Reply With Quote
If it doesn't than why do you care? I am not against background checks and I've said that many times on here.
Having gotten that out of the way, would you like to discuss the graph?
It doesn't. But why is it so difficult for you to take a position? Aren't you the guy who berated CD for not publicly affirming his sexual preference?
If it doesn't than why do you care? I am not against background checks and I've said that many times on here.
Having gotten that out of the way, would you like to discuss the graph?
Is anything Fuzzy posts, true?
Poverty in general, follows responsibility. We now have families that pass on to their children the hatred of whites and a cycle of dependance on government money. You are really stupid if you think I want to eliminate minority populations. No matter what changes are attempted, as long as parents continue to teach their children that they are owed, that it's the white mans fault, this will continue.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 01-19-2014 at 05:47 PM.
Not really. You're particularly emotional when it comes to guns and have proven to be incapable of having a rational discussion. I was just wondering why you were too much of a pussy to take a position on the Brady Bill.
Thanks!
So what's the solution to the perceived problem you just stated. Is there any policy that can affect change and make those rotten minorities take responsibility for their lives?
I don't know. I don't have a solution as to haw to make people take responsibility for their own well being.
Would you agree or disagree that in general, those in black communities are taught that white people are the cause of their problems?
"Poverty in general, follows responsibility."
bull . The increase in inequality at both of the financial spectrum is totally due to govt policy.
govt policy of the 1930s created the middle class, and govt policy since 1975 has destroyed it.
Government policies do play a role as to the supply of jobs for people to get. Still, in general, the more responsible people get the better jobs, and the less responsible get to fight over the leftovers.
Your link stated that the Brady Bill's background checks were controlled for compared to states taht already required background checks and was found to not have a statistically significant decrease. It did see a decrease but it was not enough to say it was anything more than noise. He further stated that this was because of the loopholes for the law in the form of gun shows and he states more stringent measures are needed. You posted an article calling for more gun control, bravo, but that is not all. While it also does not surprise me, you have dumbed that down into, 'the Brady Bill doesn't work.'
First critical thinking exercise: are background checks the only part of the Brady Bill? Did the study control for any other variable?
No, it didn't and further, the graph spoke to 5 different changes in gun control laws and all 5 manifested in the expected shift in gun deaths. You have so far spoken to one tenant of one of the bills and think in a very WC way that it invalidates all 5 data points completely. All you have really done is shown that the background check portion of one of them does not seem to have an effect because of a specific loopholes. The conclusion of the author was NOT that background checks are ineffective. I did like how you linked something that says gun control in cities has had multiple studies show it to be effective.
You supporting the Brady Bill goes to show how much of sophist you are. It speaks to you and your veracity. You are too ignorant to understand that either apparently.
"the more responsible people get the better jobs, and the less responsible get to fight over the leftovers."
bull . the old myth that everybody has equal opportunity to become wealthy.
socioeconomic mobility, iow, the poor upwards, is much reduced in the past 35 years.
"Old Europe", socialized democracies, often with public health insurance and free university, provides better socioeconomic mobility.
People
Are
More
Likely
To
Kill
When
They
Have
A
Gun
Shouting doesn't make you less a fool...
Take guns away from those who are responsible, and the cr8iminals are less afraid to hurt others.
Someone else made a graph more detailed than mine. Looks as though violent crimes go up with stricter gun control laws:
link embedded in pic
"cr8iminals are less afraid to hurt others"
beyond your wishful thinking, any evidence.
My guess is that accidental gun deaths, spousal/partner gun murders, gun suicides far outnumber home invasion/self-defense killings.
Does "your guess" have any real world data to back it up?
When the values are both higher and lower as you progress it does NOT show correlation, you dumb mother er.Someone else made a graph more detailed than mine. Looks as though violent crimes go up with stricter gun control laws:
link embedded in pic
You were the one that asserted that guns make criminals afraid. Back it up or shut up.
And ffs the graph is of violent crime. That isn't gun crime. Do I need to explain how violent crime doesn't necessitate a gun?Someone else made a graph more detailed than mine. Looks as though violent crimes go up with stricter gun control laws:
link embedded in pic
Further, it is from a site with the following as it's 'about us:'
This is how you show correlation:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/pol...m-deaths/4902/
Note the use of a map when displaying geographic information.
Further:
States in the highest quartile of legislative strength (scores of ≥9) had a lower overall firearm fatality rate than those in the lowest quartile (scores of ≤2) (absolute rate difference, 6.64 deaths/100 000/y; age-adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92). Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).
LOL...
You are the dumb mother er for assuming I read that much into it. I am showing there is no correlation with gun control laws lowering crime.
When will you stop being such a dumb ass?
You were saying?
Who gives a about accidental deaths as a reason to make gun laws stronger? I will make this point again, that car accidents kill even more people as accidents go. I don't see lib s wanting to impose stricter driving laws and licensing.
Murders and violent crimes are more important to show.
I said the second poorly. The contention is that increased gun laws lower crime. It does not. Your graph included all gun deaths, which includes accidental. How many of these accidents were criminal? Crime rates have less to do with if weapons are legal or not, and more to do with the culture diversity of the population. That said, making it harder for good citizens to protect themselves, means the criminals are less worried about getting shot themselves.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
