Women Take Biden's Shotgun Advice

[TSA]

Bull .

[Th'Pusher]

You can't push for civil disarmament while at the same time own firearms.

Address the data. Fuzzy has shown himself to be a rational data driven decision maker, while you've proven yourself to be a hyper emotional wreck. Debate the data.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

While the issue of gun control remains divisive, there are clear areas of agreement when it comes to a number of gun policy proposals. Fully 85% of Americans favor making private background checks, with comparable support from Republicans, Democrats and independents. Similarly, 80% support laws to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing guns, with broad support across party lines.

But this bipartisan consensus breaks down when it comes to other proposals. Two-thirds of Americans (67%) favor creating a federal database to track gun sales, but there is a wide partisan divide between Democrats (84%) and Republicans (49%). A smaller majority of the public (55%) favors a ban on assault-style weapons

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/...ority-support/

[TSA]

Address the data. Fuzzy has shown himself to be a rational data driven decision maker, while you've proven yourself to be a hyper emotional wreck. Debate the data.

Fuzzy and I have done this before, I'm not doing it again. We are past arguing data, and we definitely aren't changing each other's minds on this issue. I will continue though to call out his hypocritical ways when he pushes for civil disarmament while still owning firearms.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Me post empirical proof and you continually get upset? You refuse to even look at the studies that I link. I have tried to talk to you about controlling variables to isolate cause and you are either unable or unwilling to discuss that. Yes, we have done this before.

My goal has never been to convince you. It's been obvious from the start. My goal is to demonstrate the type of at ude that is against gun control.

Now DANCE MONKEY!!!

One might, of course, suspect that this decline in gun violence may just be a consequence of a declining inclination of Germans to commit violent crimes altogether during the 1970s and 1980s. That is not the case. The number of violent crimes during this period almost doubled, from approximately 60,000 to around 110,000 cases, an almost doubling of violent crime cases while the number of violent crimes involving guns declined to one-third of its original level. [2] Again, introduction of tough gun control legislation correlates with a considerable reduction in gun violence. I want to give you a few basic pieces of information about the quality of that legislation. First, the basic principle of the Gun Control Act of 1972 [Waffengesetz] says, "The number of gun owners and the number and types of guns in private property must be limited to the lowest level possible in the light of interest of public safety." [3] More specifically, every person who wants to own a gun or carry a gun in public needs a special permit. I'll say a few things about the conditions under which people receive this kind of permit. To begin, the right to own a gun is very restrictive. It requires a government permit which is based on four certifications. First, the certification of need. You can do ent the need to own a gun if you are a member of a government certified gun club. Getting such a gun club certificate is a rather restrictive process. Or you can do ent the need to own a gun if you are a hunter. Again, getting a hunting license is much more restrictive in Germany than it is in the United States. Second, you have to do ent trustworthiness through the local police authorities. Such trustworthiness involves no prior violent criminal record. Third, you need to be certified in the technical knowledge about the consequences of firearms. Technical knowledge is based on a test that people must take with the district government. And fourth, you must do ent physical fitness. It is certainly at least partly the result of this legislation that only [p.261] 2.1 million of 80 million German citizens own guns. That is about three percent of the entire population. [4]

Let me move on to the third correlation I had announced. This results from a recent, what we call in the social sciences, natural experiment that happened in Germany. During the past five years, Germany experienced a rather rapid increase in the availability of guns. It was partly a result of demoralized Soviet troops in the eastern part of the country selling their weapons to the German population, partly to the underground market. It is interesting to observe that during exactly this period of increased gun availability, violent crime involving guns increased considerably from 4,000 cases in 1990 to 7,700 cases in 1993; homicides involving guns increased by fifty percent, from 224 cases in 1990 to 314 cases in 1993. [5] So, the higher the availability of guns, the more use of guns appears in violent crime. This is really the common denominator of all three correlations that I presented.

Now I come to the analytical part. I talked about correlations. Do correlations imply causal relations? Is it indeed the availability of guns that leads to gun violence? Typically no, correlations never necessarily imply causal relations. Thus, we have to ask for potential control variables, or additional factors that might lead to lower gun violence, in German society, and there are three potential factors that come to mind very easily. The first factor is the toughness of the criminal justice system. When people talked about caning in Singapore recently and learned at the same time that the crime rate in Singapore is very low, the common conclusion in almost all the news media and public talk was, "Well, if they have such a tough criminal justice system and those cruel forms of corporal punishment, of course they have a low crime rate." People saw a correlation and concluded a causal relation, not seeing all the other differences between American and Singapore societies. The second factor is cultural differences, especially with regard to the culture of violence in both societies. The third factor is sociological or socioeconomic differences that we will discuss.[p.262]

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/savelsberg1.html

[CosmicCowboy]

I raise you one more re .

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/26/living...revention-tips

(CNN) - The University of Colorado-Colorado Springs was roundly criticized and ridiculed last week by victims' rights groups, gun advocates and others skeptical of tips on the school's website for deterring rapists, which included urinating and vomiting as potential ways of repulsing assailants.

Laughable as they may seem, universities and law enforcement agencies across the country have been sharing guidelines like these for years as part of self-defense training and education programs. While such strategies may be worthy as self-defense, experts say they don't get to the root cause of rape because they're just that -- strategies for self-defense, not for stopping someone from committing sexual assault.

College women told to urinate or vomit to deter a rapist

Much of the criticism stemmed from the view that there are more effective ways of defending oneself than self-induced vomiting or claiming to be menstruating, said feminist writer and educator Jaclyn Friedman, author of "What You Really Really Want: The Smart Girl's Shame-Free Guide to Sex & Safety."

"A lot of that advice is based on the assumption that we can't use our bodies to protect ourselves," she said. "Women can learn how to use the strength of their bodies against the weakness of their assailants' bodies."

Others took issue with the recommendation that "passive resistance may be your best defense" in light of studies showing that fighting back can increase the likelihood of escaping rape, said Occidental College politics professor Caroline Heldman, who specializes in media and gender studies.

"It is absolutely false to argue that there is ever a time where you should lie there and take it," she said. "These strategies support the idea that females are inherently vulnerable and violable. But all humans are vulnerable if you know how to exploit their weaknesses."

Considered in a broader societal context, focusing on self-defense places responsibility on the victim to defuse an attack rather than on society as whole to prevent it, said Tracy Cox, communications director of the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

"Society needs to establish a zero tolerance for sexual violence. Instead of saying, 'don't get raped,' which shifts the responsibility onto a potential victim, the message should be 'don't rape' and focus on holding perpetrators accountable," Cox said.

"Sure, risk-reduction strategies -- such as self-defense classes -- can be part of a larger, comprehensive approach to preventing sexually violent crimes. But, in order to cultivate safer communities, we must create social change."

Hopefully my daughter won't ever have to resort to any of that stupid . Just watched her rack the slide on my P85 yesterday and run 12 rapid fire shots in the A/B zone of an LE target at 10 yards. That would be a seriously dead ing rapist.

[TSA]

.

[TSA]

Taken from your own article fuzzy, why not discuss this point? Were guns in the hands of law abiding citizens a detterent to those wishing to commit violent crimes? The figure nearly doubles itself with 50,000+ more cases and that question is not even brought up?



http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/savelsberg1.html

One might, of course, suspect that this decline in gun violence may just be a consequence of a declining inclination of Germans to commit violent crimes altogether during the 1970s and 1980s. That is not the case. The number of violent crimes during this period almost doubled, from approximately 60,000 to around 110,000 cases, an almost doubling of violent crime cases while the number of violent crimes involving guns declined to one-third of its original level. [2] Again, introduction of tough gun control legislation correlates with a considerable reduction in gun violence.




After reading the rest of this article the author himself sounds like he's not even sure it was gun control that caused a reduction in gun crime, but societal factors. And all these articles you post from other countries really can't be used to compare to America, gun ownership here is a cons utionally protected right. I'd suggest either dealing with your fear of guns or moving out of the US.

[mavs>spurs]

I wonder how many pill and carbon monoxide suicides there were over the same period. Pointless statistic IMO, need the total sucker rate not the gun one.

[TSA]

". The number of violent crimes during this period almost doubled, from approximately 60,000 to around 110,000 cases, an almost doubling of violent crime cases while the number of violent crimes involving guns declined to one-third of its original level. [2] Again, introduction of tough gun control legislation correlates with a considerable reduction in gun violence."

Did the same tough gun control legislation correlate with an even more considerable increase in violent crime?

[TSA]

I read your studies and have questions.

[TSA]

Looks like Lumpkins is going back to his old tactic of ducking and dodging.

[Blake]

Looks like your bait sucks.

[TSA]

Looks like your bait sucks.

What the cuck are you implying?

[Blake]

I'm not implying. I'm directly stating your troll bait sucks, pussy.

But I won't tell you not to keep trying.

[TSA]

Pulled directly from what he posted, I'm not trolling at all. I'm honestly curious as to why the violent crimes nearly doubled after the tougher gun restrictions. Since fuzzy wont answer, what do you think Blake?

". The number of violent crimes during this period almost doubled, from approximately 60,000 to around 110,000 cases, an almost doubling of violent crime cases while the number of violent crimes involving guns declined to one-third of its original level. [2] Again, introduction of tough gun control legislation correlates with a considerable reduction in gun violence."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Taken from your own article fuzzy, why not discuss this point? Were guns in the hands of law abiding citizens a detterent to those wishing to commit violent crimes? The figure nearly doubles itself with 50,000+ more cases and that question is not even brought up?

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/savelsberg1.html

One might, of course, suspect that this decline in gun violence may just be a consequence of a declining inclination of Germans to commit violent crimes altogether during the 1970s and 1980s. That is not the case. The number of violent crimes during this period almost doubled, from approximately 60,000 to around 110,000 cases, an almost doubling of violent crime cases while the number of violent crimes involving guns declined to one-third of its original level. [2] Again, introduction of tough gun control legislation correlates with a considerable reduction in gun violence.




After reading the rest of this article the author himself sounds like he's not even sure it was gun control that caused a reduction in gun crime, but societal factors. And all these articles you post from other countries really can't be used to compare to America, gun ownership here is a cons utionally protected right. I'd suggest either dealing with your fear of guns or moving out of the US.

Gun crimes have higher death rates. That should be obvious.

For the rest, he was isolating cause and saying that he could dismiss but gun control and one other. The other studies I showed further isolation of cause from correlation.

He doesn't act certain without evidence like the deterrence argument. Supposing deterrence might be the case is fun but unsubstantiated. I have shown studies that refute the notion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Looks like Lumpkins is going back to his old tactic of ducking and dodging.

No I just think it's funny that you respond like a trained dog. I don't waste my every waking hour obsessing over you once you get a bit of attention, monkey.

[TSA]

He doesn't act certain without evidence like the deterrence argument. Supposing deterrence might be the case is fun but unsubstantiated. I have shown studies that refute the notion.

You don't find the gun control restrictions and the dramatic e in violent crime strange? Do you think it was just a coincidence?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't find the gun control restrictions and the dramatic e in violent crime strange? Do you think it was just a coincidence?

We have been this before.

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/c...Dfss_papers%22

You are apparently not good at original thought. Did you ever go through those critical thinking workbooks I linked for you?

[TSA]

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/c...Dfss_papers%22

You are apparently not good at original thought.

says the guy who constantly has to reference someone else's work.

I'm not talking about more guns=less crime. I'm simply asking you why YOU think the violent crimes almost doubled? I don't need another 121 page PDF, just your opinion. Share an original thought with me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

says the guy who constantly has to reference someone else's work.

I'm not talking about more guns=less crime. I'm simply asking you why YOU think the violent crimes almost doubled? I don't need another 121 page PDF, just your opinion. Share an original thought with me.

Dumbass thinks citing studies that have delved into the subject deeply is a bad thing. Being creative is different than inserting supposition for fact. When it comes down to it I don't know.

If you want me to make up then I will say its because a shortage of streusel in Bavaria.

[Blake]

I guess the bait worked after all.

[spursncowboys]

Me post empirical proof and you continually get upset? You refuse to even look at the studies that I link. I have tried to talk to you about controlling variables to isolate cause and you are either unable or unwilling to discuss that. Yes, we have done this before.

My goal has never been to convince you. It's been obvious from the start. My goal is to demonstrate the type of at ude that is against gun control.

Now DANCE MONKEY!!!



http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/savelsberg1.html

What at ude are you saying that I have?

[TSA]

Dumbass thinks citing studies that have delved into the subject deeply is a bad thing. Being creative is different than inserting supposition for fact. When it comes down to it I don't know.

If you want me to make up then I will say its because a shortage of streusel in Bavaria.

So when asked for your opinion on the subject it's simply "I don't know"?