Petition to allow Open Carry at Republican convention

[HamburgerBoy]

You doubt people made that claim? Or you don't know if people made such claims?
I also didn't say you made such claims.
Is there a particular reason why you are avoiding the question? Is it because you think the claim is bullshit?

It's a simple question with a simple yes or no answer. Do more guns makes us safer? If the answer is yes then it would be insane not to allow people to bring their guns to the convention (especially considering how violent some of the presidential rallies have been). If the answer is no then perhaps you can talk some sense into the minds of gun nuts and explain to them how shades of grey work when it comes to guns and the public.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/12/21/167785169/live-blog-nra-news-conference

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

I already answered: an unprotected college campus is not the same thing as a stadium where security actively check for weapons. Guns make some individuals safer, others less safe, and have no impact on the safety of the majority of people they happen to be around.

For one: The NRA.

All the time. After every single massacre.

Every. Fucking. Time.

They're called massacres because the people that commit them do so for the purpose of killing as many people as possible until they themselves are killed. Saying that guns can help to stop massacres does not mean that they will help to stop assassinations.

 

[glenn1]

You're not going to respond to your wrongness from before, eh?

Or should we be expecting it?

I guess it really is too much to ask to specify what you're talking about rather than just mentioning some random "before" thing.

 

[ivwshane]

I already answered: an unprotected college campus is not the same thing as a stadium where security actively check for weapons. Guns make some individuals safer, others less safe, and have no impact on the safety of the majority of people they happen to be around.



They're called massacres because the people that commit them do so for the purpose of killing as many people as possible until they themselves are killed. Saying that guns can help to stop massacres does not mean that they will help to stop assassinations.

So to summarize: the claim that more guns keeps us safer is bullshit. Right? Or are you now going to claim that the people and the NRA who made such claims had stipulations that just weren't included in their quotes?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So to summarize: the claim that more guns keeps us safer is bullshit. Right? Or are you now going to claim that the people and the NRA who made such claims had stipulations that just weren't included in their quotes?

If anyone is making a claim that guns always make everyone safer, I would agree that it is a bullshit claim, sure.

 

[ivwshane]

If anyone is making a claim that guns always make everyone safer, I would agree that it is a bullshit claim, sure.

Are you denying the links I provided don't have people making that claim? Or are you just saying anyone making that claim is spouting bullshit? Because there is no "if" about it. The claims have been made, repeated, and even put in book form.

 

[glenn1]

Are you denying the links I provided don't have people making that claim? Or are you just saying anyone making that claim is spouting bullshit? Because there is no "if" about it. The claims have been made, repeated, and even put in book form.

Thank goodness you're here to save us all. And you know what, people say drinking water is always good for you too, when that's clearly not the case since some people are murdered by drowning in water. We should ban the open carrying of water bottles too, for our own safety. Who knows what damage someone could do with an Dihydrogen Monoxide assault weapon of doom.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The NRA representative in your first link is referring to a school shooting, a specific kind of gun violence, and on top of that, appears to be calling primarily for armed and trained guards at schools, not Ms. Watson of first grade necessarily carrying herself.

Your second link, maybe, I don't feel like reading that guy's studies to determine exactly what he said, but I'll admit that I'm sure some simpletons out there have argued that gun availability always reduces violent crime without exception, sure.

 

[ivwshane]

Thank goodness you're here to save us all. And you know what, people say drinking water is always good for you too, when that's clearly not the case since some people are murdered by drowning in water. We should ban the open carrying of water bottles too, for our own safety. Who knows what damage someone could do with an Dihydrogen Monoxide assault weapon of doom.

Unfortunately I can't save everyone. You'll have to die alone, pathetic, and full of straw.

What's funny about your post is that it's a perfect analogy for the type of shit gun nutters believe. I'm not the one who is making hyperbolic statements and claiming them to be facts.

But you go on sport, you keep up the good fight, fighting those who point out the errors in logic by others.

 

[HomerJS]

Chiptole.

Their property, their rules. The right of people not to have guns banned by scared leftwing nitwits says nothing about the right of others banning the possession of guns on THEIR property.

Was that really complicated or something?


This thread full of utter lefty nitwits is still going?

It's like a free speech debate.

Stance:"Freedom of Speech is an important right that politicians shouldn't limit willy-nilly."

Dumb lefty doofus that ALWAYS misunderstands everything purposefully in order to score BONE-STUPID political points: "OH, So you MUST be saying I can stand around at the convention and yell FIRE!! and BOMB!!! at the top of my lungs and incite panic, right??!! RIGHT?!!! After all, you just said that freedom of speech means any speech, anywhere, any time!!! AHAHA!! GOTCHA!!! AHAHAHAHAHA!!! I'M SO FUCKING BRILLIANT!!!! HOMERJHNNNDUURPHONKUSKNUCKLEHEAD agrees and circle jerks to my brilliant point!!!"

This stupidity is a form of the above.


But by all means, carry on.

How many family values married Republicans get caught banging other women?

How many publically pro-life Republicans would be the first in line at Planned Parenthood if their precious little girl got knocked up at a party by some scary dark skinned black man?

You will never admit to the hypocritical position of Republicans more guns make us safer.

 

[ivwshane]

The NRA representative in your first link is referring to a school shooting, a specific kind of gun violence, and on top of that, appears to be calling primarily for armed and trained guards at schools, not Ms. Watson of first grade necessarily carrying herself.

Your second link, maybe, I don't feel like reading that guy's studies to determine exactly what he said, but I'll admit that I'm sure some simpletons out there have argued that gun availability always reduces violent crime without exception, sure.

Are you familiar with the term "weasel"?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/more-guns-less-crime-2013

In 1979, when Brady Campaign was known as Handgun Control, Inc., it updated its prediction, saying, “Right now over 50 million HANDGUNS flood the houses and streets of our nation. . . . HANDGUN production and sales are out of control. . . . If we continue at this pace, we will have equipped ourselves with more than 100 million HANDGUNS by the turn of the century. One hundred million HANDGUNS. Will we be safer then?”10 As the crime trends discussed indicate, the answer to the group’s question appears to be “yes.”

Here is a nice little Facebook post by the NRA making the same claim.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...nalRifleAssociation/videos/10153803544081833/

Would you like to weasel out of these too?

 

[glenn1]

Unfortunately I can't save everyone. You'll have to die alone, pathetic, and full of straw.

What's funny about your post is that it's a perfect analogy for the type of shit gun nutters believe. I'm not the one who is making hyperbolic statements and claiming them to be facts.

But you go on sport, you keep up the good fight, fighting those who point out the errors in logic by others.

It will have as much impact on open and concealed carry laws as both your posts and the OPs - none whatsoever. You've done your daily duty to offer up your opinion that gun owners are stupid and carrying is stupid, now you can return to your daily life of drudgery and being ignored by those states who are passing more laws you'll hate with Idaho being the latest.

 

[ivwshane]

It will have as much impact on open and concealed carry laws as both your posts and the OPs - none whatsoever. You've done your daily duty to offer up your opinion that gun owners are stupid and carrying is stupid, now you can return to your daily life of drudgery and being ignored by those states who are passing more laws you'll hate with Idaho being the latest.

And yet here you are posting your opinion on a message board as well. I guess the only opinions that matter to you are the ones that are backed by a majority of people even if their opinions are based on bad logic.

Your concerned trolling is noted.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Are you familiar with the term "weasel"?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/more-guns-less-crime-2013



Here is a nice little Facebook post by the NRA making the same claim.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...nalRifleAssociation/videos/10153803544081833/

Would you like to weasel out of these too?

In that particular case, the question asked is "Will we be safer as handguns become more common?" and the answer from the NRA, carefully worded to indicate response to crime trends, was a simple matter of objective fact: yes, we are safer from firearm violence now than we were in 1979. Handgun violence was not seen to accompany handgun proliferation as so predicted by the Brady Campaign. There is no meaningful correlation between violent crime and gun presence.

 

[jackstar7]

I guess it really is too much to ask to specify what you're talking about rather than just mentioning some random "before" thing.

My mistake. I figured the instances of your wrongness are so limited that it would stand out, but specifically, when we demonstrated with data that your contention that there is more gun ownership and less crime is contradicted by reality that there is lower gun ownership.

That before thing. Better? Now will you reconsider your stance and the lack of data it is founded upon? Or continue to hold fast to it?

 

[ivwshane]

In that particular case, the question asked is "Will we be safer as handguns become more common?" and the answer from the NRA, carefully worded to indicate response to crime trends, was a simple matter of objective fact: yes, we are safer from firearm violence now than we were in 1979. Handgun violence was not seen to accompany handgun proliferation as so predicted by the Brady Campaign. There is no meaningful correlation between violent crime and gun presence.

You don't appear to be very bright or you are easily manipulated by fud. Me constantly having to hold your hand on how to find data and understand it has grown tiring so we will part ways.

Here are some links I know you won't bother to read because, well, they are too long for you.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/less-guns-less-crime-debunking-the-self-defense-myth/

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

 

[HamburgerBoy]

lol, I actually read what you posted and explained what it actually meant and you just get butthurt. I'll respond to your links anyways though, keep on sport.

Your first link makes the usual mistake of only considering defensive uses where the person using a gun for self-defense shoots and kills an attacker. It doesn't consider cases where brandishing is sufficient to deter criminals, which make up the majority of defensive gun uses. The argument they make on more guns leading to more gun homicide is almost entirely based on theft of firearms to be used in homicides, which is basically irrelevant to the ability of a person carrying to deter or stop a violent crime in action.

I probably can't read the papers posted in the second link, but there was a meta analysis posted some time ago which showed a very mild positive correlation between firearm availability and homicide (albeit a much stronger one between guns and suicide).

 

[Zaap]

How many family values DURRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Wow, deflect much?

How many 'war on women' Dims get accused of serially sexually assaulting women, sending women unwanted "Weiner" pics, and killing women in their cars and running off not calling for help?

How many "those evil rich blah blah blah!" Dims are themselves filthy rich via all sorts of shadiness? How many "Tax! Tax! Tax! Tax! Pay your fair share! Tax! Tax!" Dims are guilty of income tax evasion?

How many of your precious "anti-gun" Dims are more than willing to themselves have PLENTY OF armed to the teeth people protecting them at every possible instance?

How many libs think they are intellectuals when they are dumb as a box of rocks?

Will you ever grow another braincell to rub against the three you might actually have and admit all politicians are dirtbags of one sort or another or will just keep sucking the Dim teat?

 

[ivwshane]

lol, I actually read what you posted and explained what it actually meant and you just get butthurt. I'll respond to your links anyways though, keep on sport.

Your first link makes the usual mistake of only considering defensive uses where the person using a gun for self-defense shoots and kills an attacker. It doesn't consider cases where brandishing is sufficient to deter criminals, which make up the majority of defensive gun uses. The argument they make on more guns leading to more gun homicide is almost entirely based on theft of firearms to be used in homicides, which is basically irrelevant to the ability of a person carrying to deter or stop a violent crime in action.

I probably can't read the papers posted in the second link, but there was a meta analysis posted some time ago which showed a very mild positive correlation between firearm availability and homicide (albeit a much stronger one between guns and suicide).

By all means buddy, link to a reputable study that shows brandishing a weapon stops or prevents crime in any meaningful way that would discredit the numbers found in the studies I provided.

 

[ivwshane]

Wow, deflect much?

How many 'war on women' Dims get accused of serially sexually assaulting women, sending women unwanted "Weiner" pics, and killing women in their cars and running off not calling for help?

How many "those evil rich blah blah blah!" Dims are themselves filthy rich via all sorts of shadiness? How many "Tax! Tax! Tax! Tax! Pay your fair share! Tax! Tax!" Dims are guilty of income tax evasion?

How many of your precious "anti-gun" Dims are more than willing to themselves have PLENTY OF armed to the teeth people protecting them at every possible instance?

How many libs think they are intellectuals when they are dumb as a box of rocks?

Will you ever grow another braincell to rub against the three you might actually have and admit all politicians are dirtbags of one sort or another or will just keep sucking the Dim teat?

I don't know, how many? And just to keep things fair, let's stick to national politics, ie senators, congressmen, governors or any federal official appointed by Obama. Be sure to include them being on record for the very issue they have been found violating.

How much time do you need?

 

[Zaap]

How many libs think they are intellectuals when they are dumb as a box of rocks?

I don't know, how many?

Let's see now there's you... every other dimwit lib circle-jerking in this thread...

 

[ivwshane]

Let's see now there's you... every other dimwit lib circle-jerking in this thread...

I didn't think you could nor did I think you would. Now run away with your tail between your legs.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I didn't think you could nor did I think you would. Now run away with your tail between your legs.

Says the guy who was too stupid to realize my post was an obvious sarcastic mocking of people like you.

 

[ivwshane]

Says the guy who was too stupid to realize my post was an obvious sarcastic mocking of people like you.

Exactly how was it mocking people like me? Careful now, I don't want you to have to create some made up character to try and make your point.

But I like how you think me asking him to show proof of his claims is equivalent to me not getting sarcasm on a message board where what you posted has been said and wasn't sarcasm. But you go on with your bad self!

 

[glenn1]

My mistake. I figured the instances of your wrongness are so limited that it would stand out, but specifically, when we demonstrated with data that your contention that there is more gun ownership and less crime is contradicted by reality that there is lower gun ownership.

That before thing. Better? Now will you reconsider your stance and the lack of data it is founded upon? Or continue to hold fast to it?

I didn’t make that contention or even address that point in this thread or another, feel free to review my posts #17, 23, 24, 37, 168, 177, 181, and 186 in this post.

Secondly, you just again mentioned some random unspecified thing, this time “we demonstrated with data” and ask me to figure out what data you’re talking about. If you want someone to address a point then be specific about it or better yet quote it.

Now since you seem to want me to address this point, here goes. As far as firearms ownership goes it’s down but not precipitously. If anything it just looks like another cyclical low in a flat trendline that goes up or down around 4% from a baseline of around 43-44%. Once in a while you’ll have a two sigma deviation like the 51% number in 1994 or 34% in 1999 but otherwise it’s pretty stable.

Homicide in general and gun violence trends in particular OTOH are down but from an elevated peak in the 1990s. In many ways that reflects simple demographics of the baby boomer entering their “peak crime” years of 16-40 then aging out of it. It's perfectly reasonable that no matter what effects gun ownership have on crime, that the effect isn't so immense that it would completely overwhelm every other factor in crime rates (like millions more criminal age persons in the population).

Lastly, you’re trying to reject a claim that was never made that “more guns = less crime” which is too large of a hypothesis to reasonably test in any event. Maybe we should limit the scope of the discussion to something we can put reasonable boundaries around, let’s say a hypothesis that “’higher firearms ownership rates result in lower homicide rates.” Here the evidence seems to demonstrate this nicely, although I’ll leave it for you and others to argue about causal factors that you have basically predetermined depending on your politics and feelings about whether "scary guns are bad."

And just for the fun of it, let’s try to test the null hypothesis that gun control works (hint: it doesn’t)

 

[fskimospy]

Uhmm, the null hypothesis would be that gun control doesn't work, and a simple chart showing the handgun murder rate over time in a single municipality with no controls is such a basic analysis error that you would be in a lot of trouble even in a freshman stats course.

A big fat F in stats 101 for glenn.