Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I thought we were talking about gun crime in the US, not open warfare with al-Shabab.

But for the sake of debate: no. I don't think that allowing ordinary Somalis to arm themselves would make Somalia safer, just like pouring guns into Syria would not make Syria safer.

Again, it depends who is getting them. More variables than just +/- guns and +/- violence. Holder's concept of fast and furious across the Mexican border definitely did not make anyone safer either. I'll agree that more guns does not always equal more safety. The two are not mutually dependent nor are they mutually exclusive.

Sym was the one that wanted examples, didn't specify where. Plenty of more localized examples of restrictive gun laws in places like Chicago where it is more violent than more passive gun laws such almost any place in the south if he was talking US soil.

Of course I wanted examples of increased gun ownership and relaxed gun legislation resulting in lower gun crime. I'm happy to discuss it anywhere, and I apologise for forcing you to dodge around the question. I should have been more direct.

I think PS has posted a bunch of examples of places where increased gun ownership led to reduced crimes (maybe not gun crimes). I think he also posted evidence that shows gun control laws don't actually positively affect gun crimes (e.g. Chicago, DC). I think the response to that is that if I lived in Chicago and wanted a gun to commit a crime, I could travel somewhere else relatively close to get said gun.

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I thought we were talking about gun crime in the US, not open warfare with al-Shabab.

But for the sake of debate: no. I don't think that allowing ordinary Somalis to arm themselves would make Somalia safer, just like pouring guns into Syria would not make Syria safer.

Again, it depends who is getting them. More variables than just +/- guns and +/- violence. Holder's concept of fast and furious across the Mexican border definitely did not make anyone safer either. I'll agree that more guns does not always equal more safety. The two are not mutually dependent nor are they mutually exclusive.

Sym was the one that wanted examples, didn't specify where. Plenty of more localized examples of restrictive gun laws in places like Chicago where it is more violent than more passive gun laws such almost any place in the south if he was talking US soil.

Of course I wanted examples of increased gun ownership and relaxed gun legislation resulting in lower gun crime. I'm happy to discuss it anywhere, and I apologise for forcing you to dodge around the question. I should have been more direct.

How's that?

Lootifer wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Would mandatory weapon training in rifles reduce the number of people who take up ams? Im a little unsure where this argument is going.

Sarcasm? Mandatory weapon training is ridiculous in my mind. I'd like to find someone who feels otherwise just so i can call them a nutcase. Weapons training should be completely voluntary.

Do you call mandatory driver training equally ridiculous?

edit: Wait I may have your point mixed up. What are you calling ridiculous? Making it mandatory to have the entire population trained in weapons, or, making it mandatory to have training before you are legally allowed to use a fire-arm?

I think you are referring to the former where myself and Sym are referring to the latter (I think).

I think those wanting to obtain a driver's license should have to go through a class but I wouldn't force it upon the entire population.

I originally read it as making it mandatory to have the entire population trained in weapons. I see how it could be read otherwise now. I think if you are going to take the responsibility of owning a firearm, you should have to show some ability to know how to safely handle it. And this depends on what type of firearm this is. A .22 is completely different than a .30-06 is completely different than a .357. And I guess it all depends what you'd define as 'training'. 120 class hours and 5 hours demonstration would be overkill but a simple questionnaire wouldn't be quite enough.

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I thought we were talking about gun crime in the US, not open warfare with al-Shabab.

But for the sake of debate: no. I don't think that allowing ordinary Somalis to arm themselves would make Somalia safer, just like pouring guns into Syria would not make Syria safer.

Again, it depends who is getting them. More variables than just +/- guns and +/- violence. Holder's concept of fast and furious across the Mexican border definitely did not make anyone safer either. I'll agree that more guns does not always equal more safety. The two are not mutually dependent nor are they mutually exclusive.

Sym was the one that wanted examples, didn't specify where. Plenty of more localized examples of restrictive gun laws in places like Chicago where it is more violent than more passive gun laws such almost any place in the south if he was talking US soil.

Of course I wanted examples of increased gun ownership and relaxed gun legislation resulting in lower gun crime. I'm happy to discuss it anywhere, and I apologise for forcing you to dodge around the question. I should have been more direct.

How's that?

It is of course interesting, though I don't know why you won't show your source. A quick google search indicates that both Chicago and Houston have similar gun homicide rates. My numbers, from the US government, are a little dated, dealing with 2006-7, but I'll give you the source so you can examine the stats.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6018a1.htm

This article may be illuminating, as well as being more recent:

If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.
Detroit's gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).
Baltimore's rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34..
Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).
Washington D.C. (19) has a higher rate of gun homicide than Brazil (18.1).
Atlanta's rate (17.2) is about the same as South Africa (17).
Cleveland (17.4) has a higher rate than the Dominican Republic (16.3).
Gun murder in Buffalo (16.5) is similar to Panama (16.2).
Houston's rate (12.9) is slightly higher than Ecuador's (12.7).
Gun homicide in Chicago (11.6) is similar to Guyana (11.5).
Phoenix's rate (10.6) is slightly higher than Mexico (10).
Los Angeles (9.2) is comparable to the Philippines (8.9).
Boston rate (6.2) is higher than Nicaragua (5.9).
New York, where gun murders have declined to just four per 100,000, is still higher than Argentina (3).
Even the cities with the lowest homicide rates by American standards, like San Jose and Austin, compare to Albania and Cambodia respectively.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politi ... orld/4412/

You will of course note that I've provided sources. And that Houston has a higher gun homicide rate than Chicago.

Sym - Did you look to see which jurisdictions in your chart had significant gun control laws?

thegreekdog wrote:Sym - Did you look to see which jurisdictions in your chart had significant gun control laws?

An interesting question, the short answer being that I have no idea what you're asking. Can I ask you to elaborate on your question?

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Sym - Did you look to see which jurisdictions in your chart had significant gun control laws?

An interesting question, the short answer being that I have no idea what you're asking. Can I ask you to elaborate on your question?

Sure.

Do any of those jurisdictions have any laws that would regulate the ownership or use of guns? If so, how restrictive are those laws and can we compare two jurisdictions (one with less restrictive laws and one with more restrictive laws), to get a sense of whether more restrictive gun control equates to less gun homicides than less restrictive gun control?

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Sym - Did you look to see which jurisdictions in your chart had significant gun control laws?

An interesting question, the short answer being that I have no idea what you're asking. Can I ask you to elaborate on your question?

Sure.

Do any of those jurisdictions have any laws that would regulate the ownership or use of guns? If so, how restrictive are those laws and can we compare two jurisdictions (one with less restrictive laws and one with more restrictive laws), to get a sense of whether more restrictive gun control equates to less gun homicides than less restrictive gun control?

Given that I was responding to a post that did exactly what you ask for with statistics that can be consulted and analysed, and that my post suggests that that poster's stats were wrong, I'm still unclear about where you and I stand in this discussion.

When you talk about jurisdictions are you talking about the various countries involved in the graph, or the various cities/states in the US? I appreciate that your default position when it comes to guns is to disagree with me, rabidly. It is occasionally nice to work out what you've locked your jaws on to though.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Sym - Did you look to see which jurisdictions in your chart had significant gun control laws?

An interesting question, the short answer being that I have no idea what you're asking. Can I ask you to elaborate on your question?

Sure.

Do any of those jurisdictions have any laws that would regulate the ownership or use of guns? If so, how restrictive are those laws and can we compare two jurisdictions (one with less restrictive laws and one with more restrictive laws), to get a sense of whether more restrictive gun control equates to less gun homicides than less restrictive gun control?

Given that I was responding to a post that did exactly what you ask for with statistics that can be consulted and analysed, and that suggest that those stats were wrong, I'm still unclear about where you and I stand in this discussion.to

When you talk about jurisdictions are you talking about the various countries involved in the graph, or the various cities/states in the US? I appreciate that your default position when it comes to guns is to disagree with me, rabidly. It is occasionally nice to work out what you've locked your jaws on to though.

Do you think I have ulterior motives? I assumed that patrick posted what he posted to attempt to demonstrate that jurisdictions with less restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide rates than jurisdictions with more restrictive gun control laws. I assumed that your response was to, with a link, prove that patrick's post was wrong (with respect to specifically Houston and Chicago). My question relates to whether your list corresponds roughly to the following proposition: the higher the gun homicide rate, the less restrictive gun control laws. That seems to be what you're arguing (or at least what you're responding to patrick about).

If you don't want to answer the question because you think I have ulterior motives or whatever, that's fine. At the risk of getting into a discussion about unrelated topics, I'm a little confused as to why you don't understand the question. Perhaps if I asked a friend to stand in as a proxy to ask the question you would undertand it better.

When I talk about jurisdictions, I'm referring to U.S. cities and states.

I'm not sure what your position with respect to guns is, so I don't know if I can disagree with you rabidly. If I remember correctly (and again at the risk of getting into a discussion about unrelated topics), you are one of those who does not understand the difference between "assault weapon" and "assault rifle," but that's about the only thing I can remember. I also can glean that you think that more restrictive gun control laws in the United States lead to less gun homicides, but that's what I'm trying to tease out here.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Sym - Did you look to see which jurisdictions in your chart had significant gun control laws?

An interesting question, the short answer being that I have no idea what you're asking. Can I ask you to elaborate on your question?

Sure.

Do any of those jurisdictions have any laws that would regulate the ownership or use of guns? If so, how restrictive are those laws and can we compare two jurisdictions (one with less restrictive laws and one with more restrictive laws), to get a sense of whether more restrictive gun control equates to less gun homicides than less restrictive gun control?

Given that I was responding to a post that did exactly what you ask for with statistics that can be consulted and analysed, and that suggest that those stats were wrong, I'm still unclear about where you and I stand in this discussion.to

When you talk about jurisdictions are you talking about the various countries involved in the graph, or the various cities/states in the US? I appreciate that your default position when it comes to guns is to disagree with me, rabidly. It is occasionally nice to work out what you've locked your jaws on to though.

Do you think I have ulterior motives? I assumed that patrick posted what he posted to attempt to demonstrate that jurisdictions with less restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide rates than jurisdictions with more restrictive gun control laws. I assumed that your response was to, with a link, prove that patrick's post was wrong (with respect to specifically Houston and Chicago). My question relates to whether your list corresponds roughly to the following proposition: the higher the gun homicide rate, the less restrictive gun control laws. That seems to be what you're arguing (or at least what you're responding to patrick about).

If you don't want to answer the question because you think I have ulterior motives or whatever, that's fine. At the risk of getting into a discussion about unrelated topics, I'm a little confused as to why you don't understand the question. Perhaps if I asked a friend to stand in as a proxy to ask the question you would undertand it better.

When I talk about jurisdictions, I'm referring to U.S. cities and states.

I'm not sure what your position with respect to guns is, so I don't know if I can disagree with you rabidly. If I remember correctly (and again at the risk of getting into a discussion about unrelated topics), you are one of those who does not understand the difference between "assault weapon" and "assault rifle," but that's about the only thing I can remember. I also can glean that you think that more restrictive gun control laws in the United States lead to less gun homicides, but that's what I'm trying to tease out here.

A response to a poster who was suggesting that Houston had a lower rate of gun homicides than Chicago linked to gun control laws. I fail to see why you jumped in with this hostility as if I was providing unverifiable data.

Glean better next time.

Hostility?

thegreekdog wrote:Hostility?

I apologise, I shouldn't have questioned your ability to glean.

Symmetry wrote:Of course I wanted examples of increased gun ownership and relaxed gun legislation resulting in lower gun crime. I'm happy to discuss it anywhere, and I apologise for forcing you to dodge around the question. I should have been more direct.

Was I being unreasonable in my gleaning in light of this statement?

patrick - Here are two jurisdictions gleaned from Symmetry's map.

(1) Washington DC (19)
(2) Phoenix (10)

Washington DC has more restrictive gun control laws than Arizona (where Phoenix is located).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_i ... f_Columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_i ... te#Arizona

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Of course I wanted examples of increased gun ownership and relaxed gun legislation resulting in lower gun crime. I'm happy to discuss it anywhere, and I apologise for forcing you to dodge around the question. I should have been more direct.

Was I being unreasonable in my gleaning in light of this statement?

It's nice that you've gone back and actually looked at the conversation as it has evolved, though not so nice that you're cherry-picking to suit your needs. Still, as the statistics I posted show that the statistics posted earlier were probably wrong, I find your gleaning misguided.

http://www.examiner.com/article/crime-r ... ive-cities

here's an interesting angle to view it at. just as i expected tho'. not sure of the relevancy of it all in relation to what ya'll are talking about.

mainly i just hate to see all encompassing laws being thrown out on people that don't have much of a voice. like say some hick up in rural south dakota having to follow the same rules as some yuppie over in San Fransisco. seems oddly similiar to how minorities want their demands to be met even without the voting power to make it happen. how can a small town compete with a massive metropolis in that respect.

i blame it all on fatherless children personally. that would be a way more productive route to follow as far as regulations and tax penalties go. i'm only kidding unless you vote for silly gun legislation that restricts law abiding citizens. because both of these proposals are equally absurd.

father less child fun facts

Got to love the examiner.com

When questioned, Jim Pimental, executive editor of Examiner said,[...] the Examiner has "a less-strict standard for accuracy and attribution in stories that appear on the Web" than for publications in print.[22]

Just wiki for this, still, I did kinda wonder why I'd not encountered this paper as a reliable source.

well regardless, i'm satisfied.

i just randomly cross-referenced a few cities from each list with city-data.com, it basically said the same thing. it's funny. the higher the crime rate the higher the democratic support.

for example, if a state had very little democratic support, the crime rate was very low. and as democratic support rises, even in majority red states, so too does the crime rate. basically from the few samples i gathered the crime rate could be somewhat accurately depicted by the amount of democratic support in that city. admit-tingly i only checked six of the cities that was on that list. i have a slow computer/internet connection so i got bored because there is alot of scrolling that had to be done.

i realize this is off subject, but i just find it funny that the majority of the gun legislation support is coming from the ones that have the poorest supporters in terms of dealing with the problem.

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:well regardless, i'm satisfied.

Of course, if you start with a set opinion and mould the data to fit it regardless you will always be satisfied.

So there was a lot of back and forth that I wasn't involved with. And I completely agree with Williams that children that grow up without a father is one of the biggest causes for crime. A lot of children lack that good masculine figure in their lives to keep them on a straight path.

Also, I don't think you can just look at gun crime because conceal/carry laws can prevent other crimes like rapes and non-gun homocides because people are less likely to pick a victim that might be armed. To only look at gun crimes would be not analyzing the complete realm of things.

Spoiler

Full disclosure, I didn't check all their numbers from the above graphs. If you want to cross check the data, have at it.

patrickaa317 wrote:Full disclosure, I didn't check all their numbers from the above graphs. If you want to cross check the data, have at it.

Full disclosure, I checked your sources.

http://www.aboutus.org/JustFacts.com

Thanks for that, they seem very reliable.

Symmetry wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:well regardless, i'm satisfied.

Of course, if you start with a set opinion and mould the data to fit it regardless you will always be satisfied.

2-shay ( touche )

but ti's always a two-way street

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:well regardless, i'm satisfied.

Of course, if you start with a set opinion and mould the data to fit it regardless you will always be satisfied.

2-shay ( touche )

but ti's always a two-way street

I'm genuinely unsure as to whether that means you're giving up the point in favour of a lazy platitude or you gave in to lazy platitudes long before I came across you.

Either way, I salute you, and pity your driving instructor.

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Full disclosure, I didn't check all their numbers from the above graphs. If you want to cross check the data, have at it.

Full disclosure, I checked your sources.

http://www.aboutus.org/JustFacts.com

Thanks for that, they seem very reliable.

So they are a 0 based on 0 ratings. Can you repudiate any of the statistics they provided or would you have to agree with the statistics being accurate?