4
   

Crime Decreases As Numbers of Gun Owners Rise

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 02:59 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Do I dispute your bait and switch?
I ignored it because of what it is.
I think we have a failure to communicate.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 03:12 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Here are 12 law enforcement officers killed by CCW holders
www.vpc.org/fact_sht/ccwlawenforcement.pdf
WHAT is your point ?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 03:17 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I think the only failure is in I see no reason to let you change the subject from

Crime decreases as numbers of Gun owners rise

to

Crime didn't become rampant because of the rise in gun owners

OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 03:19 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
I think the only failure is in I see no reason to let you change the subject from

Crime decreases as numbers of Gun owners rise

to

Crime didn't become rampant because of the rise in gun owners
One is contained within the other.
I asked u if u disputed it, and u failed to respond.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 08:03 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
No, one is NOT contained in the other.

You made a claim that more guns reduced crime. That ONLY means that more guns reduce crime. There are several different things that can happen to make your statement false. You are trying to argue that if the opposite extreme is false then your statement must be true. That is false logic David. Surely you can see that.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 10:07 pm
@parados,

parados wrote:
No, one is NOT contained in the other.

You made a claim that more guns reduced crime. That ONLY means that more guns reduce crime. There are several different things that can happen to make your statement false. You are trying to argue that if the opposite extreme is false then your statement must be true. That is false logic David. Surely you can see that.
I see your point.
In the face of it, I wish that I had crafted my headline differently.
One statement expresses the principle less aggressively than the other.

I sure wish that Lott, or any freedom-loving competent statistician,
were in this conversation. I am not doing a very good job of representing the pro-freedom position.





David
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2011 07:21 am
@OmSigDAVID,
The simple fact is that statistics don't support more guns less crime. Nor do they support more guns equals carnage.

As the rebuttal to Lott shows, CCW can be shown to have an effect or not depending on which factors you want to adjust for.
Quote:
Indeed, when the flawed instruments are dropped
in lines 5 and 6, the estimated effect on crime of shall-issue law adoption is
never significantly different from zero. Accordingly, the evidence from 2SLS
estimation, in our view, offers no support for the more guns, less crime
hypothesis.75
0 Replies
 
33export
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2013 10:40 am
[The Gun owners of New York were busy fighting crime yesterday.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2013 11:24 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You wrote,
Quote:
John Lott is making the point
that altho leftists, those who wish to suppress
the right to personal defense from predatory violence,


If you ever bother to look at statistics of gun violence by country, you'll see that the US is way ahead of all other countries.

Not only that, but none of the statistics show the cost of increased health care based on gun violence. "All righties" ignore this very important issue of health care costs by gun violence. Add to that the number of crimes committed by guns that includes robbery, killing of children and family members, and the suffering and anguish of the family members who lose loved ones through gun violence.

You suffer from myopia. The second amendment was written at a time when a national malitia made sense. We now have the most powerful military in the world where a domestic malitia doesn't make any sense.

The idea that a gun will protect the owner from crime is laughable at best; it only increases gun violence as proven by the statistics.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2013 04:18 pm
@33export,
33export wrote:

[The Gun owners of New York were busy fighting crime yesterday.


Criminals rarely take a day off... I just wish the victims had a fighting chance to defend themselves.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2013 05:16 pm
@H2O MAN,
And I wish those kids in Conn had a fighting chance to living.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2013 06:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Having a few teachers and staff trained and armed to defend themselves and the kids
may have given everyone a fighting chance, but politicians decided to take this God
given right that's protected by our constitution away from them. Shame on the politicians
responsible for doing this, shame on all politicians that don't support our constitution.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2013 06:06 pm
@H2O MAN,
I missed where God gave us gun rights.

can you please point me to that verse?
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2013 07:26 pm
@Rockhead,
The right to defend ourselves and others, did you miss that?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2013 08:30 pm
@H2O MAN,
It goes something like this; "thou shalt not kill."

What do you own that's worth a human life?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2013 08:43 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

I missed where God gave us gun rights.

can you please point me to that verse?
Jesus said that if u don't have a sword,
u better buy one. Luke 22:36
We can extrapolate the principle to handguns.






Most. if not all, creatures on Earth have the means
of self defense; ours is our intellect and its fruits.





David
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2013 08:48 pm
Thou shalt not kill unless it's in self defense.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2013 09:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

And I wish those kids in Conn had a fighting chance to living.
In furtherance of that philosophy,
I armed myself with a. .38 Smith & Wesson revolver at age 8.
I took it everywhere.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2013 09:09 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Thou shalt not kill unless it's in self defense.
Harvesting food is OK.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2013 09:50 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

Thou shalt not kill unless it's in self defense.
Harvesting food is OK.


And it's usually not considered a criminal act.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2019 at 07:38:41