misinformation is epidemic; the media lies to you

[BoneCrusher]

Did the Mexicans really jack up the crime stats that much in SA?

Brother ... it's something you'd almost have to experience to believe. There are now large areas of SA that are unsafe for a white boy to venture into on foot.

 

[brogers]

It's really quite simple. The people who want to commit a crime with a gun obviously do not care much for legality. If they're willing to break the law to rob someone, chances are they will also break it and carry/use a gun (if that was against the law also).

All it does is lessen the number of responsible citizens carrying/owning weapons. If I was a criminal I'd much rather rob someone where they have strict gun control, as it's much less likely I'd be shot.

 

[clemson357]

It's really quite simple. The people who want to commit a crime with a gun obviously do not care much for legality. If they're willing to break the law to rob someone, chances are they will also break it and carry/use a gun (if that was against the law also).

All it does is lessen the number of responsible citizens carrying/owning weapons. If I was a criminal I'd much rather rob someone where they have strict gun control, as it's much less likely I'd be shot.

Bingo.

The question really is this: does banning guns impede criminals from getting guns? In American thousands of tons of illegal narcotics get imported into the country every year by organized crime. If we can't stop those drugs from coming over, how are we going to stop the illegal importation of guns, which cannot be detected by dogs? In England gun crime has gone up after banning guns, and they are on an Island where they can control their borders more effectively than we can. Guns still get into England, guns would still get into America. Every street gang would be importing cheap, P.O.S. revolvers that can be bought for $150 and selling them for $600 in the US. Now you have given organized crime an additional money source, and the level of organized crime will increase, just as it did in the 1920's when Capon made millions by selling bathtub gin.

If there was some magical solution, where we could definitely collect every gun in the country right now, and then but up an invisible forcefield that keeps out guns, gun control might be a good idea. Robberies would go up, as would batteries, rapes, etc. All these can be committed with knives. However, it is admittedly easier to kill with a gun than a knife, so murders may go down. However, even this is a fantasy because there is no way we could keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

[Decker]

Decker you used a liberal whacko publication intended to support gun control as an unbiased source.

Prove it.

Step your game up a little. That same report shows Dallas down by 18%. It's not about gun laws it's about immigration laws. In SA the mexicans aren't chased down and deported, while in Dallas they are more strict about who works on a job site or in a warehouse.

So I am supposed to disregard the statistics in Appendix 2--which are supplied by the municipalities--and go with BoneCrusher's anecdotal folksy stories as evidence of violent crimes.

I'm sorry but I can't do that and remain credible.

My point is that this report you used as a source is leaving out the contributing factors, allowing people like you to site it as a source while you ALL ignore how bad it would have been if we did not have conceal and carry hand gun laws. The Dallas area is packed with people packin'. Same here in Austin. The only people here that were killed by non-gang related gun deaths were un-armed. There have been two of those so far, the rest are all drug and gang related.

I think THE contributing factor to crime is socioeconomic pressures. I think your protestations are interesting but irrelevant. The raw data is very clear.

Hem and haw all you want about alternative factors and anecdotal observations, it doesn't change the fact that violent crime is surging in this country, even in concealed carry states.

Get honest sources that don't tweak the numbers to produce a desired result Deck ... you're fucking up your credibility.

I have credibility. You have offered ad hominem attacks on me because you don't like what the facts are: Crime is on the rise even in concealed carry jurisdictions. Deal with it.

Instead you add in your stories about people packing heat in Dallas and Austin which amounts to nothing in my eyes.

It's not my credibility that you should be concerned with.

 

[Decker]

Bingo.

The question really is this: does banning guns impede criminals from getting guns? In American thousands of tons of illegal narcotics get imported into the country every year by organized crime. If we can't stop those drugs from coming over, how are we going to stop the illegal importation of guns, which cannot be detected by dogs? In England gun crime has gone up after banning guns, and they are on an Island where they can control their borders more effectively than we can. Guns still get into England, guns would still get into America. Every street gang would be importing cheap, P.O.S. revolvers that can be bought for $150 and selling them for $600 in the US. Now you have given organized crime an additional money source, and the level of organized crime will increase, just as it did in the 1920's when Capon made millions by selling bathtub gin.

If there was some magical solution, where we could definitely collect every gun in the country right now, and then but up an invisible forcefield that keeps out guns, gun control might be a good idea. Robberies would go up, as would batteries, rapes, etc. All these can be committed with knives. However, it is admittedly easier to kill with a gun than a knife, so murders may go down. However, even this is a fantasy because there is no way we could keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I thought the thesis of this thread was that gun control doesn't work. I think gun control does work to an extent in barring felons, lunatics, addicts and others from trying to buy a gun. There should be barriers keeping those people from buying weapons legally.

Is gun control effective at banning gun crime? That's a ridiculous argument. No regulation is 100% effective, even if wiping out gun crime were the objective of gun control legislation.

Would vastly increasing the penalty for crimes committed w/ a gun deter gun crime...say 8 years--no reduction? I don't know.

As for the tangential issue of banning guns and a criminal's access, well, look at the total numbers of handgun murders in Britain compared to that of the US.

But that's beside the point b/c gun bans are rare to non-existent in the US.

Sure gun control is an inconvenience to non-criminals. I think it is a small price to pay for gun ownership.

Let's face facts, a legislature can ban guns outright if it wants b/c the health/safety interests of the state generally override the property interest gun owners have in owning a gun.

Of course that could change, but it hasn't yet.

 

[DOMS]

I think THE contributing factor to crime is socioeconomic pressures. I think your protestations are interesting but irrelevant. The raw data is very clear.

Instead you add in your stories about people packing heat in Dallas and Austin which amounts to nothing in my eyes.

Nice try. Well...not really, but I felt that I should say that.

You're blowing off the affects of the Mexicans on the crime rate in US cities. And there's the problem. You would need to compare two cities that have an equal influx of Mexicans. One would have to use strict gun control laws and the other lax. Otherwise, you're not doing an apples to apples comparison.

 

[Decker]

Nice try. Well...not really, but I felt that I should say that.

You're blowing off the affects of the Mexicans on the crime rate in US cities. And there's the problem. You would need to compare two cities that have an equal influx of Mexicans. One would have to use strict gun control laws and the other lax. Otherwise, you're not doing an apples to apples comparison.

And what is your little experiment going to prove?

That Mexicans are pushing the crime rate over the tipping point?

Are you Mexican...? (thank you Mel Gibson)

I don't care about that.

The drumbeat from the concealed/carry crowd is, "Look, the crime stats all dip in areas where concealed carry legilsation has been enacted!"

Now the statistics have changed--even in those areas.

I think we have to look at implementing more cops whose duty is to seek and secure illegal firearms like the 1992-93 Kansas City experiment by the National Institute of Justice did.

It's not going to happen from the socio-economic side of the equation.

 

[clemson357]

I thought the thesis of this thread was that gun control doesn't work. I think gun control does work to an extent in barring felons, lunatics, addicts and others from trying to buy a gun. There should be barriers keeping those people from buying weapons legally.

Is gun control effective at banning gun crime? That's a ridiculous argument. No regulation is 100% effective, even if wiping out gun crime were the objective of gun control legislation.

Would vastly increasing the penalty for crimes committed w/ a gun deter gun crime...say 8 years--no reduction? I don't know.

As for the tangential issue of banning guns and a criminal's access, well, look at the total numbers of handgun murders in Britain compared to that of the US.

But that's beside the point b/c gun bans are rare to non-existent in the US.

Sure gun control is an inconvenience to non-criminals. I think it is a small price to pay for gun ownership.

Let's face facts, a legislature can ban guns outright if it wants b/c the health/safety interests of the state generally override the property interest gun owners have in owning a gun.

Of course that could change, but it hasn't yet.

As far as I can tell, this is completely repetitive with what you have already said.

If anything, you are only further demonstrating that you don't have a basic understanding of the issue or what is relevant. "...look at the total numbers of handgun murders in Britain compared to that of the US." How is that even remotely relevant? Handgun murders in Britain might be lower, Handgun murders in Switzerland are also lower. In Switzerland every able-bodied male has a government issued automatic weapon in their home. I guess under your reasoning the American government should issue me a fully automatic weapon.

What is relevant is the change in murder rates and gun murder rates before and after gun control laws go into affect. I really can't even count the number of times I have said that.

 

[DOMS]

How is that even remotely relevant? Handgun murders in Britain might be lower, Handgun murders in Switzerland are also lower. In Switzerland every able-bodied male has a government issued automatic weapon in their home. I guess under your reasoning the American government should issue me a fully automatic weapon.

Well said!

Not to mention that keeping illegal guns out of a country (an important part of "gun control") is a lot easier when it's an island!

 

[BoneCrusher]

Prove it.
So I am supposed to disregard the statistics in Appendix 2--which are supplied by the municipalities--and go with BoneCrusher's anecdotal folksy stories as evidence of violent crimes.

I'm sorry but I can't do that and remain credible.

I think THE contributing factor to crime is socioeconomic pressures. I think your protestations are interesting but irrelevant. The raw data is very clear.

Hem and haw all you want about alternative factors and anecdotal observations, it doesn't change the fact that violent crime is surging in this country, even in concealed carry states.

I have credibility. You have offered ad hominem attacks on me because you don't like what the facts are: Crime is on the rise even in concealed carry jurisdictions. Deal with it.

Instead you add in your stories about people packing heat in Dallas and Austin which amounts to nothing in my eyes.

It's not my credibility that you should be concerned with.

Deck when you use reports published with the intent to further a political aim you destroy the results of your work. The answer was yes ... "disregard the statistics in Appendix 2--which are supplied by the municipalities". You should disregard the entire report and use a source that does not twist the data to produce a desired result.

Should I pull up data from the NRA to disprove your source? One is is just as prone to playing hocus pocus with the numbers as the other. You do NOT need to pull that data from a report published by a pro-gun control lobyist front company. You could instead find a non-biased source for data and information related to the thread topic. Yet you not only chose to go to the well of the gun control fanatics, but you try to pas the cup my way by justifying your position when you call it "raw data". Raw data is virginal data compiled without political bent.

Remember in the Charlie Brown cartoons when the teachers were speaking to Charlie Brown? All he heard was Whaa wa waaa whaaa? Waaa waw aaa whaaa. The second you post garbage from the pro gun nuts what follows then becomes "Whaa wa waaa whaaa?".

My post was neither anecdotal nor folksy. I live here in Texas. I am a biased source. Keep your non-gutteral quips at least as accurate as the information you harvested from your biased sources. You're going from bad to worse here Decker ...

BTW I gotta say this too. I'm NOT going to dig up data that has already been posted in the 6,498,438 other threads that have already debated the gun control issues. You were there for those and saw that data. If you chose to continue to subscribe to the junk theories of the gun control money making machines as they reap and sew votes from the left go for it. As you grow old that process will also grow old ... and tiring. When you consider where the money used top prop up these garbage statistics could be used you might even get pissed off ... one could only hope.

 

[maniclion]

 

[Decker]

As far as I can tell, this is completely repetitive with what you have already said.

If anything, you are only further demonstrating that you don't have a basic understanding of the issue or what is relevant. "...look at the total numbers of handgun murders in Britain compared to that of the US." How is that even remotely relevant? Handgun murders in Britain might be lower, Handgun murders in Switzerland are also lower. In Switzerland every able-bodied male has a government issued automatic weapon in their home. I guess under your reasoning the American government should issue me a fully automatic weapon.

Do I have to go over your basic reading skills again? I think I do. Look at the word "TANGENTIAL" in my response, as in this is not the issue but something remotely related...a digression...slightly related to.... I went to great lengths to point out that we are discussing Gun Control and not the prophylactic ban of all hand guns.

You misstated the thesis of your own thread when you were patting brogers on the back for the point made.

What is relevant is the change in murder rates and gun murder rates before and after gun control laws go into affect. I really can't even count the number of times I have said that

That's your read. I disagree with your construct. How does your construct explain the surge in violent crime rates in controlled/carry jurisdictions?

Is it the fault of control laws in the controlled/carry states?

 

[Decker]

Well said!

Not to mention that keeping illegal guns out of a country (an important part of "gun control") is a lot easier when it's an island!

What the hell are you clapping for?

 

[goob]

Hey Manic.....

Want to use a larger font?

I could hardly read your last post.

 

[DOMS]

What the hell are you clapping for?

I did it to get you to write "What the hell are you clapping for?".

He did a great job of shooting down one of your points by drawing a parallel of Britain, with it's low gun/fatality rate, to a statistically comparable country like Sweden where every citizen goes through military boot camp.

It was simple and decisive. It was actually quite brilliant considering that one of his points was that the numbers do not tell the whole story.

 

[Decker]

Deck when you use reports published with the intent to further a political aim you destroy the results of your work. The answer was yes ... "disregard the statistics in Appendix 2--which are supplied by the municipalities". You should disregard the entire report and use a source that does not twist the data to produce a desired result.

Here's a thought: You cannot twist raw data simply by listing it.

Should I pull up data from the NRA to disprove your source? One is is just as prone to playing hocus pocus with the numbers as the other. You do NOT need to pull that data from a report published by a pro-gun control lobyist front company. You could instead find a non-biased source for data and information related to the thread topic. Yet you not only chose to go to the well of the gun control fanatics, but you try to pas the cup my way by justifying your position when you call it "raw data". Raw data is virginal data compiled without political bent.

My god you're right. I've been a dupe of anti-gun fanatics:

The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is a national membership organization of progressive police executives from the largest city, county and state law enforcement agencies. PERF is dedicated to improving policing and advancing professionalism through research and involvement in public policy debate. Incorporated in 1977, PERF's primary sources of operating revenues are government grants and contracts, and partnerships with private foundations and other organizations.
We are proud of the service we provide to law enforcement stakeholders. Our research and publications are targeted in areas our members find important to their agencies and for professional development. Our conferences and training programs are targeted to audiences who want to be on the cutting edge of relevant policing topics. Our leadership is constantly looking for ways of improving our ability to meet your dynamic needs. You will find out more about what PERF is all about in this, our information section of our member network.

And yes, please pull something that justifies your position. Then I can go after your sources. Clemson did some nice work in this respect. In fact, I've softened my view on gun regulation b/c of him.

The data came right from the municipal sources.

Perhaps you could ask the criminals themselves but I think the municipal stats are close enough for measure.

Remember in the Charlie Brown cartoons when the teachers were speaking to Charlie Brown? All he heard was Whaa wa waaa whaaa? Waaa waw aaa whaaa. The second you post garbage from the pro gun nuts what follows then becomes "Whaa wa waaa whaaa?".

My post was neither anecdotal nor folksy. I live here in Texas. I am a biased source. Keep your non-gutteral quips at least as accurate as the information you harvested from your biased sources. You're going from bad to worse here Decker ...

You disappoint. What does "non-gutteral" mean? You are giving me your personal opinion as to why crime spikes are happening in Texas. Sounds anecdotal to me.

Unless the word 'anecdotal' means the same thing as 'non-gutteral.'

BTW I gotta say this too. I'm NOT going to dig up data that has already been posted in the 6,498,438 other threads that have already debated the gun control issues. You were there for those and saw that data. If you chose to continue to subscribe to the junk theories of the gun control money making machines as they reap and sew votes from the left go for it. As you grow old that process will also grow old ... and tiring. When you consider where the money used top prop up these garbage statistics could be used you might even get pissed off ... one could only hope.

Well thank you for saving me the redundancy. Otherwise it might have looked like you're talking out of your pie-hole about these common knowledge statistics.

Thank goodness that's settled.

A cynical man might say you offer conclusions without support. Sort of like propaganda.

 

[Decker]

I did it to get you to write "What the hell are you clapping for?".

He did a great job of shooting down one of your points by drawing a parallel of Britain, with it's low gun/fatality rate, to a statistically comparable country like Sweden where every citizen goes through military boot camp.

It was simple and decisive. It was actually quite brilliant considering that one of his points was that the numbers do not tell the whole story.

It is quite obvious that you did not read my post. I noted that the "gun ban" argument is tangential at best to the thesis that gun control doesn't work.

As for the british comment, so what? Britain has fewer gun deaths than the US on a per capita basis. That's called a fact.
NationMaster - Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) by country


Let me state my opinion on the matter. I no longer think that hand guns should be banned. Clemson helpled me on that one.

I think gun regulation works in the same manner that the regulation of drivers in this country works: test the sanity and criminality then grant the license. Does that mean that unlicensed people will not drive with stolen cars? Hardly. But a system for filtering out the undesirables is necessary.

I think concealed/carry laws are like cable deregulation: It works until the novelty wears off.

Then the sociological/economical antecedents of crime reassert themselves.

 

[Decker]

I agree. We don't want guns in certain peoples hands.

 

[maniclion]

I agree. We don't want guns in certain peoples hands.

Well we could say, we don't want triple decker bacon cheeseburgers in certian peoples guts, arteries, we don't want cars under certain peoples feet, we don't want alcohol in certain peoples livers, smoke in certain peoples lungs, etc....guns are so low on the leading causes of death in America.

You could lay a cheeseburger and a gun on a table and ask people which is more dangerous and most will point to the gun when in reality that cheeseburger will claim hundreds of thousands more deaths than that gun....

 

[DOMS]

Nice.

 

[BoneCrusher]

Here's a thought: You cannot twist raw data simply by listing it.

If your intent is to publish something to support gun control you will by necessity twist the data. This report included data supporting the goals of the author, while excluding data not supporting the political intent.

My god you're right. I've been a dupe of anti-gun fanatics:

The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is a national membership organization of progressive police executives from the largest city, county and state law enforcement agencies. PERF is dedicated to improving policing and advancing professionalism through research and involvement in public policy debate. Incorporated in 1977, PERF's primary sources of operating revenues are government grants and contracts,

and partnerships with private foundations and other organizations.


We are proud of the service we provide to law enforcement stakeholders. Our research and publications are targeted in areas our members find important to their agencies and for professional development. Our conferences and training programs are targeted to audiences who want to be on the cutting edge of relevant policing topics. Our leadership is constantly looking for ways of improving our ability to meet your dynamic needs. You will find out more about what PERF is all about in this, our information section of our member network.

And yes, please pull something that justifies your position. Then I can go after your sources. Clemson did some nice work in this respect. In fact, I've softened my view on gun regulation b/c of him.

It's already been done Decker. You continue with this mentality for reason exclusive of the rational thought process.

The data came right from the municipal sources.

The raw data may have come from municipal sources, but it was harvested with a political aim in mind then used selectively to support an agenda paid for by those "partnerships with private foundations and other organizations". The extracted data ... now politically bent ... became useless. When you include data from San Antonio and exclude or minimize the data from Dallas you provide the example of what the original authors of that report were about: twist the data to support gun control.

Perhaps you could ask the criminals themselves but I think the municipal stats are close enough for measure.

You mean the stats that were INcluded, not the ones that were EXcluded of course.

You disappoint. What does "non-gutteral" mean? You are giving me your personal opinion as to why crime spikes are happening in Texas. Sounds anecdotal to me.

Unless the word 'anecdotal' means the same thing as 'non-gutteral.'

Well thank you for saving me the redundancy. Otherwise it might have looked like you're talking out of your pie-hole about these common knowledge statistics.

That was a non-gutteral quip

Thank goodness that's settled.

A cynical man might say you offer conclusions without support. Sort of like propaganda.

That was another non-gutteral quip. Pointless jabs made without the profanity that some enjoy using. Although I still enjoy observing the sting of a well placed sarcasm, I've mellowed a bit since I've been here at IM. Back when alter-egos were allowed this convo would have been taken up by "another" member ... one much more vitreous.

You have to accept that your source is pro-gun control. What ever comes from it is useless.

 

[Decker]

Well we could say, we don't want triple decker bacon cheeseburgers in certian peoples guts, arteries, we don't want cars under certain peoples feet, we don't want alcohol in certain peoples livers, smoke in certain peoples lungs, etc....guns are so low on the leading causes of death in America.

You could lay a cheeseburger and a gun on a table and ask people which is more dangerous and most will point to the gun when in reality that cheeseburger will claim hundreds of thousands more deaths than that gun....

Guns are not cheeseburgers or tobacco products. Guns increase the feasibility/ease for taking human life.

That is why we arm our soldiers with guns instead of cheeseburgers.

It's also why armed robbers don't wave a pack smokes around to intimidate cashiers.

 

[Decker]

If your intent is to publish something to support gun control you will by necessity twist the data. This report included data supporting the goals of the author, while excluding data not supporting the political intent.


You mean the stats that were INcluded, not the ones that were EXcluded of course.

So instead of disputing the data you dismiss it b/c someone listed crime statistics that you say has no counter point. First, that's absurd b/c I'm referencing the raw data. That wouldn't change if Wayne Lapierre himself used the stats in a report. Second, I will post some another source showing a surge in crime nationwide.

Let's look at the FBI's reports. Or are they anti-gun too just like the cops in PERF?

· 2005. Of the homicides for which the type of weapon was specified, firearms were used in 72.6 percent of the offenses. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 7.) Of the identified firearms used, handguns comprised 87.3 percent.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/documents/expandedhomicide.doc


In 2004 the total firearm homicides was 9,385. In 2005 it was 10,100.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html

Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported an increase of 3.7 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention in the first half of 2006 when compared to figures reported for the first six months of 2005.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelim06/index.html

This link compares stats over the past several years. Table 3, Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June 2006

Is this better?

And I am glad to see that you've moderated your temper over the years. Devolving a discussion into a namecalling contest is pointless.

You rat-bastard.

 

[Decker]

Violent crime increased last year, and many cities experienced double-digit or even triple-digit percentage increases in homicides and other violence, according to the latest statisticsgathered by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a Washington, D.C.-based organization of police chiefs, sheriffs, and other state and local law enforcement leaders. PERF gathered crime statistics for all of 2006 from 56 policing agencies across the nation and found that overall, homicides increased 2.89 percent compared to 2005, and robberies increased 6.48 percent. Aggravated assaults declined 2.20 percent, but when aggravated assaults committed with a firearm were separated out of that category, there was a 1.28-percent increase between 2005 and 2006.

??? But overall, the 24-month trend, starting on January 1, 2005, is unmistakable:
Among the jurisdictions filing reports with PERF, total homicides in 2006 were 10.21 percent higher than they were in 2004. Robberies increased 12.27 percent; aggravated assaults increased 3.12 percent; and aggravated assaults with a firearm increased 9.98 percent.

The major increases in violence are not limited to a few scattered locations. Three-fourths
of PERF???s 56 jurisdictions reported increases in robberies between 2005 and 2006, for example.

Here I am posting PERF related statistics???But why? Bonecrusher says that they are using cooked numbers.

Or are they?

Note on PERF statistics: The PERF statistics are similar to those in the FBI???s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program in that they are based on law enforcement agencies??? reports of crimes actually reported to the police (as opposed to surveys or other methods of measuring crime). Because PERF members are police chiefs, sheriffs, and other law enforcement executives, PERF is able to obtain official crime statistics from many of the nation???s largest jurisdictions, and to release those figures several months before the nationwide tallies are released by the FBI. PERF???s previous ???early warnings??? about crime, based on the fist six months of 2006 data, were later confirmed when the FBI completed its more comprehensive UCR reports.

03/09/07 - NEW! Violent Crime in America: 24 Months of Alarming Trends


Bonecrusher are we going to end this silly debate that PERF???s numbers are cooked in the name of it???s alleged gun control bias?

 

[clemson357]

I agree. We don't want guns in certain peoples hands.

Namely, the American people.



With all due respect Decker, I began this conversation with you when I was under the impression that you were an open-minded individual interested in learning something about an area you admittedly don't know much about. Your continued posting of things that have little or nothing to do with the issue, as well as copying and pasting from the ACLU website, have since corrected that perception. In short, there comes a point when I have to realize that this is not worth my effort.

 

[clemson357]

In other news, I am picking up a new Glock today. No paper work, no waiting period, no bullshit administrative hassle. Thats because I live in a free state.

 

[Decker]

Namely, the American people.



With all due respect Decker, I began this conversation with you when I was under the impression that you were an open-minded individual interested in learning something about an area you admittedly don't know much about. Your continued posting of things that have little or nothing to do with the issue, as well as copying and pasting from the ACLU website, have since corrected that perception. In short, there comes a point when I have to realize that this is not worth my effort.

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.

When I reference regulation in the quote you highlighted I was talking about the laws that already exist--as compared to obtaining a license to drive. I was not talking about gun bans. We do want to keep guns away from some people: felons, druggies, lunatics etc.

And if you are going to be acrimonious about my cut and paste of the ACLU case law page, I suggest you post your source for the cut and paste job you did posting your pro-gun stats and arguments. So please stop the sanctimonious protestations b/c it does not wear well.

Anyway, it seems the "gun control doesn't work" thesis is largely supported by the sterling record of concealed/carry jurisdictions re gun crime. No?

Developments over the last 2 years have flown in the face of your most prized proof that gun control doesn't work b/c in fact more guns means less crime thus more safety.

You will have to sort out the details on that one.

 

[BoneCrusher]

So instead of disputing the data you dismiss it b/c someone listed crime statistics that you say has no counter point. First, that's absurd b/c I'm referencing the raw data. That wouldn't change if Wayne Lapierre himself used the stats in a report. Second, I will post some another source showing a surge in crime nationwide.

Let's look at the FBI's reports. Or are they anti-gun too just like the cops in PERF?

· 2005. Of the homicides for which the type of weapon was specified, firearms were used in 72.6 percent of the offenses. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 7.) Of the identified firearms used, handguns comprised 87.3 percent.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/documents/expandedhomicide.doc


In 2004 the total firearm homicides was 9,385. In 2005 it was 10,100.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html

Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported an increase of 3.7 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention in the first half of 2006 when compared to figures reported for the first six months of 2005.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelim06/index.html

This link compares stats over the past several years. Table 3, Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June 2006

Is this better?

And I am glad to see that you've moderated your temper over the years. Devolving a discussion into a namecalling contest is pointless.

You rat-bastard.

​

Okay Decker ... you had to draw me into this. Lemme sharpen my pencils and I'll get back to you through the weekend. There has to be a condition set here though or I won't waste my time. If the numbers show that gun control legislation, or the lack of it, has no relevance to what ever crime stats come up that we agree on then you jump that ship and join us Republican minded non-gun control rat bastards.

Bonecrusher are we going to end this silly debate that PERF???s numbers are cooked in the name of it???s alleged gun control bias?

As long as PERF is used by gun control freaks as a tool then no we will not end that debate. If I have data from 100 cities but use that data selectively to support my political goals then my data becomes tainted.

Why am I explaining this to you in a third post Decker? Why do you insist on using a politically oriented rag as a source when you could have just went to the FBI stats in the first place? When you continually defy logic ... and you've shown yourself to be a logical person time and time again Decker ... when you continue to go against logic you show yourself to possibly be working for reasons outside of logical thought. One has to then question your motives ...

Decker is your last name really Garcia or Mendez or Mendez Garcia Ruiz (fucking Messicans love putting several names together ... it helps them create the illusion of having a culture)? See here in Texas we've quietly begun SHOOTING the illegals as they cross our lands ... especially the males that travel in groups. Because a very large percent seem to like to shoot us if they see us first while they bring drugs up with them the authorities have instituted a don't ask don't tell policy. A dead Messican er three out on the back 40 drawing buzzards doesn't draw an investigation if it's handled quietly. I'm starting to think you're one of them Messicans, trying to get a work around to our solution for the 1.5 million of yas that illegally came over the border last year.

 

[BoneCrusher]

In other news, I am picking up a new Glock today. No paper work, no waiting period, no bullshit administrative hassle. Thats because I live in a free state.

If you were close enough I could sell you one of mine.

 

[Decker]

Okay Decker ... you had to draw me into this. Lemme sharpen my pencils and I'll get back to you through the weekend. There has to be a condition set here though or I won't waste my time. If the numbers show that gun control legislation, or the lack of it, has no relevance to what ever crime stats come up that we agree on then you jump that ship and join us Republican minded non-gun control rat bastards.​

I understand what you are saying. I've already changed my view one time.​

As long as PERF is used by gun control freaks as a tool then no we will not end that debate. If I have data from 100 cities but use that data selectively to support my political goals then my data becomes tainted.

I still don't understand your idea of choosing data selectively in the context of prevailing homicide rates, robbery and agg. assault.

Why am I explaining this to you in a third post Decker? Why do you insist on using a politically oriented rag as a source when you could have just went to the FBI stats in the first place? When you continually defy logic ... and you've shown yourself to be a logical person time and time again Decker ... when you continue to go against logic you show yourself to possibly be working for reasons outside of logical thought. One has to then question your motives ...

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