More than one way to Skin a Cat - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmbdiesel · #31 03-19-2013, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greazzer

Mr. Fox ... the "noted" professor ... I hope he makes tenure from the books he is hustling out there.

The claims made by Fox that mass shootings are increasing are simply not supportable. James Alan Fox's "analysis" ... demonstrates that he intentionally ommitted some key data ... which made it seem as if there was an increase after the Federal assault weapon ban expired. Although some mass murders receive more media attention than others, the number has been consistently about 20 annually since 1976. The number dead from these mass shootings fluctuates from about 25 to 150, depending on the year. Take a little peak at Prof. Fox's own chart in the books he is hustling out there. DoJ states homicides by raw number peaked in 1991 at 24,700; it's dropped in half since, and the homicide rate per 100,000 people today is less than it was even in 1900. Take a look at the "assault weapon" ban and when that hit the bricks and you start to see that the gun ban was not working out so hot as the clever little professor so thought.

Exactly.... crime rates have been dropping for decades, irrespective of CC laws.

In fact, it would seem to the casual observer, that gun laws (pro or con) have had very little effect on crime rates.

sloride · #32 03-19-2013, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

The reason for the strict gun control is the high crime rate.
Arguing that the crime rate is high because of the strict gun control is illogical.

Please understand, I am not making an argument either way, I am merely pointing out the flaws in your argument...

I do understand your argument but Chicago should be utopia. The state has a democrat governor, Cook county has a democrat head, Chicago has a democrat
mayor, and every alderman is a democrat so they can do whatever they want and have strict gun laws and higher crime rates than my area that has conceal and carry. What i have said many times is when you listen to the mayor of Chicago he never admits that it is a product of the drug trade as when a dealer buys a Bently for 300k the city and county gets 25k in sales taxes so that is what he wants to protect is that income from the suburbs.

greazzer · #33 03-19-2013, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Defensive use means that there was still a crime.
Also does not make any reference to CC.

You're arguing apples and oranges.

slow indicated that areas without CC laws have seen an increase in crime rate.
I would like to see some kind of evidence to support that claim.

A Mr. J. Lott and Mr. D. Mustard wrote a book, published in 1998 and now in its third edition, titled “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.” These jokers used a great deal of data from U.S. crime and socioeconomic statistics to show in a somewhat detailed analysis that there was in fact a link between rate of crime and right-to-carry laws in states and counties. It went down.

So, you wanted one study, you got one. Now, there were a lot of "critics" out there who said the study was not scholarly enough ... or they simply did not like the results since it ran contrary to the left wing agenda. So, my guess is that no study is good enough if it runs counter to the current agenda to limit or modify the 2nd Amendment.

greazzer · #34 03-19-2013, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Exactly.... crime rates have been dropping for decades, irrespective of CC laws.

In fact, it would seem to the casual observer, that gun laws (pro or con) have had very little effect on crime rates.

If this is "fact" as you say, then why would the current administration be pimping gun control contrary to the 2nd amendment? That is, if it simply does not matter if you have a zillion rules or no rules, then it seems as if you are now actually advocating for no gun control because it does not matter either way -- except that pesty 2nd Amendment. It looks like you argued yourself out of any position except the only one left: protect the 2nd Amendment !

cmbdiesel · #35 03-19-2013, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greazzer

A Mr. J. Lott and Mr. D. Mustard wrote a book, published in 1998 and now in its third edition, titled “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.” These jokers used a great deal of data from U.S. crime and socioeconomic statistics to show in a somewhat detailed analysis that there was in fact a link between rate of crime and right-to-carry laws in states and counties. It went down.

So, you wanted one study, you got one. Now, there were a lot of "critics" out there who said the study was not scholarly enough ... or they simply did not like the results since it ran contrary to the left wing agenda. So, my guess is that no study is good enough if it runs counter to the current agenda to limit or modify the 2nd Amendment.

The request was for evidence of crime rate increasing in the absence of CC laws... do try to stay on point...

greazzer · #36 03-19-2013, 04:54 PM

Was directly on point... you just want to word your "question" or "inquiry" so that it fits an agenda and not so much directed towards getting to the bottom of an inquiry. That's Ok, the proof is out there, but let's see if the B.O. crowd gets the 2nd Amendment re-vamped contrary to the facts. I dont' think so ... but you never know.

cmbdiesel · #37 03-19-2013, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greazzer

Was directly on point... you just want to word your "question" or "inquiry" so that it fits an agenda and not so much directed towards getting to the bottom of an inquiry. That's Ok, the proof is out there, but let's see if the B.O. crowd gets the 2nd Amendment re-vamped contrary to the facts. I dont' think so ... but you never know.

No... no you weren't. I was responding directly to a statement. I did not word the question to fit any agenda. That is what you have done with your answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sloride

Yes that is why it is not a gun problem but a crime problem which goes up in areas without conceal and carry. Or you must know for certain that we would have less first responders if guns were outlawed.

Reference bolded type.... stating that crime goes up in areas without CC.
I asked for some evidence.
Still have not seen any.
Regardless of the validity (or lack thereof) of studies attempting to show that crime rates drop in areas with CC laws, we cannot assume the opposite, that crime rates go up in areas without them.
Ignoring the question and providing an answer to what you wish was asked is just so much jerking off.

cmbdiesel · #38 03-19-2013, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greazzer

If this is "fact" as you say, then why would the current administration be pimping gun control contrary to the 2nd amendment? That is, if it simply does not matter if you have a zillion rules or no rules, then it seems as if you are now actually advocating for no gun control because it does not matter either way -- except that pesty 2nd Amendment. It looks like you argued yourself out of any position except the only one left: protect the 2nd Amendment !

I'm sorry....did I say it was a 'fact'???? no... I did not. More assumption on your part. It is my opinion based upon numerous studies and statistics.
And I most definitely am not trying to implicate my personal beliefs as the cause.

You haven't got the faintest idea where I stand on this issue, do you??

Generally speaking, I am for less laws. Certainly not in favor of more laws which are either unenforceable, that will create criminals out of normal law abiding citizens, or that have no basis in truth or reality.
I do believe that there need to be some common sense restrictions of the 2nd, as there are on all our other enumerated rights.
This I believe, will be the best long term defense strategy for the 2nd.
For the life of me, I cannot figure out people who have stood silent while our other rights have been trampled, and only now speak out in defense of the 2nd, especially using such narrow and literal interpretation of the Constitution, which is not how the other amendments have been treated.
Where was this outrage when the Patriot Act was being shoved down our throats?? Maybe it's just because this issue strikes at you more personally...
Further, I am not a fan of more forms of taxation, especially onerous taxes aimed at a particular segment of society.
Gun taxes, sin taxes and invisible (except at the pump) fuel taxes are all BS IMHO.

I cannot say why the current administration does what it does, no more than I could for the last one.... other than they are a bunch of politicians who see some personal benefit to pushing one agenda or the other.

I believe that they should pass a law stating that for every new law that gets passed, and old law must come off the books before it can be implemented...

elchivito · #39 03-19-2013, 07:42 PM

Harry Reid just ditched the AWB. I'm going to go out on a real long, skinny limb here and bet the 2A is safe and sound. Pretty soon there'll be 2500 dollar ARs on the market for the original 800 bucks they cost in between panics.

Botnst · #40 03-19-2013, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greazzer

Well then, case closed ! LOL. Too funny.

Car Crash Costs and Statistics

"In 2011, 32,367 people died in motor vehicle crashes, down 1.9 percent from 2010, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. In 2011, 2,217,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes. In 2010, 32,999 people died in motor vehicle crashes and an additional 2,239,000 people were injured.", id. AND, don't forget "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates about 10 million or more crashes go unreported each year." Sounds pricey to me.

I am thinking out loud here but how many folks protect themselves or family with the right to bear arms which our current administration is attempting to take away if we pay attention to what they say? (I exclude uncle Joe who has a double barrel shotgun on the porch)

Here is a somewhat academic "paper" on gun control myths: TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL

I am thinking the auther has a pretty good grasp on the situation. Right now, I am wondering how many people really, really trust the federal government? And, how many people would really really trust the federal government if the "average" citizen was disarmed through taxation of firearms and ammunitiion.

Folks in the NE down to VA, folks around the Glakes, and the entire west coast love the gov and wish it would do more for them. Fly-over country and the south does not trust the gov. We are headed to greater aggravation of this dichotomy. I don't think it will end well.

Botnst · #41 03-19-2013, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

Harry Reid just ditched the AWB. I'm going to go out on a real long, skinny limb here and bet the 2A is safe and sound. Pretty soon there'll be 2500 dollar ARs on the market for the original 800 bucks they cost in between panics.

If it drops low enough I may even pick one up. Just for the hell of it. I'm a bolt action guy.

duxthe1 · #42 03-19-2013, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

I do believe that there need to be some common sense restrictions of the 2nd, as there are on all our other enumerated rights.
This I believe, will be the best long term defense strategy for the 2nd.

THIS X infinity + infinity

What I think most pro-gun types dont get is that every time something like a mass shooting happens the slope that the 2nd amendment is on gets steeper. Eventually it will no longer be a slope, but a vertical line. Commonsense concessions will be only thing preventing that vertical line. All of the hoopla and recent dumb-ass-ery will do nothing to that end.