It is amazing how few fact filled anti-gun are posts are posted here.

[Logical]

Most are hit and run news stories that add nothing to the debate. You can find bad news stories about any topic.

You would think that if there was many actual indisputable anti-gun stats, that we would see fact filled posts from time to time.

It is like using news stories about drunk drivers to try to justify banning alcohol. Or posting bad cop stories to justify banning the police. Or posting drowning stories to justify outlawing swimming.

Guns are a hobby for many people. There are 100s of shooting contests every week. There are millions of CCW license holders who carry their guns every day with no issue. And many thousand defensive gun uses every year. And since criminals continue to use guns to harm people, then honest citizens deserve gun access also.

It would be nice if the anti-gun people actually posted fact filled posts that back up their stance and not just search google news for gun stories.

It would make this forum much more useful.

[TheWraith]

1. I wish we could get a rule here banning the "true crime" stories entirely.

It would stop the forum from getting spammed out with nonsense. The only times those stories are useful is if you're debunking someone who said something NEVER happens, which is an obviously ignorant statement in the first place. Very few things "never" happen.

[eqfan592]

2. I couldn't agree more.

I'm not a big fan of the current events news ticker that this forum can become sometimes, especially whenever one of our local crusaders get a big bur up their arse and decide to go hog wild. It adds nothing to the discussion of policy. In fact, it tends to flood out what policy discussion is taking place.

[X_Digger]

120. "tends to flood out what policy discussion is taking place" -- that's the point for that poster..

Can't have a rational discussion, must ratchet up the emo-twaddle wharrgarble.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

80. If you cared at all about information, you would know that statistics aren't data.

Coming up with a handful of stories about something bad happening does not represent a valid measurement of that bad thing. Your own example shows it: stories about drunk driving do not legitimize attempts to ban alcohol.

[RSillsbee]

66. No one ever gets laid on mars

happy now?

[davepc]

106. I started a thread about this back in 09...

Things haven't gotten any better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=242738&mesg_id=242738

the current forum rules in this regard are not likely to change anytime soon.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whoneedstickets]

4. The only facts I need are in this figure...

[eqfan592]

5. If you think that is all you need....

....then you do not hold a well reasoned opinion on the issue in any way, shape or form. You are a serious part of the problem. End of story.

[whoneedstickets]

10. Really genius? Tell me why a massive correlation between

gun possession and gun related deaths is an error? hmm?

If I had the data I'd run the regression but the R2 on that figure is probably over .90

So 90+% of the variance in gun deaths can be explained by availability....

Have a go there Einstein...please present facts!

[TheWraith]

12. If you applied any critical thinking to the problem, you would realize the obvious flaw in that stat

Specifically, there are a number of countries, such as Mexico, with near total bans on guns, and huge gun death rates. But no one there will admit to owning a firearm, even if they do so only for self defense, because it's virtually impossible to do legally.

Furthermore, over the past 18 years, violent crime has gone down by a third in the US, while the number of guns in private hands have gone up by nearly half. This is a fairly self evident debunking of the assumption that more guns equals more crime.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

19. Most guns used by Mexican criminal gangs come from Central America, and Mexico's own military...

...and police.

It is possible to discuss this topic without personal attacks.

[whoneedstickets]

23. Roughly 20% are US weapons

A side your side will probably respect...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/

[slackmaster]

25. So then, about 80% are NOT US weapons

Which contradicts what you said up-thread.

[whoneedstickets]

31. I didn't say all! So we're 20% responsible for the gun problem.

I wonder where those guns from Central America came from in the first place?

[slackmaster]

32. Some of the ones from Central America were given or sold to dictatorships or rebels in the 1980s

Some of those came from the US as well, but not from the civilian sporting arms market.

Not all firearms made in the USA are cut from the same cloth. You should read up on the National Firearm Act and the Gun Control Act.

[PavePusher]

46. You certainly implied all or most.

And of the U.S. guns, note that both governments are very quite about what their source is... while trying deperately to imply that it's from U.S. civilian gun shops.

Sorry, not buying it. Full-auto weapons don't get handed over the counter for fist-fulls of cash here. Most of that weaponry is arriving via government sources.

[RSillsbee]

67. You said MOST

Generally that indicates more than 1 in 5

[slackmaster]

18. That kind of language is not tolerated in this forum, whoneedstickets

Did you hear about the constipated statistician?

He worked it out with a pencil.

[WatsonT]

81. "Tell me why a massive correlation between gun possession and gun related deaths is an error?"

Because it doesn't exist.

Also comparing across countries doesn't make much sense.

Comparing within a country does. Look at crime rates before and after various new gun restrictions within individual countries.

Also compare within the US states with strong/weak gun laws. If this correlation exists you should be able to predict those states with the highest murder rates based on those with the highest gun ownership rates, right?

[X_Digger]

125. Cherry picked data, and correlation != causation..

Simple-minded silliness.

[Logical]

7. All that tells me about you is that you do not know how to re-scale a image.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Logical]

9. That is a stat. Not a discussion about fixing any gun issue.....

I have asked this many times and I am sure you ignored it.

- How do you propose to keep guns away from criminals?
- Why should honest citizens not have guns if criminals do?

And if you say "ban all guns" then please propose how you plan in passing that law through the senate and house and a presidential veto.

See, posting stats is not a "discussion". Understand now?

[whoneedstickets]

14. Ok....I'll bite again..

Strong border controls, strict registration and license laws would prevent criminals from getting guns. It works well in places like the UK.

Criminals won't have guns if we pass the laws. Most guns criminals use were once legally possessed (stolen).

I love the way you throw the political practicality argument out. So if something is WRONG but supported by congress then we should just live with it? Like slavery? Jim crow laws? Simply because something may be politically popular doesn't make it right.

How much trouble is it worth to save lives? Imagine a disarmed society.

[slackmaster]

21. "Imagine a disarmed society"

Except of course for government employees.

When I think of a disarmed society, I think of countries like Mexico, Jamaica, and Haiti.

[whoneedstickets]

24. And when I imagine your ideal, I think Somalia...

try again

[slackmaster]

26. Where did I post what my ideal was?

:crazy:

[gejohnston]

41. Somalia?

They don't really have a huge gun ownership. You think the warlords are going to let the average person be armed? Short answer is no way.

[Logical]

36. Wow, you made this one really easy.....

LOL....your "Criminals won't have guns if we pass the laws." might be the most naive statement I have ever read here.

The UK never had 300,000 million guns in the hand of their citizens. Or a 35% gun ownership rate to deal with.

Let's say your leadership skills has some way to force the 300 million guns in the USA to be registered overnight. This is impossible but I will humor you and say it happens tomorrow.

There are at least 1 million stolen guns in the hands of criminals. I hope you realize these will NOT be registered. Even under your magic plan.

And at least 200,000 guns are stolen every year. You also cannot stop this. Registering guns will not stop guns from being stolen.

Since only about 10,000 guns are used each year to murder people, then the 200,000 stolen guns will be more than enough to supply the murderers.

So once again. Honest citizens are forced to register their guns under your plan and criminals still have all the guns they need.

And if you really want to say you plan on going door to door and removing guns from people then I would love to have that discussion!

[whoneedstickets]

40. Ah, the other gun lover argument..

"it would be impractical" because of so many weapons.

Yes, I think a strong limit on sales coupled with voluntary turn in and buy back programs could put a dent in the proliferation of weapons, particularly handguns which are the main source of gun violence.

[PavePusher]

49. Has registration done anything to stop, or even slow, car theft?

Sure doesn't look like it...

[whoneedstickets]

57. If there were no cars it sure would be hard to steal them..

..gun thefts are lower than car thefts already (I believe, I'm looking for facts right now), fewer guns fewer thefts.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

123. I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but eliminating firearms is simply not an option

People in this country have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to own them. Governments do not have the power to make them go away.

[rl6214]

76. Whoneedspostsaboutgunlovers

If you engage in discussions here instead of throwing insults you will find that "gun lovers" is not a term that is acceptable here.

[cleanhippie]

127. "put a dent in the proliferation of weapons"...Where have I heard that before? Proliferation?

It sounds so familiar......

Perhaps there is something you would like to share with us?

[PavePusher]

47. "Imagine a disarmed society."

I've read my history of the middle ages, and modern totalitarian societies. I've also lived in them.

I'll pass on reproducing more of that, thank you very much.

[spin]

59. The United States has 300 million firearms ...

The UK in comparison had very few prior to their current restrictions.

Citizens in the UK and many other countries have trust in their government. The United States has always had a distrust of government.

The UK never had a gun culture, the United States always has.

I can easily imagine a basically disarmed society just like you desire. One exists on our border and is called Mexico. Some honest police in Mexico want to see the laws changed.

Guerrero state police chief said he will ask the federal congress to make it easier for common citizens to get permits for weapons
Tue, 31 May 2011 | Published in Crime, Government


Ramon Almonte, the Guerrero state police chief, said on Monday he will ask the federal congress to make it easier for common citizens to get permits for weapons to defend themselves.

Almonte’s brother was killed on Jan. 1 in a rural town in Guerrero by unidentified gunmen. The state has been plagued by the drug war.

“When you fight someone and at least you have a ‘piece,’ the person who is attacking you might think twice,” Almonte said. “We cannot go on the way we are.
http://www.mexico.vg/crime/citizens-permits-for-weapons/4823

Note: you will not see this reported on the main stream media.

[X_Digger]

126. "Criminals won't have guns if we pass the laws." -- just like illegal drugs?

Especially drugs like heroin and cocaine, whose base botanicals don't even grow in this country..

Or guns in countries with restrictive laws? Google 'london+shooting', eg.

[Euromutt]

144. "It works well in places like the UK."

Criminals won't have guns if we pass the laws.

So how come the highest recorded levels of firearm crime in the United Kingdom came after the latest tightening of the gun laws in the wake of Dunblane? How do you explain incidents like these from the past decade?

"Gun gang jailed for nine years each" (Manchester, June 15, 2001):

(Photo caption) A Skorpion sub-machine gun was found by police

"Three jailed for gun rampage" (South London, March 18, 2002):

Unarmed police were also shot at with an Uzi sub-machine gun as the gang fled from outside a Croydon nightclub where a man had been shot.

"Killer took his own life" (Lincoln, August 30, 2002):

Two half brothers were executed at close range by a man with a "paranoid psychosis" who subsequently committed suicide, a coroner has ruled. The body of Jeremy Earls, 34, was found in the back of his car parked in woods at Kelby, Lincolnshire on 8 August, 2001. He had a single gunshot wound to the top of his head and an Israeli-made Uzi nine-millimetre gun was lying nearby.

"Gunmen fired more than 30 shots" (Birmingham, January 3, 2003):

At least two weapons, including a sub-machine gun, were used in the shootings outside a hairdressing salon in the city on Thursday.

"£20,000 reward for brother murder" (East London, February 1, 2006):

Barrington Williams-Samuels, 19, was shot in the head as 17 bullets were fired from a sub-machine gun into a car containing him and his sister.

"TV appeal over murdered doorman" (London, October 29, 2007):

According to witnesses the gunman was standing about 30m (98 feet) from the entrance to the club when he pulled a machine gun from under his coat and opened fire. <...> Det Insp Tim Neligan said at least 18 bullets were fired by the gunman, who is thought to live in the area.

"DNA match 'led to murder arrest'" (Birmingham, April 21, 2008):

Mr Sabir, who was known as Shabba, was shot 16 times with a sub-machine gun in Lozells Road in the city five years ago.

"Killed boy 'mistaken for brother'" (London, April 25, 2008):

Michael Dosunmu was asleep when the two men shot him with a sub-machine gun last February, the court heard.

"Dealers shot dead in cocaine row" (St. Albans, June 24, 2008):

Three drug dealers were shot dead with a sub-machine gun in Hertfordshire in a row over cocaine, a court has heard.

Keith Cowell, 42, his son Matthew, 17, and Tony Dulieu, 33, from Essex, were killed at the Cowell's Bishop's Stortford house on 28 August, 2007.

"Three jailed over shooting death" (London, February 17, 2009):

Balaclava-clad Wayne Collins, 26, fired nine bullets from a sub-machine gun, killing Mark Tredinnick in Benskins Lane, Romford, Essex, in June 2007.

"Could Turkish and Kurdish gangs become new 'mafia'?" (London, October 21, 2010):

Armed with a Croatian-made Agram sub-machine gun, <Yusuf Arslan> flagged down a Ford Transit van in a Tottenham street. He fired four shots at the occupants, Nasir Demir and Hamit Koban, but they escaped serious injury by reversing the van away at high speed.

"Men jailed for Hoxton gun murder of Agnes Sina-Inakoju" (London, April 12, 2011):

The murder weapon - a 9mm Agram sub-machine gun - was used in six other shootings, the court heard.

Police investigating the murder found an arsenal of deadly weapons, including a loaded Mac-10 sub-machine gun, a loaded shotgun and ammunition and a loaded .38 revolver.

The Mac-10 was used in four other shootings, the court heard.

Note that all these incidents involved automatic weapons. Criminals in England are getting hold of these, British gun laws notwithstanding.

[Logical]

13. And what is your answer for New Zealand? You realize.....

that destroys the point you are trying to make??

[whoneedstickets]

17. Please explain to me in your best statistics terms why NZ 'destroys my point'

You do have some understanding of STATS don't you FACTS MAN?

[slackmaster]

22. I think you need to brush up on the relationship between correlation and causation

HTH

[whoneedstickets]

27. I'd love to engage you in a discussion of these things...

..As noted above, I said over 90% of the variation in deaths is explained by the 'availability' measure.

i never claimed causality. Of course to do that we'd need to run an experiment. Perhaps we could take a part of the US and impose strict gun laws in the state. Of course, guns can easily cross state lines, so we'd need to find some isolated state where trans-border guns don't mess up the experiment.

Hey, how about Hawaii?! It turns out they have stricter gun laws, AND lower death rates....


Wow, that's pretty close to causation. Perhaps combined with other evidence and a sensible 'mechanism' explaining the link between gun availability and gun deaths we could make a causal claim!?

[slackmaster]

33. I suggest the most reasonable thing to do is for you to make your choices about guns,

And let other people make their own. And we can all respect each others' freedom to choose to own guns or not, to allow them in our homes or not, etc.

[whoneedstickets]

38. Huh? where's the FACTS? That sounds like you're arguing values...

..ideology and preferences.


I'm on this rant because of the nonsense that Logic posted about how all you gun lovers are friends of facts while us 'grabbers' are spreading ideological crap.

Well I'm presenting facts and taking on all comers.

Feel free to post factual support for US gun laws.

[slackmaster]

44. All you have cited are statistics, which can provide a basis for discussion

They're selected measurements. Their meaning is subject to interpretation therefore they are not facts in any useful sense of the word.

Feel free to post factual support for US gun laws.

That's an absurd request.

[gejohnston]

54. to be perfectly honest

you are arguing values and ideology and wrapping it in bits a of data that no way resembles the the whole truth. If this were any other subject, I am sure you would not be making the same mistakes.

[rl6214]

82. "all you gun lovers"

whoneedsfriends when you obviously like insulting everyone?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

53. Vermont and Wyoming are the safest states

in the nation. Care to try again?

[Logical]

29. Well, since you NEVER tried to explain your graph I have no idea what your...

point was. Actually no one here would know what point you were trying to make.

But I assume you try to prove more gun ownership means more gun deaths.

So the USA had about 10.5 deaths per 100,000 and had about 34% gun ownership?

New Zealand has about 20% gun ownership which should relate to about 6 deaths per 100,000 based on the USA numbers. But New Zealand has only about 1.5 deaths per 100,000 so it totally disputes the point you are trying to make about the USA. This means guns ownership % is not the correlating factor!

Understand it now? Or need me to explain it simpler?

[whoneedstickets]

30. Do you understand how error terms work?

Naturally there is variance in these measures. Some is explained well by the underlying equation y' = a + bx however some is not. We call that 'error' or the 'residual term' the true values include error y = a + bx + e

The presence of some larger error variance hardly invalidates the relationship.

You do know some statistics don't you facts man? Or are you bringing a knife to a gun fight?

[Logical]

37. New Zealand should still have a higher death rate. Why do they not? Other reasons maybe???

[whoneedstickets]

34. Actually at 20% NZ's death rate would be about 4..

.why are they lower? My guess, isolation prevents illegal cross border gun flow.

We could create a multivariate model that included domestic possession levels and the proximity to permissive gun countries but why mess up this incredibly obvious bivariate model.

[lawodevolution]

20. That's because you don't care about non-firearms deaths. You really don't care about improving

Society. Your hate for gun owners leads you to want to oppress and harass us with useless gun control laws.

If you add up total murder rate and you compare all nations you find an inverse relationship between gun ownership rate and murder rate.

[whoneedstickets]

28. Post that data please. THIS IS A FACT BASED forum now..

[gejohnston]

48. homicide rates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’
from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

[oneshooter]

51. Try to tell that to jpak! n/t

[lawodevolution]

113. Ok

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x407157

I was told I can't post the raw data so if you want it I would have to email it to you

[DanTex]

114. Amateur statistics, grossly misinterpreted...

Good effort, but unfortunately, mixing in places like Rwanda and Sudan with industrialized countries makes that particular analysis completely useless. Peer reviewed studies by serious researchers with experience and expertise analyzing data have come to the opposite conclusion as you, time after time. For example, regarding international crime statistics, we have:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130511

And before you start on about "elite liberal bias" and "we don't need no stinkin' peer review", you should read my earlier OP about denialism:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x422849

[lawodevolution]

115. Sorry but I reject your bigoted attempt at rejecting certain nations because you view their citizens

to be inferior. I do not cherry pick the nations and rig the data so that it reflects the trend you want it to. I simply am showing the trends for all nations which show us that murder rate and gun possession rate are inversely proportional. Your "modern" nations are not better than the ones you ignore. All nations have areas that are poor and some areas that are rich and all nations have up to date technology available to them. The main difference is culture. The culture of some nations results in people living in a different way than you disagree with and leads you to think they are inferior and do not count as humans and therefore their data should be rejected. I reject that view and I feel murder and gun possession rates between all nations on earth should be compared.

[DanTex]

118. Nice, call me a bigot to avoid the issue.

As you well know, I never said the citizens of any country are inferior, nor is there any way to interpret my post to mean that.

Restricting the international comparison to industrialized nations is not a question of bigotry, it's a question of intellectual honesty. Many factors that affect crime rates (as well as other societal issues) are completely different in developing versus industrialized nations. That's why whenever these international comparisons are done, researchers tend to look at relatively homogenous groups. With healthcare or education, people are constantly comparing the US versus Western Europe or the rest of the industrialized world. Only right-wingers trying to drive ideology would say something like "but Sudan has single payer!" and think it has anything to do with the HCR debate (not sure how health care actually works in Sudan, but you get my point).

You seem to have at least some rudimentary statistical knowledge, but if you want to be get better at this kind of thing, to the point where you can actually do some credible analysis, then instead of rejecting the mainstream academic research, I suggest you actually examine some of it. Because I think you really are intelligent enough to understand why a valid international analysis requires an apples-to-apples sort of comparison, and I think you are aware that your research is shoddy (and that's why you attempt to divert attention with the "bigotry" stuff).

I know you like the mavericky feeling of ignoring the entire body of peer reviewed research, but believe me, many people much more qualified than you have looked at this question, and it would behoove you to drop your current head-in-the-sand posture and actually try and learn from the way skilled researchers have examined the relationship between guns and violent crime.

[lawodevolution]

119. You post reflects your elitist views, pat yourself on the back

"I know you like the mavericky feeling of ignoring the entire body of peer reviewed research, but believe me, many people much more qualified than you have looked at this question, and it would behoove you to drop your current head-in-the-sand posture and actually try and learn from the way skilled researchers have examined the relationship between guns and violent crime."

Most peer reviewed research is garbage or political propaganda, the "elites" of every generation prove to be ignorant fools and the "mavericks" of every generation end up in history books as the greatest thinkers.

Your post is full of the better than thou attitude that results in you thinking some cultures are better than others and can ignore data from certain countries that you/they think aren't up to the same standard as the ones you/they include.

[DanTex]

122. Well, at least we know how you feel about science...

Most peer reviewed research is garbage or political propaganda, the "elites" of every generation prove to be ignorant fools and the "mavericks" of every generation end up in history books as the greatest thinkers.

It's really ironic that this OP started out complaining that "anti"s aren't interested in "facts". But dig a little deeper and it turns out that the "pro"s are the ones casually dismissing peer-reviewed research as elitist garbage and political propaganda. (And you're not the only one). When presented with facts, statistics, careful and rigorous analysis, you revert back to "I'm right because I said so".



Also, I think it would be better if you could stop accusing me of bigotry. I have made it quite clear that I don't think any one nation or culture is inherently better or worse than any other. We're talking about a methodological question about how to get a more accurate apples-to-apples data comparison. You're just making yourself look bad.

[eqfan592]

124. A couple of points.

Firstly, one person does not represent the whole of the "pros" and a suggestion that one does only underscores your flawed reasoning abilities.

Secondly, while I wouldn't go as far as to say that "most" peer reviewed research is garbage, there IS a fair amount of politically motivated garbage research in the various scientific journals out there, so one must be careful not to put too much stock in any one paper. Not at least until the peer review process has had more time to work on the topic at hand.

[lawodevolution]

129. I believe in true science

I do not like the intellectual dishonesty supposed scientists are willing to commit in order to further their blind faith in gun control. Not all peer reviewed studies are bad, but most of the ones involving guns are.

"Also, I think it would be better if you could stop accusing me of bigotry. I have made it quite clear that I don't think any one nation or culture is inherently better or worse than any other. We're talking about a methodological question about how to get a more accurate apples-to-apples data comparison. You're just making yourself look bad."

apples-to-apples or in other words humans to humans thus we can include all nations.

[DanTex]

130. LOL. "True science" = research that supports your pre-existing conclusion.

True science means letting the evidence determine the conclusions, not vice versa. I doubt you've even read any of the studies. Correct me if I am wrong. Because you just know that the pro-gun side is right, no matter what the studies say. Thus studies have to be wrong. Unless they supported your conclusion, in which case you'd probably find them very interesting and persuasive...

Funny how all pro-gun people talk about intellectual dishonesty of the academic establishment, but as usual provide no evidence other than the fact that the research doesn't go your way.

Denialism.

Believe me, you're not saying anything that global warming denialists and creationists haven't already said a thousand times...

[eqfan592]

131. Once again, you are talking about "all" pro-gun people.

Such generalizations only serve to underscore your own intellectual dishonesty. That, and the fact that you claim no evidence is ever provided when it has been done so time and time again. That you have chosen to ignore it all because it doesn't go YOUR way is your own problem.

[DanTex]

133. OK not all. Just you and a few others. My mistake.

[eqfan592]

135. Have a nice one.

:hi: ;)

[cleanhippie]

137. Yes, your mistake. Among other things.

[lawodevolution]

132. The debate started with you claiming that the comparison of murder rates and

civilian gun possession rate of all nations was bad science without anything backing it up because based on your claim, you must only compare nations that are in your opinion "modern" and "industrialized".

[TheWraith]

138. How exactly do you explain someone like Gary Kleck?

A professional criminologist--as opposed to the epidemiologists who keep trying to expand their field to cover crimes, sort of like a chiropractor performing brain surgery. Also a liberal Dem and card-carrying ACLU member. He started out studying the relationship between guns and crime, expecting the data to confirm his belief that gun control worked. His own data ended up disproving his beliefs and expectations.

Similarly, most of those studies that you like to throw around are woefully flawed, usually on the face of them. Like the studies that "proved" that someone with a gun in the home was umpteen times more likely to die from it... except that they counted guns brought into a house by an intruder as "guns in the home," included suicide, and included data from areas where keeping a gun in the home legally was impossible, making much of their study group by definition people engaged in criminal enterprises, which almost always bring with them a higher risk of death.

[DanTex]

140. Most of what you say is incorrect.

It's not true that "most" studies I cite have been shown to be "woefully" flawed (if it were, you probably would have been able to come up with some real examples of credible refutations). What you are repeating is a common myth in pro-gun circles. Most of these "refutations" that you find on pro-gun internet posts will never appear in peer-reviewed literature, because they are, frankly, garbage. But if you really believe that the "anti-gun" studies are all flawed, then I have no illusions that I am going to be able to change your mind.


Regarding your belief that medical researchers (or, as others have claimed, economists) are not qualified to study gun issues, this ultimately doesn't hold water either. It's actually nothing like a chiropractor performing brain surgery. What's required is skill in analyzing data in a social-science type setting, and it's not just sociologists who are able to do this. Similar to above, this accusation is also popular the "gun-nets", but again you'll be hard pressed to find anyone serious to back this up. For example, I challenge you to find Gary Kleck arguing that epidemiologists and economists have no business studying gun control. Criminologists, economists, and public health types cite each other's papers. If they disagree, they disagree with the actual research, but they don't try to dismiss other research based on what field appears on a degree.

What's more, if we really want to play the "who's more qualified" game, by stereotype both economics and medical sciences would be considered more demanding or "harder" than sociology/criminology. Moreover, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UChicago, etc. (where authors of many these gun studies are from) are all considered more reputable than Florida State (Kleck). Again, nobody serious about research would dismiss anyone because they are from FSU, or because of what it says in their PhD. But if you want to try and dismiss someone as unqualified, the lone criminologist from FSU isn't going to hold up very well versus the numerous scholars in more highly regarded fields at more prestigeous universities.


Finally, regarding Kleck's work, yes, he did provide some evidence contradicting the efficacy of gun control. And in so doing, he became one of the academic heroes of the pro-gun movement, along with John Lott. Most everyone pro-gun, it seems, is aware of Kleck's research, but for some reason they do not seem to be aware of the much larger body of research on guns, the preponderance of which supports the opposite view.

This point was illustrated somewhat humorously in an earlier post on this OP by another pro-gun poster. In an attempt to cite someone other than Kleck supporting the pro-gun position, the poster linked to a paper by authors Cook and Ludwig. Of course, unbeknownst to the poster, Cook and Ludwig, along with most others who have studied this issue, actually conclude that more guns results in more deaths. And so the poster quickly had to revert his stance and argue that Cook and Ludwig were actually not credible after all.

I bring up this incident not because all pro-gun people are responsible for the errors of one individual, but to point out it's rather difficult to step off the Gary Kleck reservation without very quickly running into research that actually contradicts Kleck's work and shows that more guns do in fact cause more crime. It doesn't have to be Cook and Ludwig. There's a lot more of it out there.

[gejohnston]

141. All of the anti gun lit you cite

is funded by the Joyce Foundation or some other monied interest. The John Olin Foundation surprised me. They are all written by the same people That alone make me suspicious of fake. The MDs might have some noble liar reason behind it, but the economists do it for the money. Just because Bush as an MBA from Harvard does not mean he has the brains to run a business.
As for the stuff from the pro gun sites, it almost always says "reprint from (fill in the blank) Law review". I find it on Google Scholar, and there it is. They are almost always require paid subscriptions. Your guys provide for free.
Kleck is not the only one, only the most well known only because he was the first criminologist to study the issue. That is why he did. Other criminologists include Don Kates (who is also a lawyer and clerked for William Kunstler for some time.) and Gary Mauser (a Canadian).

None your people disprove Kleck. Cook and Ludwig actually come up with higher numbers than Kleck when it comes to DGUs. If more guns do cause crime, why is the UK the most violent European country? why do Norway and Switzerland have lower homicide rates than Japan? Why is Russia more violent than us? Why are Vermont and Wyoming the safest states? Even with gun sales soaring, why is crime dropping? No one can prove (nor do I know of anyone who claims) that the inverse is true either as Lott tried to do. Few if anyone here defends Lott. That said, the idea that more guns equals more crime is demonstrably false.

[DanTex]

142. It's all a big academic conspiracy...

... by those ivory tower elites trying to take away your guns!!!

Well, at least one thing that we can all agree is that you are "suspicious of fake". To put it mildly. Maybe while you're at it you can link Ludwig to ACORN and Hemenway to Van Jones....

I guess you still haven't actually read much actual research by Cook and Ludwig (or anyone else, it seems), even though you yourself brought them up. What a shame. I mean, obviously you found Ludwig's home page on your own. Would it really kill you to just take a look at a few of his papers?

psst -- you don't even have to admit to your pro-gun friends that you're reading from the verboten list!!! -- i won't tell, i promise!!! -- i'll just say were reading gary kleck!!

As for the rest of your ramblings, we've been over this ground before. I'm sure that you've really impressed yourself with that homebrew statistical analysis (what, no Liechtenstein?), but (I'll repeat) serious and qualified researchers have looked at the data in a systematic and rigorous fashion and found, time and time again, that more guns equals more deaths.

But don't take my word for it. Instead take the word of (your man) Jens Ludwig.

[gejohnston]

143. I read them

People with no bias read them. They are bogus shill jobs to make a buck and push an ideology.
Your straw man about ACORN or Van Jones shows that you can not defend these "studies" on their own merit. That tells me one of two things:
you are not as comfortable and knowledgeable about academic studies as you claim and do not know how to, or
they are merit less and you know it, but don't care because it serves your purpose to defend them

[eqfan592]

121. You would do well to follow your own advice.

The "entire body "of peer reviewed research" has never left the infancy stage, nor does all of it agree with itself. You continue to speak in reference to a scientific consensus on the issue that does not yet exist. So really, who has their head in the sand again?

[gejohnston]

35. Now compare all murder rates

over half of ours are suicides, and most other business disputes in the drug trade.
Switzerland's murder rate is half of Japans, their gun deaths are almost exclusively suicides.
All of the countries that have higher homicide rates than the US all have very strict gun control laws like Mexico, South Africa, and Russia.

[whoneedstickets]

42. So suicides don't matter to you?

Clearly gun availability results in suicides. Worth stopping?

[gejohnston]

52. Suicides do matter but

but to suggest that more guns equals more suicides is even more absurd than more guns equals more crime. Japan has the highest suicide rate, higher than our murder rate and suicide rate combined. Also, Canada and most of western Europe have higher suicide rates.
When Canada passed their 1977 gun control law had no meaningful effect. It did lower their suicide by shooting slightly, but suicide by other means increased to fill the void/

[lawodevolution]

116. I expect that you will be able to explain why Japan's suicide rate is so much higher than ours given

The gun possession rate there is very low

[petronius]

55. Interesting that the US is such an extreme outlier. Even if we assume that household

ownership is causal, that suggests that there is some other, perhaps more important, process at work. Without addressing that underlying process, reducing firearm availability by any method may not be as effective as hoped.

I'd like to see this with current data, and with other forms of intentional death for comparison...

[whoneedstickets]

56. Winner! Best reasoned responses so far....

.. I agree wholeheartedly

Yes the US value seems extremely high, well above where the regression line would be with the US case removed. I do wonder why.

[gejohnston]

58. Why didn't you just say so, I would have brought the beer..

If you don't mind Red Stripe and Ice House. :beer: :beer: :beer: :grouphug:

[eqfan592]

102. Do you really "wonder why"?

Because in your first post you stated clearly that the graph you posted was "the only stat you need" or something along those lines. That implies that you feel that stat alone is evidence enough for you to deem firearms the primary issue involved. You also made similar implications on other posts in this thread.

Sorry, but you're back peddling now. If you wish to adjust your previous statements to reflect a more rational position on the issue, you are now welcome to do so.

[lawodevolution]

117. Because the other nations are cherry picked in order to make a point

If they included Nigeria, haiti, Mexico, Russia, Jamaica etc their trend would be different.

[TheWraith]

139. Say it with me... DRUG WAR.

The US is an outlier for one simple reason: we're extremely rich, while we have a lot of people who are extremely poor.

Being rich as a culture means that we're a huge sales outlet for illegal drugs, which bring with that black market organized crime, and wars between those criminal groups, from which much of our crime rate stems.

Having huge numbers of people living in poverty, and without certain basic guarantees, means that there's a constant pool of desperate, disadvantaged people--usually young black or hispanic men--who are ripe for being recruited into gangs with the promise of making a living. These men are then exploited as disposable soldiers, to kill or be killed.

In Switzerland, there are hundreds of thousands of machine guns--literal, fully automatic machine guns--sitting in people's homes, right next to their 100 rounds of ammo issued by the Swiss government. Ever wonder why they don't have gang wars swinging through the streets of Bern blasting away on full auto? (Other than in spy movies, I mean.) Quality of life. Being poor in Switzerland is harder, and chances are that you have more basic essentials to fall back on, than if you live in the inner city US.

[rrneck]

62. So

do you have a firearm free self solution that will work better?

[krispos42]

97. Nice graph

If I had a 40" monitor instead of a 17" CRT, I might even be able to see more than 3 data points at a time.



Regardless, I could relabel the Y-axis of your graph "fatalities directly caused by green-painted automobiles", the X-axis "% households with green-painted automobiles"... and come to the conclusion that society would benefit by outlawing green-painted automobies.


Here's a counter-graph. I'm sorry it's not D-sized. Please accept my apologies.

[Katya Mullethov]

134. Speaking of fact filled posts

Anybody seen Mrs Terry's testimony on the net yet ?

[DissedByBush]

136. The correlation is interesting

For example, New Zealand has twice as many households with guns, yet half as many deaths as Australia.

And I've lived in Germany, it's the rare person who has a gun. I've known hundreds, not one with a gun. Ten percent does not sound right.

[slackmaster]

6. A little while I started a browser that didn't have my login creds cached

It's amazing how much noise I have cut out by using the Ignore feature.

[guardian]

11. facts are irrelevant

when you argue a religious position. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting.

[onehandle]

16. Yes. Only links from such fine sites as 'Human Events,' 'Ammoland,' 'Washington Times,' 'NRAILA'...

...'examiner.com' and the like should be allowed.

The theory of dead people is overrated and unproven.

[Logical]

39. You know the anti's here love the "nutty gun owner" stories. And never comment on them. n-t

[gejohnston]

45. By your logic, congress repealed the National Firearms Act of1934

because some semi-literate at Crooks and Liars parroted some Al Qaida guy saying that you can buy machine guns with no questions asked? And wrote it without doing research and then was copied at Think Progress.


Speaking of your theory of dead bodies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Everyone with higher murder rates than us have UK style gun laws including North Korea.

[jpak]

50. Get used to it

yup

[spin]

60. Yup, to some facts are irrelevant. If you repeat a falsehood enough people believe you. (n/t)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

61. agreed.

[DanTex]

63. Well this is a strange OP...

My experience here has been that, with few exceptions (like zero or maybe one...), the pro-gun people here have absolutely no familiarity with the scholarly literature on gun control. It's just repetition of slogans, without actual research. And to the extent that people do know that gun control has actually been studied rigorously, people here act like Gary Kleck and John Lott are the only two people to have ever looked at the issue. The reality is that there is a robust body of mainstream academic research which very convincingly demonstrates that gun availability increases homicide and other violent crime, but most people on here seem blissfully unaware of any of it. Or else they write it off as "elite bias" -- it's the same "reality has a liberal bias" issue all over again.

The statistics are pretty clear, and I've personally provided many references to peer reviewed studies about various aspects of the gun issue. I doubt that many of the pro-gun people here have checked any of them out, because they don't seem interested in facts, only ideology (although admittedly many papers aren't available for free on the web). But if I'm wrong about this, here's a reasonably readable survey paper by respected scholars, discussing the myths about right-to-carry laws that are popular among gun advocates. It's from 2000, and a lot more research supporting gun control has come out since then, including the landmark Ayres and Donohue study on CCW, but it has the advantage of being short and very readable. If you want to move beyond empty posturing and read something by someone with real expertise, you might want to take a look. I won't hold my breath...
http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

[gejohnston]

68. have any by criminologists?

The second are economists paid by the Joyce Foundation.

Ayres, you did not research well. He is also an economist, wrote a similar study with Donohue funded by the John Olin Foundation and his website is here. His other writings are interesting.

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayres/indexempirical.htm

http://ideas.repec.org/e/pay38.html

Mr. Donohue's page at Milton Friedman's School of Economics. Same guy.

http://mfi.uchicago.edu/people/donohue.shtml

John Olin and Milton Friedman, yeah real icons of the "liberal elite"

[whoneedstickets]

70. criminology is an academic backwater...

My sense is that there's more intellectual ability in one top tier econ department than in the entire discipline of criminology.

[gejohnston]

73. none of these guys strike me as top tier besides

backwater or not, I'll take a respected and award winning criminologist over fourth rate economists that write shill studies paid for by the Joyce Foundation.

Sorry, criminology is every bit as a legitimate science as economics.

[DanTex]

74. LOL that's a good point actually.

Not to be prejudiced, but, very true, you don't instinctively associate sociology with intellectual fortitude...

But this particular poster is just looking for any way to deny the reality that the overwhelming consensus of academic research supports gun control. What's most amusing is that the biggest proponent of the "more guns less crime" theory, (the author of the book by that title) is on John Lott, right wing economist from AEI.

[gejohnston]

78. Never said anything about Lott

Lott is no different than these clowns. Sorry we played this game before. These guys look pretty right wing to me. You will read anything you want into it, distort to serve our purpose, and quite frankly I don't think you know jack shit about academics. It is the arrogant and patronizing attitude that you use to create the facade of knowing what you are talking about.

Notice you mentioned Lott. I never mentioned Lott. Lott is every bit as full of shit as your two guys. The only difference is the paymaster. I told you that before.

[DanTex]

77. See my post on denialism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x422849

Denialists will always find a way to ignore reality. You are doing great. Keep it up. Just make sure you don't actually look at any research or real data. Because, I don't think that would go too well, if I recall correctly...

[gejohnston]

79. Project much?

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

84. Yeah, and college, and I lived in more countries than you most likely been in states

you are the one with the noise with your bogus studies and nontruth.

When cornered, you always use a patronizing personal attack to try to make yourself look superior or smarter. You are being true to form.

[DanTex]

89. Still no actual data or research...

I'll take your word on your worldliness and education. But I will point out that you haven't (yet) claimed to have any graduate education meaning that you truly have zero experience with academic research. Am I right?

It wouldn't be a big deal, except that you have explicitly stated "I don't think you know jack shit about academics". Wow, a vulgar personal attack! I guess you don't like personal attacks unless you are the one doing the attacking...

[gejohnston]

91. I tend to be blunt and straight up in my attacks. I don't pretend that I

am better than anyone else to make my self look better. You have been given data and research even done by liberals, even ones that would like to disarm the police as well. You dismiss them out of hand without reading them, so what's the point?

Only this time you show up with another Joyce foundation play for pay and a couple of guys from working for and taking money from right wing money bags John Olin.

[DanTex]

93. LOL. Still no actual data or research...

But I like the way you rationalize your personal attacks. Very nice. You're also quite skilled at ignoring data that doesn't align with your pre-existing ideological disposition.

Anyway, I know you have some research hidden away somewhere. You can't just be faking it completely. You seem so certain of your position, and so dismissive of the general body of academic research on guns. There's got to be more than empty rhetoric. Right?

Come on! Just one paper! I know you can do it! Do I need to hit google for you?

OK you win, here it is. The classic, the old testament of the gun lobby (new testament would be Lott+Mustard). That's right, it's Gary Kleck's number 1 hit: Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun!!!!!

Was that so hard?

[gejohnston]

95. I read all of the papers. You have yet to read Kleck's or

Wolfgang's, or Kate's work. This whole post is projection on your part. I don't have time for your childish nonsense. Back to the childrens' table with you. bye.

[DanTex]

96. Always a good time.

You know, we've gone back and forth a lot, and you never even managed to post a link to Kleck's seminal paper. I had to find it for you!

Do you really think I haven't read it? Really?

I have to ask: have you read it? Did you even know about it until now, or did you just know the name Kleck?



PS Is that "childrens' table" thing a personal attack? Where do you stand on personal attacks? They're OK as long as they're coming from you??

[eqfan592]

104. Not so much a personal attack...

...as an accurate assessment of your behavior. ;)

[eqfan592]

103. Lol, that's pretty much ALL he does. nt

[hlthe2b]

64. The carnage of gun violence is not going away & nor should the posts

that document both the incidents and the circumstances. You speak about "responsible" gun ownership, well there is an irresponsible side to it, too and the repercussions can't just be swept under the carpet, no matter how inconvenient.

[gejohnston]

69. how about addressing violence as a whole?

A more peaceful society means less violence regardless of weapon used.

[whoneedstickets]

71. Amen!

This is the reason I agreed above with the post that commented on multiple sources of gun violence (beyond availability) we need a more peaceful society. (period)

[gejohnston]

75. so a some place with little gun violence but

has a higher homicide rate and more violence than we do (like Russia) is OK?

[whoneedstickets]

86. No, we need less violence..

and less guns. One we can legislate the other requires a culture shift.

[gejohnston]

87. if you have less violence, what difference does the guns matter?

Or is the real issue the guns and the rural culture that goes with it? I noticed that antis always talk about gun violence but does not seem the least concerned about violence by other means or violence in general.

[whoneedstickets]

88. Frankly, I'd be happy with an Australian level of regulation

Strict, permits for express sporting or hunting purposes. Limited magazine or clip capacity (5). No handguns.

I have no qualms with sport shooting or hunting or "rural life". Handguns are a scourge on society and the source of most gun violence.

[gejohnston]

90. but Australia's crime did not drop. There was no effect.

According to DOJ's own statistics, someone with a handgun prevents a 219 violent crimes from happening to them. That means if your dream were to come true without the culture shift, there would be at least 219 more rapes, violent assaults, robberies, home invasions etc. Some criminologists make the number higher. Humans are the source of all violence. You already said that you don't care about 80 percent of all violent crime in the US. That is the percentage of violent crime where guns are not used. Homicide is a very small percentage of that. That does not matter to you, because you said that the average person should not have the means to defend themselves with the best device possible. I find that morally repugnant and counter to one of the pillars of the enlightenment. This return to Edmund Burke conservatism is the scourge of the "progressive" movement.

[whoneedstickets]

92. FACT check...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

[gejohnston]

94. never said it increased

it focused solely on homicides and firearms used in homicides. Is there evidence that one caused the other? With record sales of guns in the US, why is ours dropping? Looking at every place in the world, there is no correlation nor is there causation. That was my point. So what does my target pistol have to do with violent crime in some city?
I noticed that you did not mention anything about the rest of the post.

I sometimes tend to be rather blunt, but quite frankly the average bong owner contributes more to gun violence than 99.9 percent of all American and Canadian gun owners combined. Why do I say that? Most of our murderers have criminal records. A large percentage of them have prior felony convictions. So do the victims. Most of these are "business" disputes in the drug trade. The same is true of Europe. While they have fewer less "gun deaths" and most are still committed with pistols, however sub-machine guns are used more frequently than here.


On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.

That does not conflict what I said at all.

[DanTex]

99. And if you believe this, then I have a bridge to sell you...

According to DOJ's own statistics, someone with a handgun prevents a 219 violent crimes from happening to them.

Funny, I don't carry a handgun, and I haven't had anywhere near 219 violent crimes happen to me. So i guess if I start carrying, the number of violent crimes that happen to me will suddenly drop to negative 219...

Do you really think it's a good idea for you to start trying to analyze data again?

Are you ever going to link to some actual data or research?

[gejohnston]

100. you miss read

219 violent crimes per day. I have it find it since my bookmarks went with previous operating system.

Still nothing about my larger point?

[gejohnston]

101. my bad, more accurately I misprinted

Here are a couple. All written by criminologists. Ludwick thinks Kleck over estimated. Out of the studies I read, they are all over the map but all out number the number of homicides. I chose a more conservative estimate. Either way the National Academy of Science came to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove anyone on either side. Fine with me, since your side tends to use a lot of disinformation and emotional values based arguments.

http://jthomasniu.org/class/Stuff/PDF/kleck3.pdf

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JQC-CookLudwig-DefensiveGunUses-1998.pdf

Some books you might be interested in.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QXeGX67ezSYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=gary+kleck&ots=nUxSBocsNy&sig=VlnGKH6bJDnl-h0MWNmJK-RMiJk#v=onepage&q&f=false

Since your entire argument is value based, I have already responded with a values based argument.

[DanTex]

105. Wow! You're citing Cook and Ludwig!

You're off the reservation!

Did you realize Jens Ludwig is one of the authors of the paper I cited in this post? In cased you missed it, it's a persuasive debunking of Kleck and Lott's more guns, less crime research, along with support of the mainstream view that gun availability increases homicide.
http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf
Now that you approve of the author, you might actually try reading it!

Since you apparently agree that Cook and Ludwig are reliable sources, let's have some fun!

Here's a paper that argues that increased gun ownership causes more homicide, and estimates the societal cost in dollars.
http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/research/papers/SAN04-07.pdf

Here's a paper by Ludwig rebutting the "CCW reduces crime" myth, which concludes: "shall-issue laws have resulted, if anything, in
an increase in adult homicide rates".
https://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/IJLE-ConcealedGunLaws-1998.pdf

Here's a paper that argues that gun prevalence actually tends to induce more burglaries, rather than deter them:
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/nbrnberwo/8926.htm

Here's a tip: just stick to Kleck and Lott. If you're really trying to deny that higher gun availability results in more homicide, you have to be really careful, because almost all researchers who have examined the topic have found such a link.

[gejohnston]

107. If you read cook and lugwig

closer, they came up with a higher estimate than Kleck.


Sorry, more scribblings from fourth rate economists written paid for by Joyce Foundation and the very right wing John Olin Foundation is not going to improve argument.

No one said CCW reduces crime. We simply pointed out that it did not increase it. Who said gun ownership prevented burglaries, the only thing anyone said that US burglaries cased the place and broke in when no one was home.

[DanTex]

108. LOL, keep digging...

In case you didn't notice, the three papers that you call "scribblings from fourth rate economists" are actually by the same authors, Cook and Ludwig, that you cited as reliable in your last post. I thought I made that clear, but it's kind of funny that you didn't pick up on it because now we all get some insight into your strategy for ignoring reality.

Looks like your central play is to dismiss all research that doesn't support your views as having been written by "fourth rate economists". You don't actually bother and determine who the authors actually are, because no matter who it is, you are still going to dismiss them the same way. Even if they are neither economists nor fourth rate. Even if they are the same authors that you cited two posts ago as credible. You even linked to Jens Ludwig's homepage, but I guess you didn't spend much time there...


In case you missed it (again), Jens Ludwig (your man) was the one of the co-authors of the paper I linked to in my first response to this OP. Since I doubt you'll read it, let me excerpt a key paragraph.

Although research by John Lott and Gary Kleck has challenged the prevailing view that
gun regulations can reduce lethal crimes, the many limitations of Lott’s and Kleck’s research
indicate that there is no reason to move from view of guns and violence backed by research in
previous decades. Until proven otherwise, the best science indicates that more guns will lead
to more deaths.

[gejohnston]

109. I included them for balance, but their numbers don't seem to

match their findings, or the simple fact that our crime rate is decreasing while gun sales are soaring, or that all of the countries that have higher murder rates all have stricter gun laws than us.
As it has been pointed out to you before, publishing is only the beginning.
Ayers is a fourth rate economist that writes diet books that takes money from Joyce Foundation and John Olin Foundation. Olin also funds every right wing think tank.

[DanTex]

110. Let's call this one the "Ludwig Debacle"

So now you just included them "for balance" and you didn't really present them as credible researchers. RRRRRiiiiiiight...

[eqfan592]

111. lol, I wish I could say I was shocked at your...

...inability to understand that tactic in a debate. But given your past history, very little you say shocks me anymore.

[DanTex]

112. I'm starting to sense animosity. Have I done something to offend you?

You keep hitting me with these crushing one-liners.

:cry:

[gejohnston]

128. How about the Ayres debacle?

Ecomonists and MDs that get money from the Joyce Foundation and other think tanks that you decry, including

A half assed economist that writes diet books and and a Milton Freidman clone who gets grant money from John Olin.

[gejohnston]

98. to clarify

that is 219 deterred a day, and is conservative. As I said, some studies by criminologists put the number much higher.

[ileus]

65. What we need is a true firearms friendly sub-cat

Hunting
Self Defense
Target
Collecting


all the positives of the second amendment and firearm ownership...