
 
I don't know why this is always about splitting hairs. I think the article is clear why it is relevant that crime fell for 13 years. The media is screaming "LARGEST CRIME SPIKE IN 13 YEARS!!!!" It is deceptive. If crime falls for 13 straight years, any increase in crime at all is the largest increase in 13 years. I am not an expert on the subject but 2% doesn't sound like an awful lot. My guess is that the papers knew they would get as much attention if their headline was "CRIME MODESTLY INCREASES BY 2% AFTER YEARS OF DECREASING!!!"
I agree and disagree.

I think repitition of the fact that we have the LARGEST CRIME SPIKE IN 13 YEARS is tiring. I've read some of the anti-gun sources which seem to wear their convictions on their sleeves when repeating that line.

On the other hand, 2-3.4% is nothing to discount/sneeze at as far as the numbers of people involved are concerned.

We will know more when the 2006 numbers are finalized.
 
I am not trying to harp on you, but you might want to use different terminology. The Brady Campaign puts the word "illegal" in front of the words "gun" or "firearm" every time they use it, as if making you read the words in conjunction will subliminally force it into your brain that guns are illegal. The fact is, there is no such thing as a "illegal gun." There are people who can't own any guns, people who can't own certain guns depending on what state they live in, and there are people who own machine guns and tanks subject to the proper federal paper work. No gun is illegal, it is the purchase, manufacture, use, and possession that is illegal for certain people.
I think you are being a just a little over zealous on this. But I understand. You make an good point, but references to illegal guns are all over the US Justice Department and Office of Justice Programs.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/phc96.pr
Just do a search for illegal guns or firearms.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Home page

On the whole, I think your distinction is with merit. Perhaps the "illegal purchase of firearms" is preferable to "illegal guns" but certainly not more economical in terms of brevity and ease of expression.
 
I think you are being a just a little over zealous on this. But I understand. You make an good point, but references to illegal guns are all over the US Justice Department and Office of Justice Programs.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/phc96.pr
Just do a search for illegal guns or firearms.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Home page

On the whole, I think your distinction is with merit. Perhaps the "illegal purchase of firearms" is preferable to "illegal guns" but certainly not more economical in terms of brevity and ease of expression.

Well then the Justice department is fucking stupid! :D
 
#21. Does the average american citizen have a constitutional right to own a firearm?

Yes, yes they do.

(If I'm wrong about that then discount most of what I've written below

You are wrong and yes, I have discounted the rest as instructed. :thumb:
 
Liberals are all too eager to .

One point. I don't think it's productive to always paint "liberals" with a big brush. Not all "liberals" are of the same cloth as all "conservative" are not of the same mind. Some liberals actually "get it" with the gun issue, and some conservatives don't. See the comments below of one self proclaimed liberal who actually understands gun rights is a liberal cause. I think it's best to call anti gun/pro gun control people/groups just that, vs "liberal." I have some views that would fall in the "liberal" camp and some views that might be considered "conservative" as i am of the Libertarian slant.

Liberals Need Not Fear the Right to Bear Arms
Michael Helmeste
Published Thursday, June 7, 2007
Issue 137 / Volume 87

I???m a liberal. My voting record is largely Green Party and Democrat. I???m a strong environmentalist - I respect and treat all life equally. I think equal opportunity is a good concept, and I view our international policy with distaste.

I???m also a gun collector and strong proponent of the Second Amendment.

People have been misled to think that guns are a Republican thing. That???s unfortunate. Gun ownership is the most liberal thing I can imagine. It???s about keeping power in the hands of the people instead of being exclusively the tools of government and the rich. It???s about equality, letting an old woman defend herself as well as a bodybuilder. It???s about being able to protect not only the people that are important to us but the rest of our freedoms as well.

In an effort to garner votes, the Democrats have used guns as a scapegoat like the Republicans have used terror. They???ve created boogymen like ???assault weapons??? to convince constituents something is being done about the fundamentally human problem of violence. By banning guns, Democrats want you to believe something is being done to bring down crime. Do you know the definition of assault weapon? It???s not a machine gun. It???s a gun that has features like a grip that protrudes from the bottom or a bayonet lug. When???s the last time anyone was bayoneted? Another sensationalized item is hollow point ammo - bullets that flatten when they hit something. The police switched to hollow points because the alternative, round bullets, had a tendency to go straight through objects, ricochet and they also require a greater number of shots to stop attackers.

Guns aren???t even the most damaging method of killing. In the Happy Land Fire, a man killed 87 people with one dollar???s worth of gas. The record number of deaths at a school is held by a person with a bomb, not a gun. A nut job with a car in a crowded area can do more damage than a man with a bag full of guns. Where???s our gas licensing? Let???s ban cars. Americans understand cars; not many understand guns because they???re getting their information from a media that loves to sensationalize. You hear about one psychopath killer, but not about the thousands of people who were saved from being murdered or raped.

Guns are the best tools we as citizens have for defense. Not only has the Supreme Court ruled that police have no obligation to protect individuals, but it???s a physical impossibility for police to be there at all times. We shouldn???t rely on others for self-defense.

Guns also protect our freedoms. They ensure that, if necessary, the people have means to offer resistance to rogue authority. It wasn???t long ago that rogue police officers, after illegally disarming the citizenry, took advantage of Hurricane Katrina to steal much-needed food and supplies. A liberal should know that authority figures commit crimes every day. If we take physical power away from the people, what???s left to balance against governmental abuse? If we take guns away from the people, only criminals and the government will have them.

Banning guns to reduce violence is like playing Whac-A-Mole, remove one weapon and another will pop up. People have one less way to hurt each other out of billions. Unfortunately the unique benefits guns provide are gone, along with the lack of shootings, and there???s no replacing them.

It???s a citizen???s duty to vote with an informed understanding. Next time you see a gun control bill, don???t agree because it looks like common sense. Take the time to educate yourself on the terms, try substituting ???gun??? for ???car??? to remove an emotional bias. Place Second Amendment infringements in the context of better understood ones. Should we ban Ferraris because they???re too fast for normal citizens, or revolutionary texts because they???re too powerful? Go to a range and try out a gun. How could someone who???s never shot a gun dictate what types are and aren???t allowed?

Bearing arms is a constitutional right. It???s an empowerment of the citizenry that, like free speech, must be preserved for the most dire circumstances, lest we find it gone when we most need it. Let???s not define a freedom by its abuse, and let???s not give it up just because we don???t understand it.

Michael Helmeste is a UCSB staff member.
 
Scientifically, it's impossible to conclude anything about the statistics of gun ownership, gun control and crime rates. At best you can form hypothesises and make an educated guess. At worst, bias influences your view on the topic and the statistics. All too often this means people fail to look at the context, resulting in generalising conclusions.

Thought I'd throw that in here. :p
 
Scientifically, it's impossible to conclude anything about the statistics of gun ownership, gun control and crime rates. At best you can form hypothesises and make an educated guess. At worst, bias influences your view on the topic and the statistics. All too often this means people fail to look at the context, resulting in generalising conclusions.

Thought I'd throw that in here. :p

I disagree. You can statistically reject the null hypothesis that banning gun ownership decreases violent crimes with a 95% confidence interval. The data is out there. Every attempt to tighten gun control has resulted in crime rates in those areas sky rocketing. I am only applying this to the US, because trends differ as you apply this to different cultures, and I don't read very much data on this subject from other countries, because I do not know any reputable organizations collecting data for them.
 
This "article" is a perfect example of cheap persuasion by questioning. Stop it with the propaganda, please. It doesn't take a genius to notice the slant in these questions and the agenda you're trying to promote.

And just for the record, the media belongs to the highest bidder, so of course they lie to you...it's their job.
 
Scientifically, it's impossible to conclude anything about the statistics of gun ownership, gun control and crime rates.

Quite wrong. And you base that on what exactly? It's not only quite possible, but done all the time.

At best you can form hypothesises and make an educated guess.

Which is based on the data that exists.

At worst, bias influences your view on the topic and the statistics.

Properly done research, by its very nature, is deigned to remove the bias. I suspect you have little experience with research or statistical analysis. You can argue the research is flawed and you can argue the interpretation of that research is wrong, and that???s why there are follow up studies to confirm, why debate takes place, why peer review exists, etc, etc.


All too often this means people fail to look at the context, resulting in generalising conclusions.

True, but that really has nothing to do with your other comments.
 
This "article" is a perfect example of cheap persuasion by questioning.

How so and which part?

Stop it with the propaganda, please.

No one does propaganda better than the anti gun groups, nor do I see the article I posted (and being you didn't bother to quote who you are talking to I assumed it was the article I posted) as propganda but opinion of a self proclaimed liberal and how he views the "gun issue."

It doesn't take a genius to notice the slant in these questions and the agenda you're trying to promote.

Hmmm, ok, maybe you were not talking to but the person who started the thread?

And just for the record, the media belongs to the highest bidder, so of course they lie to you...it's their job.

What ever....
 
Give me liberty or.....or I'll blow your fucking head off!!!
 
I disagree. You can statistically reject the null hypothesis that banning gun ownership decreases violent crimes with a 95% confidence interval. The data is out there. Every attempt to tighten gun control has resulted in crime rates in those areas sky rocketing. I am only applying this to the US, because trends differ as you apply this to different cultures, and I don't read very much data on this subject from other countries, because I do not know any reputable organizations collecting data for them.
This is not about agreement. Fact is you can't scientifically prove anything. You have no experiment. The data is not 'repeatable'. You have no control group. Ergo, you have zero science. What you do have is A and B and you conclude there is a causal correlation between the two. Disagreeing with the scientific nature of statistics simply means you do not fully comprehend science and the scientific method.

Statistically speaking (from what I've read), gun ownership and crime rates do not seem to be linked. However, even in the case of statistical rejection, you have a very fragile case, regardless of whether you favour gun ownership or not. The amount of data is extremely limited and all too often not reliable at all. There are too many parties with political and economical motivations involved. It's worse than Global Warming. A lot of the so called 'data' is simply a bunch of conclusions, most of the time concluded from out of context data.
Worst of all, there are so many variables involved in the equasion it's almost impossible to find a link between just two of them.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc
 
What ever....

I was responding to the original post. That Q & A smells.

I've stated my point on gun ownership more than a handful of times on here. In my view, you better be one squared away individual if you're going to own a firearm. The majority of people who own guns are, simply put, not qualified to handle them. I base this statement on having spent some time in the military.

Is there a link between violent crime and gun ownership? I really don't know. I'll tell you this though; I wouldn't feel safe if my next door neighbor owned guns. What if there's bad blood between me and my neighbor? Am I supposed to live in fear for my life? Alluding to my earlier point, there was this middle class guy on Long Island who shot and killed this 18 year old kid for traspassing on his lawn. He was a legal owner and all. Like I said before, most people who own guns have no real need for them, nor are they qualified to handle them. That makes me uncomfortable.
 
Last edited:
This is not about agreement. Fact is you can't scientifically prove anything. You have no experiment. The data is not 'repeatable'. You have no control group. Ergo, you have zero science. What you do have is A and B and you conclude there is a causal correlation between the two. Disagreeing with the scientific nature of statistics simply means you do not fully comprehend science and the scientific method.

Statistically speaking (from what I've read), gun ownership and crime rates do not seem to be linked. However, even in the case of statistical rejection, you have a very fragile case, regardless of whether you favour gun ownership or not. The amount of data is extremely limited and all too often not reliable at all. There are too many parties with political and economical motivations involved. It's worse than Global Warming. A lot of the so called 'data' is simply a bunch of conclusions, most of the time concluded from out of context data.
Worst of all, there are so many variables involved in the equasion it's almost impossible to find a link between just two of them.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc
While there is a huge economical and political relationship between the raw data and the published "results" the average mind can weave through the BS and see the truth in the numbers without being misled proctor hoc. The trick is to not be politically motivated in the first place.
 
While there is a huge economical and political relationship between the raw data and the published "results" the average mind can weave through the BS and see the truth in the numbers without being misled proctor hoc. The trick is to not be politically motivated in the first place.
The average mind certainly can not. You might, I might. But that is beside the point. The thing is, you too are politically motivated. You own guns.

I'm one of the few people on this side with no political or economical involvement on the matter.

For the record, I am not for banning gun ownership in the states. It won't work, because the states aren't really a safe place. Criminials will get what they want anyway. Am I for legalising guns in Holland? Hell no.
 
The average mind cerainly can not. You might, I might. The thing is, you too are politically motivated. You own guns.
That was a ridiculous assumption Witchblade. I don't own guns because of my political motivations. Fact is I am not even in agreement with any political party at all. I own guns because I like them. I own guns because of the world we live in. I own guns for reasons I cannot go into here.
 
Back
Top