Discussion in 'ABV' started by CarolKing, Jul 11, 2015.
Social Justice Foundation?.....Talk about cherry picking articles. Did you read the comments below that debunked the article? The assault weapons ban didn't work and Columbine happened in the middle of it.
I haven't? Even in my last post above.
Please do, that's all this has been .
It is devisive not funny
I believe FC should be a "gun free" zone
There is just a devide in thinking. You are proving my point with the last two post. When the left doesnt like something they want it abolished. What happened to turning the channel, page or post? Its true we wont solve anything here but I like a polite political conversation. At the very least we might at least see why we think differently....no one expects to change minds.
I Like debate
This ain't the place
Look at the name of the Thread
This place is about FC
not WTF is wrong with America
Sounds like Politics
I do change the channel but this is like watching a train wreck
ya just got to look
and it goes on and on and on and on
FuckCombustion can be a gun free zone for anyone who takes responsibility!
Stop coming to the thread.
FC becomes gun free for you!
It is a little like the debate here. Collective security versus individual freedom are values that are incompatible and there is always tension between the two. There are risks and benefits of each.
The man stated this place isn't about politics
This is not Politics?
Quit breaking the rules
The thread has been political not entertainment
I suppose I shall go where ever I choose until someone makes me do different
I have my rights
Because they are "rights", you don't need my approval to exercise them! But, I approve!
It's too bad that you want to infringe on my rights to get your wishes.
No not even in your last post. An open mind would mean that you listen respectfully to both sides with a willingness to change you mind.
This has been anything but a polite conversation.
A great example of exactly the sort of nonsense that I posted my list to avoid. "The left" is not nearly so homogenized, and wanting things abolished is just as prevalent on "the right". Immigration ban, anyone? Would you like a side of traditional marriage to go with that?
I'm not trying to get into a debate here so please don't respond. This thread is a nightmare for us to moderate. Anyone else can stop reading it if it offends/bores/bothers them. We can't. We have to put up with all the silly name-calling, misrepresentation of the other side, straw man arguments, circular reasoning, proof by cherry-picking data, sidetracking to even more incendiary topics, inappropriate and silly demands for definitions, emotionally loaded language, attempts to enrage the opponent, and I could go on a lot longer but it makes my head hurt.
One more time: everyone should read the list I posted and post accordingly. If people continue to use any of the dishonest tricks in that list, I will close this thread.
...Im done....Have a nice day.
So your response to this is to call me biased and misrepresent what I said, despite me saying that I was not interested in debating anything. Then you accuse me of being petty enough to punish you. That might be the way you'd respond, but trust me, this isn't my first rodeo. I've been moderating forums for over 30 years. I don't care what you think of me or FC, just follow the rules.
WTF?!?! That poster must be krazy!
Concealed Carry Laws lead to a 13-15% increase in violent crime.
One day in the future, we will govern based on science and evidence.
Bias Check, Center-Right
Damn! I thought I found and deleted all those pics of me?
Did you read the study? While I'm glad we are talking of facts and appreciate you including a link to the actual study, there are problems with such a claim as you make.
First, while you did a "bias check" on the organization that published the study, one might find some value from looking up the authors as well. When the authors get results that confirm their beliefs all the time, it does not make the study or its fact and conclusions wrong, but it does mean that bias in the study must be carefully avoided. Part of the reason for statistics to check the data is to avoid the problem.
However, this study is really about statistics. The authors make many assumptions and try to eliminate variables to come up with a single influence. They take data that has been addressed by studies and run it through new models of calculation of the data to try to get rid of the co-variant influences. Apparently, all the models confirm the author's bias. Therefore, the models must be true.
Another way to say the conclusion @florduh wrote is:
Now the results were uniform: for all four specifications, states that passed RTC laws experienced 13-15% higher aggregate violent crime rates than their synthetic controls after 10 years (results that were significant at either the .05 or .01 level after five years). The synthetic controls estimates for the impact of RTC laws on murder and property crime were also uniformly positive after ten years (but not statistically significant). If one adjusts the synthetic controls estimates for the increased rates of police and incarceration that follow RTC adoption, the RTC-induced increases in murder become large and statistically significant.
Guess who greeted the Parkland students when they went back to school? (While the picture is only from Reddit so may not be "True", it's true in that there are many articles about therapy dogs welcoming the students back.)
@OldNewbie I was being generous calling the organization's bias "Center-Right". The Media Bias Fact Check came out as plain 'ol "Right". Same as Fox. I highly doubt they are in the business of publishing studies from Left Wing Commies.
I have no idea what you mean by "Apparently, all the models confirm the author's bias. Therefore, the models must be true."
You don't know that's true at all.
And of course the study is based on statistics. That's how many scientific papers, and basically all "social science" papers are structured.
At the end of the day, find a published study that shows Concealed Carry Laws lead to safer societies. That's the claim that gun advocates make. Let's see the evidence to back it up.
And there were no problems with the claim I made. According to this study, RTC laws lead to a significant increase in violent crime. No amount of spin can change the conclusions of this paper.
Unless I'm mistaken, part of the study was to debunk some of the previous data. Previous studies were equivocal on the results. Some showed positive effect, some showed negative effect and some showed no statistically significant effect. If you need the studies to show Concealed Carry Laws lead to safer societies, just find them in the bibliography and discussion.
As to all social science studies, I don't read them all. But, how many are reporting predictions 10 years down the line? I can give you a shit-ton load of economic studies that predict some aspect of the economy 10 years in the future. When you look at the retrospective studies, it seems the predictions are little better than a monkey throwing darts at a board. (As the Wall Street Journal used as an experiment once a year as an annual dig at portfolio managers.)
Even then, it is beside the point as to the basic difference between the sides. While it may be interesting how the herd is affected by things, it is of more interest to me how I am affected by things. Even though I believe my neighborhood is safer because I own firearms, that is not the reason. *I* (And, my family.) are safer.
Now I know the next step as we've already gone through it. There will be some statistic thrown out about how gun owners are not safer. I will point out the significance of those studies are more to address the suicide problem than the mass shooting or criminal act problem of firearms so are irrelevant to me. Do I want the government to take care of me or the freedom to take care of myself?
For the Rorschach test, was the result here good or bad? (Warning! This is a shooting, don't click if you don't want to see.)
It's from Brazil, so has no specific relevance here other than to determine value of outcome. Even if we were to assume zero risk to life from the robber if there were no others armed there (A false assumption, but useful to focus on something less argumentative.), is the cost or benefit to society greater if we grievously hurt the robber or if we let him take the money? That is a real question as we are balancing life against (probably not that much) money. Something that, as a statistical matter, usually requires a whole lot of money to make the balance equal.
Well there's the rub. Gun owners Feeling safe is the most important thing. It doesn't matter that their gun ownership actually makes society less safe according to most objective measures.
The basic libertarian argument is that you should be allowed to do anything you want, so long as it doesn't harm your neighbor. Well, our current free-for-all system of gun ownership absolutely harms all of us.
I support gun ownership. But we need to take steps to ensure only qualified, sane people own them.
Well, back to the straw man/men I see. Too bad, it looked like we might have gotten out of the circle of futility for a moment.
Nope. I literally summarized what you said.
Your personal feeling of safety is the most important thing. Regardless of the negative effects a laissez faire system of gun ownership has on society. Not a straw man.
I followed up by saying I support gun ownership for qualified, sane people.
I'm being quite reasonable.
Res ipsa loquitur.
The reader may form his own opinion.
The Founders were adherents of natural rights theory. The U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights was an add on, a year in, universally understood as an explicit statement of inalienable rights already implied and protected in the original constitution. It sought not to "grant" rights to U.S. citizens, but simply to clarify limitations on governmental power as a barrier to future tyranny.
Many of the Founders opposed the Bill of Rights, for fear it might suggest that the amendments "created" rights already, and again inalienably, held by free men, and potentially might suggest it was somehow a comprehensive list. To reach consensus the drafters included a nod to natural rights, the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The right to keep and bear arms, for self defense, hunting, *and* as a guarantor against governmental oppression, was thus considered by the Founders as among the fundamental rights of man that no government can take away legitimately. Most state constitutions, at the time, provided similar language. Founders spoke outright about the armed citizenry as a guarantor that the U.S. federal government would not, and could not, oppress the States or the People.
Until the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court invention of "incorporation", the Bill of Rights imposed no legal obligations upon the States. For example, at the time the Constitution was ratified, the State of Massachusetts *required* its citizens to participate in religious observance, in a way that rises easily, as we think of it today, to the level of an official state religion -- yet no one thought the Constitution's First Amendment posed any problem for Massachusetts.
After the Civil War and the ratification of the 14th Amendment, with the Civil War's renegade states denying rights to freed slaves, the Supreme Court began to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment, and apply federal power to impose its enumerated rights.
Remarkably, it was not until 1925 that the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to overturn state or local law restricting free speech or imposing religious duties. The Second Amendment was incorporated in the 21st Century.
In DC vs. Heller in 2008, the Court held 5-4 that yes, the 2nd Amendment guarantees an *individual right* to keep and bear arms, and that it was unconstitutional for Washington, D.C. to ban handgun ownership. That's now black letter Supreme Court precedent.
A decade before the case, btw, liberal lion Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence Tribe acknowledged the individual right component of the 2nd Amendment is "unassailable". Justice Anton Scalia wrote extensively on the "militia" as meaning, unambiguously at the Founding, all able bodied men, not a creation of state governments.
It's is widely understood, however, that the U.S. will tip pretty drastically with the next one or two Supreme Court appointments, either to roll the 2nd Amendment forward to full incorporation parity with constitutional elements like the First Amendment, guaranteeing citizens, for example protection from blanket prohibitions on concealed carry; or to full curtailment, such that gun confiscation from law abiding citizens gets a full Supreme Court endorsement. The eldest, most infirm member of the court is far left activist (former head of the ACLU) Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Odds are, she'll be replaced by a Donald Trump appointment.
The origin of gun control in the U.S. was the so-called "Jim Crow" era, and sought above all else to keep guns from blacks fighting for civil rights -- and often for life itself -- amidst widespread KKK membership and an unholy alliance between the KKK and the Democratic Party that ruled the old South. There is perhaps no clearer case for the application of the 14th Amendment to guarantee natural rights. The history of the NRA and its black charters in the South is civil rights history.
Separate names with a comma.