Petition to allow Open Carry at Republican convention

[jackstar7]

My mistake. It was rudder. I do get you guys confused.

But I'm glad to see how things played out.

 

[HomerJS]

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?

In your own disjointed way you finally admitted the fallacy of the Republican argument on this issue.

As for teat sucking, in our two party system as long as Dem positions more closely align with mine I will suck away.

Whenever a reasonable Republican who I could possibly support rears their head the base knocks it down.

 

[The Merg]

Whenever a reasonable Republican who I could possibly support rears their head the base knocks it down.

Is it the base or the extreme right-wingers that seem to push their ideology onto everyone else?

- Merg

 

[HomerJS]

Is it the base or the extreme right-wingers that seem to push their ideology onto everyone else?

- Merg

The establishment has allowed even encouraged the merging of the base and extreme right-wingers.

 

[The Merg]

The establishment has allowed even encouraged the merging of the base and extreme right-wingers.

I don't know if it is so much allowed or encouraged more than the establishment (in both parties) is usually just apathetic and allows the extremes to walk all over them, but I guess that could be considered "allowed".

- Merg

 

[HomerJS]

I don't know if it is so much allowed or encouraged more than the establishment (in both parties) is usually just apathetic and allows the extremes to walk all over them, but I guess that could be considered "allowed".

- Merg

When the establishment doesn't condone the right-wingers crazy agenda, like birtherism its defacto allowing

 

[The Merg]

When the establishment doesn't condone the right-wingers crazy agenda, like birtherism its defacto allowing

But I think a lot has to do with apathy though. "If it doesn't affect me right now, why should I bother to care?" Not that I support that view...

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't know if it is so much allowed or encouraged more than the establishment (in both parties) is usually just apathetic and allows the extremes to walk all over them, but I guess that could be considered "allowed".

- Merg

How has the Democratic party allowed extreme elements to walk all over them?

Just saying that they have doesn't make it true.

Meanwhile, the Repub party has actively pandered to Fundies, bigots, Tenthers, small govt crackpots & a variety of others for decades.

 

[fskimospy]

But I think a lot has to do with apathy though. "If it doesn't affect me right now, why should I bother to care?" Not that I support that view...

I don't think they are apathetic at all. Primary voters, especially congressional primary voters, tend to be the true believers. Look at this poll that just came out:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_32916.pdf

(note that PPP tends to lean a bit liberal, but these findings are broadly consistent with other polls)

80% of Republican primary voters think Obama is a Muslim (52%) or aren't sure (28%).

64% believe Obama wasn't born in the US (40%) or aren't sure (24%).

And remember, this is a presidential primary year so that means the pool of voters is larger and less extreme than in off year primaries.

If Republican politicians suddenly come out and say 'no, you're ridiculous for thinking Obama is a Muslim' or something to that effect they run a substantial risk of losing a primary election because that portion of the electorate is quite frankly insane. It's better to ignore it, brush it off, or use coded language to appeal to them as that way you can (hopefully) placate them without alienating general election voters.

 

[Muse]

Open carry at the GOP convention makes total sense to me. I will not be there.

 

[Jhhnn]

use coded language to appeal to them as that way you can (hopefully) placate them without alienating general election voters.

You mean... Dog whistle!?!?

Donald is blowing that thing like Satchmo on the horn. Root-a-toot-toot!

 

[The Merg]

I don't think they are apathetic at all. Primary voters, especially congressional primary voters, tend to be the true believers. Look at this poll that just came out:



http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_32916.pdf



(note that PPP tends to lean a bit liberal, but these findings are broadly consistent with other polls)



80% of Republican primary voters think Obama is a Muslim (52%) or aren't sure (28%).



64% believe Obama wasn't born in the US (40%) or aren't sure (24%).



And remember, this is a presidential primary year so that means the pool of voters is larger and less extreme than in off year primaries.



If Republican politicians suddenly come out and say 'no, you're ridiculous for thinking Obama is a Muslim' or something to that effect they run a substantial risk of losing a primary election because that portion of the electorate is quite frankly insane. It's better to ignore it, brush it off, or use coded language to appeal to them as that way you can (hopefully) placate them without alienating general election voters.

That's kind of my point. The primaries generally have a low turnout, so those that do turn out to vote are the ones that are not apathetic. I think the average turnout for primaries is around 20%. And I'd be willing to guess that those that do not turn out generally are going to be your moderates.

 

[FerrelGeek]

You're the only one that didn't get that I was being sarcastic and was mocking stupidity.

Rationalizing your own stupidity only makes you pathetic.

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]

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.

Oh, you want some more I guess. Here you go. Of course like always, I will reiterate that unlike you I fully support federalism and your right to do what you want in your state if the voters want it regardless of whether it makes sense or not, gun control included. Not that you would return that favor when you want to exercise your authoritarian urges to make another state comply to your will when they are *gasp* doing something constitutional that you disapprove of.

When it gets down to actual facts rather than wishful thinking, statistics repeatedly show that gun control measures or outright bans have either a negative effect (Image 1) or a trivial one (Image 2). Even if you use only U.S. states in your consideration for cultural or other reasons, the scatter plot for the effectiveness of the typical measures supported by the Brady center have no statistical correlation whatsoever (Image 3). If you look at the states more granularly you will likewise see that gun control has no or negative effects like Massachussetts (Image 4). Or you can treat neighboring states with different gun laws like a controlled experiment, in Image 5 you see the test subject state with stricter gun laws (NJ) experienced worse results than the control state that had far less restrictive gun laws (PA). And finally you can review some aggregated statistics which address the "guns vs. homicide" correlation such as it is (Image 6) although as I've pointed out earlier it's impossible to isolate the effect of this versus other effects such as demographics, etc. since conducting an actual controlled experiment would be both hugely unethical and impossible to conduct as a practical matter.


#1:

#2:

#3:

#4:

#5:

#6:

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, you want some more I guess. Here you go. Of course like always, I will reiterate that unlike you I fully support federalism and your right to do what you want in your state if the voters want it regardless of whether it makes sense or not, gun control included. Not that you would return that favor when you want to exercise your authoritarian urges to make another state comply to your will when they are *gasp* doing something constitutional that you disapprove of.

When it gets down to actual facts rather than wishful thinking, statistics repeatedly show that gun control measures or outright bans have either a negative effect (Image 1) or a trivial one (Image 2). Even if you use only U.S. states in your consideration for cultural or other reasons, the scatter plot for the effectiveness of the typical measures supported by the Brady center have no statistical correlation whatsoever (Image 3). If you look at the states more granularly you will likewise see that gun control has no or negative effects like Massachussetts (Image 4). Or you can treat neighboring states with different gun laws like a controlled experiment, in Image 5 you see the test subject state with stricter gun laws (NJ) experienced worse results than the control state that had far less restrictive gun laws (PA). And finally you can review some aggregated statistics which address the "guns vs. homicide" correlation such as it is (Image 6) although as I've pointed out earlier it's impossible to isolate the effect of this versus other effects such as demographics, etc. since conducting an actual controlled experiment would be both hugely unethical and impossible to conduct as a practical matter.

Yes let's get down to facts instead of more bullshit charts that would once again get you an F in stats 101.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-014-9865-8

Using death certificate data available through 2010, the repeal of Missouri’s PTP law was associated with an increase in annual firearm homicides rates of 1.09 per 100,000 (+23 %) but was unrelated to changes in non-firearm homicide rates. Using Uniform Crime Reporting data from police through 2012, the law’s repeal was associated with increased annual murders rates of 0.93 per 100,000 (+16 %). These estimated effects translate to increases of between 55 and 63 homicides per year in Missouri.

Since you're very interested in facts, presumably you'll be changing your tune on gun control now, right?

Haha, just kidding. Of course you won't.

 

[jackstar7]

I do like that while I got it wrong, admittedly, on who was wrong before, glenn stepped up to be wrong on his own. That's pretty sweet of him.

 

[rudder]

Because the bars are filled with people who go there not to drink.

I have yet to have someone explain why carry should be any different from bars then GOP rallies.

Do you go through security checkpoints when going to a bar? Are there secret service agents tasked with protecting the bartender? Although it is legal to carry a handgun into a bar in Tennessee provided one does not drink alcohol.... if a candidate was working the bar, being protected by secret service agents who requested that there be no firearms in close proximity to the candidate whom they are protecting... then I would comply and not be a douche insisting I just have to carry a gun. Need further clarification?

 

[glenn1]

Yes let's get down to facts instead of more bullshit charts that would once again get you an F in stats 101.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-014-9865-8



Since you're very interested in facts, presumably you'll be changing your tune on gun control now, right?

Haha, just kidding. Of course you won't.

Sure, we'll ignore the other things I posted and just look at Missouri statistics then. Even given the very small sample size examined in the study you linked, fancy how they track basically perfectly with the broader U.S. rates both long and short term. Also quite interesting how gun homicides peaked a year after the repeal of the law and then trended down, just as they did in the U.S. as a whole.

Feel free to explain away all the counterexamples I already provided at any time. Like I said, you're free in your state to pass whatever laws you want given any reasoning (or lack thereof), but you can hardly be so naive as to think everyone else is going to agree with your wrong ideas as well and likewise implement them.

 

[rudder]

I knowright? Maybe that analogy will prove useful....


Oh look!



or....not.

Well, there you go. Aside from a rather callous handling of some numbers, we can easily wipe away 37% of all gun deaths, because gang and drug deaths don't matter because they cease to be humans after some rather quick mental re-conditioning. That's rather telling:

The actual Gun death totals are effectively 2/3rd of what they are when we choose to believe that this percentage does not represent human death.

amazing.

Then, further admission that there are some careless and irresponsible assholes that own guns...but only 3%, so it's not significant? Oh wait...we already eliminated 37% of the total deaths, so those aren't part of the original calculation. that 3% now represents a much higher total of the "real human deaths."

So let's be honest: once we erase the 37% of deaths where acceptable humans are not actually killed by guns, that 3% from irresponsible owners now represents the remaining percentage of the "60%" of deaths represented by suicides....so basically careless and irresponsible gun owners are actually closer to 1/3rd or 3/5th of all deaths.

But even if they truly represented only 3% of deaths, "One careless death is too many" is a far different statement from the earlier "The majority of gun owners are responsible and so CCW is not a concern." Which is it?

Now, considering the loose and duplicitous playing with statistical reporting in the final statement above re: ownership numbers, one must take all reported numbers from Rudder as a grain of salt in this case, until further clarification. The improper analogy regarding careless driving vs careless gun ownership notwithstanding, the truly disturbing thing here is the callous erasure of human life from the statistical model simply because of the mode of their alleged endeavor at the time of death.

But the fundies and gun nuts are going to jump on me for that, so let me head it off:

--I hate criminals. Violent drug dealers, thieves, whatever--I have no sympathy for them in general and I am not arguing sympathy for criminals here.
--The argument presented rests the foundation of its certainty on the value of numbers--in this case human deaths. Either a human is killed, or one isn't. To pretend otherwise with one variable, simply because, is a disingenuous handling of the facts, true or false as they may be. In this case, it is especially callous when we are talking about human lives, and especially when such lives are predominantly young lives representing a predominantly exploited, minority sector. Those are simple facts.
--I agree with the gun yahoos, here, that the cause of gun deaths in this sector aren't guns, it is the nature of the business which leads to the death. But that was never the question in the argument, so it really is irrelevant. That being said, I agree that guns are certainly not the cause of these specific deaths, but it is also wholly inaccurate to ignore them as a primary factor. Simply replacing the guns, via magic and fantasy with knives or bats, will obviously reduce the number of deaths. A simple thought experiment like this proves to even the most uneducated cretin that guns are, indeed, a real factor in these problems. It is not for some poorly understood reason that the largest proponents of gun control come from the citizens that live in these communities, that experience it daily. They are the ones dying--not Bubba scooting along on his Golf Cart 4 days out of the week at White Derpy Derp Country living Club with his .357 strapped to his side, enjoying Freedom.com every second his 350lb mass shakes another Budweiser down his gaping maw.
Simply reducing that total number of guns through sensible regulation, aka: "Only giving guns to criminals!"...well isn't exactly true and is, at least, somewhat effective. Yes, plenty of criminals will still have guns. But less will.

If "one single accidental death" is one too many, then why is "37% of all deaths by criminals" completely neutral or, far more callous, not enough?

One would almost wonder if taking direct strides towards reducing this number would go a long way towards effecting real change in the communities that are being murdered left and right by the NRA and the asshats that drink at the trough of false freedom.

In cases like this, I believe it is plainly obvious who the real savages are in contemporary US society: He scoots off on his Lark motorbike from one isle to the next in Walmart, protesting Chiptole not letting him display his FREEDOM.TXT whenever he wants, blogging about his proud display of freedom don'ttreadonme.com bastardizations of actual US history...well up until his toddler shoots him in the back while driving his car, obviously.

My statistical analysis is merely pointing out that the media likes to portray a large number of weapons in this country as the source of all danger and violence. The reality is that statistically we are as safe as other countries with stricter gun laws. We just need better mental health care and national legalization of some drugs in the hopes that this will curb gang violence.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure, we'll ignore the other things I posted and just look at Missouri statistics then. Even given the very small sample size examined in the study you linked, fancy how they track basically perfectly with the broader U.S. rates both long and short term. Also quite interesting how gun homicides peaked a year after the repeal of the law and then trended down, just as they did in the U.S. as a whole.

Feel free to explain away all the counterexamples I already provided at any time. Like I said, you're free in your state to pass whatever laws you want given any reasoning (or lack thereof), but you can hardly be so naive as to think everyone else is going to agree with your wrong ideas as well and likewise implement them.

Uhmm, did you read your own charts? They track US trends before the repeal of the law and then diverge. You just helped prove my point, so thanks.

I have no need to explain away random charts you decided to post. I posted empirical, peer reviewed research that says you're wrong. People are of course free to ignore reality as long as they want but that just makes them stupid, it doesn't change reality.

 

[HomerJS]

Do you go through security checkpoints when going to a bar? Are there secret service agents tasked with protecting the bartender? Although it is legal to carry a handgun into a bar in Tennessee provided one does not drink alcohol.... if a candidate was working the bar, being protected by secret service agents who requested that there be no firearms in close proximity to the candidate whom they are protecting... then I would comply and not be a douche insisting I just have to carry a gun. Need further clarification?

bottom line it is clear to me, secret service and any other sane person more guns in a closed environment is not safer, yet that is always the rhetoric we hear from Republicans and the NRA esp after a mass shooting, there should have been more guns there.

 

[glenn1]

My statistical analysis is merely pointing out that the media likes to portray a large number of weapons in this country as the source of all danger and violence. The reality is that statistically we are as safe as other countries with stricter gun laws. We just need better mental health care and national legalization of some drugs in the hopes that this will curb gang violence.

If we used the logic of gun control advocates, since airplanes were used in the 9/11 attacks we should sharply limit private ownership of aircraft since that would make us safer from the threat of homicide by Cessna. Or argue that only pilots belonging to an "organized militia" should be allowed to own them, and even then only during periods of militia service. But of course they won't because progressives actually like and want to partake in benefits of air travel thus accept the inherent "risks" in the freedom for other people to own them, whereas they have no desire to like or use firearms and thus accept the risks inherent in the freedom for others to own that object.

Like with most authoritarian policies, it comes down to "I only want you to be allowed to have or do the things which *I* find acceptable."

 

[fskimospy]

If we used the logic of gun control advocates, since airplanes were used in the 9/11 attacks we should sharply limit private ownership of aircraft since that would make us safer from the threat of homicide by Cessna. Or argue that only pilots belonging to an "organized militia" should be allowed to own them, and even then only during periods of militia service. But of course they won't because progressives actually like and want to partake in benefits of air travel thus accept the inherent "risks" in the freedom for other people to own them, whereas they have no desire to like or use firearms and thus accept the risks inherent in the freedom for others to own that object.

Like with most authoritarian policies, it comes down to "I only want you to be allowed to have or do the things which *I* find acceptable."

I'll take your chart and raise you yet more peer reviewed research:

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426

Homicide Outcomes
We also pooled data from 6 studies that assessed the odds of homicide (9–10, 22–24, 48) and, using a random-effects model, estimated a pooled OR of 2.00 (CI, 1.56 to 3.02) with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 63%; τ = 0.22) (Figure 2). All studies found significantly higher odds of homicide victimization among participants who had access to a firearm than among those who did not, with ORs ranging from 1.41 to 3.54.

Since you are a fan of facts presumably you'll be changing your mind, right? If not, can you give an estimate of how many more facts I need to drop on you before you do?

 

[SMOGZINN]

If we used the logic of gun control advocates, since airplanes were used in the 9/11 attacks we should sharply limit private ownership of aircraft since that would make us safer from the threat of homicide by Cessna.

Or we could make the price of a gun start around $80,000 roughly the price of that Cessna, that would effectively cut the rate of gun violence down to the level of that of plane violence, which I would find acceptable.

 

[rudder]

Or we could make the price of a gun start around $80,000 roughly the price of that Cessna, that would effectively cut the rate of gun violence down to the level of that of plane violence, which I would find acceptable.

So are you okay with knife violence or bow and arrow violence that will rise once the government finds a way for criminals to turn in their guns?