Where Americans REALLY Get Their News

[Sinixstar]

But to bring this back to where it started...let's not kid ourselves into thinking that anti-gun (lazy blanket reference, but you know what I mean) folks are a bunch of flower-bearing vegetarians, that people on the fence re guns are likely to be swayed by fear-driven argumentation, and/or that the other side is just "stupid."

That's exactly the reason why when it comes to arguing nuance in statistics, we get creamed. I mean think about it - you're the average joe american - watching TV, and you get the well educated man in a suit calmly talking about how people are getting killed and on and on.
You change the channel and you have a grumpy old man holding a musket above his head screaming "from my cold dead hands".

Who are you going to side with?

 

[AKGuy]

Sin...I think that the debate is okay, though it's extremely disheartening and frightening that we even have to have it to begin with. What you said about looking like noncaring idiots is exactly right. We can't expect non-gun folks to intuitively 'get' what we're after when we ourselves have so much difficulty figuring out what we want versus what we feel. What we want--the majority of us, I hope and pray!--is to be able to engage in firearms sports like hunting, target shooting, and collecting, and have at our disposal some reasonable means of self defense. But we overlook time and time again the low-lying fruit that is out there for us to sustain our arguments and instead resort to hurling that fruit--and everything else that we can lay hands on--at anyone not already within our ranks or on our side of the orchard. If it doesn't stop, it's going to bite us right in the butt. But I'm sure that the howler monkeys who cause us to get bit will still fail to understand that it was THEM who did it, not the Obama's....

 

[JImbothefiveth]

You can perhaps anticipate or assess the motive for display of bias based on source,

So basically what you're saying is - because the DOJ said that "it's not clear" - that means the drop in crime is because of CCW? That makes zero sense. If it's inconclusive - it's inconclusive.

I'm not. I'm saying it could have been because of that.

You're stating that crime dropped in Texas because of CCW - yet where's the evidence that CCW was the direct cause of that drop in crime? Where's the evidence of that? Where's the study that backs that up?

Because the year it was allowed, there was a drastic drop in violent crime. Murder fell 50% faster than the national average in the first year. According to a study by John Lott and David Mustard, involving county level crime from all counties in the U.S., crime is lower in states that allow CCW. States hat don't allow CCW have crime rates 11% higher than the national average. Oh, and in the period between Florida allowing CCW and 2005, the crime rate their has dropped from 36% above the national average to 4% below.

you get the well educated man in a suit calmly talking about how people are getting killed and on and on.
You change the channel and you have a grumpy old man holding a musket above his head screaming "from my cold dead hands".

I want to have well educated guys in suits, talking about how guns statistically reduce crime. I don't want to say "well maybe we should have another '94 ban", or "well maybe we should restrict (common, civilian appropriate gun here)" which is what you seem to be proposing.

For instance, you seem to be saying that the '94 ban was an incredible success. Do you support it?

 

[AKGuy]

Sin...yes, sometimes I cringe when I think about what I'm "in for" based on some comment or behavior I've seen on some cable hunting show or another...and triple that dread when the first guy we parade up to the podium to speak on our behalf after some incident or another looks/sounds like another cross between a Michigan Militia guy and the Unabomber. It's not about hiding unsavory folks or sentiments, it's about the rest of us who--dear God I hope that this is true--represent a friendlier-faced majority of RTKBA stepping up and trying to influence the outcome(s) based on what it really at work and/or at issue.

 

[AKGuy]

Jim...I could be wrong about this, but you seem to be talking right past what is being said.

The first response to any rise/fall in crime rates probably has little or nothing to do with gun control. It has to do with the populace's perception of the overall quality of their lives. We can parse, pick, harry, and distress all we want about what-did-what, but if our first answers to everything is "See--we need more guns" or "We need our guns back" when the US has an obscenely high incarceration rate, drug use rate, crime rate, etc isn't going to solve a doggone thing.

 

[Guns and more]

I don't need to see the mainstream media to know what I think. I have core values and I can't imagine changing them because of someone's argument. I do watch the "news" but I find I'm turned off by the spin.

 

[Sinixstar]

I'm not. I'm saying it could have been because of that.

And it could be because a really strong batch of crack went around and killed off a bunch of people. It could be aliens sent down some brain-altering beam to subdue to the violent tendencies of the population in preparation for an invasion.
It *could be* a lot of things - but without some evidence to prove otherwise - it's an exercise in mental masturbation.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Jim...I could be wrong about this, but you seem to be talking right past what is being said.

I'm not trying to, and I don't think I am.

The first response to any rise/fall in crime rates probably has little or nothing to do with gun control.

Then why is crime higher in states that do not allow CCW?

but if our first answers to everything is "See--we need more guns" or "We need our guns back" when the US has an obscenely high incarceration rate, drug use rate, crime rate, etc isn't going to solve a doggone thing.

Actually, I think one of the better ways to solve these are tougher prison sentences.

"We need more guns" might not be a good answer, but "gun laws will not fix these problems, here are the statistics to prove it" is.

 

[AKGuy]

Jim...first off, sometimes I get the impression that I'm being perceived as pro-gun-control. This is the point at which I remind folks that I am not pro-gun-control, and I'm an avid supporter of the RTKBA (but, alas, I'm sorry, I don't know why any of us as citizens need silencers or full-auto weaponry, so I guess I'm a backslider to some extent).

That having been said, you've made two observations that once again precisely underline the mis-steps that all of us are capable of making from time to time, and which are often intentionally/consciously made just because they're easy and we're lazy, and because they can be turned into cheapshot sound bytes very easily.

The first is saying that states that allow liberal ccw also have lower crime rates. Some do, some don't. The flaw is in automatically assuming and/or forcing upon others the notion that ccw equates with lower crime rates. No, it doesn't. As Sin has pointed out, in court and in those terrible Ivory-Towers (ie two of the few stages upon which this stuff is being played out) the emphasis will be on trying to identify ALL of the possible issues that influenced the crime rates, which are/were surely multifactorial, not unifactorial.

Did crime go up or down in a given state because of past reputation of said-state causing people to flee the state or take up residence in the state? Did the state experience economic downturn? What is the status of the schools in said-state? These are just a few of the many influences on crime rate, not just "If we all carried guns then we'd be safer" as well as the corollary, "If we don't carry guns we'll all be victims." It doesn't play out that cleanly or simply here or in other industrialized/developed nations.

Which leads to the next item that you cited...

Prisons. So...all we need to do to fix crime and (I don't get how this one works but it's what follows from what you said) lower incarceration rates is...toughen up the prison sentences?! Come again? The US has one of THE highest if not the VERY HIGHEST rate(s) of percentage of people imprisoned AND elevated crime rates AND gun ownership IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, third world sh*thole countries notwithstanding (and I've spent loads of time in places Southeast Asia and Africa, and NOT as a tourist or safari hunter, either).

So...follow me here...the logic that you are using to justify higher incarceration rates and longer prison terms is EXACTLY THE SAME FAULTY MESSED UP LOGIC THAT THE ANTI-GUN FOLKS WOULD THEORETICALLY USE TO TAKE AWAY HUNTING RIFLES AND HANDGUNS...but when it comes to seeing the irrationality of the prison argument I'm guessing that it isn't as clear as seeing the obvious irrationality of the classic anti-gun arguments.

More guns doesn't equate with more crime...we know and accept that....so why can't folks see how/why more prisons and longer prison terms doesn't equate with less crime?

This discussion isn't about prisons or crime rates or even gun control per-se...it was started as an exploration of apparent statistical "fact" versus the red herrings and boogeyman ghosts that so many RTKBA folks seem to prefer to deal with rather than rational realities.

And THAT hurts ME as a RTKBA...and you, too...

 

[BHP FAN]

Because the year it was allowed, there was a drastic drop in violent crime. Murder fell 50% faster than the national average in the first year. According to a study by John Lott and David Mustard, involving county level crime from all counties in the U.S., crime is lower in states that allow CCW. States hat don't allow CCW have crime rates 11% higher than the national average. Oh, and in the period between Florida allowing CCW and 2005, the crime rate their has dropped from 36% above the national average to 4% below...


ISN'T ''mental masturbation...''

 

[Sinixstar]

Because the year it was allowed, there was a drastic drop in violent crime. Murder fell 50% faster than the national average in the first year. According to a study by John Lott and David Mustard, involving county level crime from all counties in the U.S., crime is lower in states that allow CCW. States hat don't allow CCW have crime rates 11% higher than the national average. Oh, and in the period between Florida allowing CCW and 2005, the crime rate their has dropped from 36% above the national average to 4% below...


ISN'T ''mental masturbation...''

And again - what other factors were taken into consideration?
Looking at CCW in a vacuum doesn't really cut it. I think we've pretty well established that there's plenty of other things that contribute to crime rates.

 

[BHP FAN]

So it's just coincidence that the year they started CCW murder drops 50%?I think we've pretty well established that you are going to ignore the evidence you asked for...''where is the study''...because it doesn't fit your view.

 

[Sinixstar]

Also - your Texas argument has one MASSIVE flaw.

Governor George W. Bush signed the concealed weapons laws in Texas in 1995. What was happening in 1995? Co-incidentily enough, that's when many people say the effects of the brady/awb legislation really started to take effect.

Just so happens your drop in crime because of CCW, lines up almost directly with the supposed drop in crime due to the result of gun control legislation.

Now - tell me which was responsible for it.

 

[BHP FAN]

You asked for a study...the man provides you with one.I think the only thing ''we've pretty well established'' is that you're going to ignore any evidence that doesn't support your opinion. and that accusing someone of ''mental masturbation...'' isn't really The High Road.

 

[BHP FAN]

Is it just coincidence that DC has the title ''Murder Capital'' and that it has some of the most restrictive laws against self defence in our Nation.You tell me.Back it up with a study.

 

[AKGuy]

You want a study?

Okay...BHP...here's an example regarding Florida, ccw, etc...and it cites a source (a Bush boy) who I would very much have been inclined to poison--the--well about in advance if you were to have given me the opportunity to do so...but because what he said actually supports what has been said on here by me and by Sin I'm going to "suddenly" regard it as true......here's a study...

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/07/11/State/Local__Florida_crime_.shtml

So...according to the article, it isn't possible to assess how/why the rates declined. Much less the comments regarding gun control...and THAT comes from a Republican governor...AND it sounds on the surface like some things that I could get behind and support...

Of course it still doesn't seem to discuss in any great depth (how unusual for American media to be shallow...hmmmm) several of the complexities that underlie American crime rates, but at least it gives the nod to the fact that it's multifactorial, not just because Sam and Sara are totin' 357s with 147gr JHPs...or whatever.

And the Wash DC thing, BHP...you have GOT to be kidding us in using that as an example of how gun control is flat out bad and ineffective, and I say that as an anti-gun-control RTKBA brother/sister! There is such a multiplicity of stuff going down in DC that is classically irrefutably tied to crime rates that singling out the gun aspect is as sick and blind as it is laughable.

I keep saying this, and it keeps falling on deaf ears apparently: Have the behaviors and arguments historically floated by us done anything at all to further our cause? Are we losing ground as RTKBA?

Somebody said that the definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. I submit to my brothers and sisters that if we aren't happy with how things seem to be going then we need to look within as well as without...

 

[BHP FAN]

That's the definition of insanity,not stupidity.

 

[BHP FAN]

The defination of stupidity is ignoring the Lott Study and citing some Politician,of either Party.

 

[AKGuy]

...didn't cite the politician, BHP. Cited the study outlined in the article and pointed out that support for the assessment also comes from an unlikely source.

But...that's okay. I've been called stupid by people smarter than you...and some of them have even been smarter than me, so no harm done by resorting to ad-hominem.

 

[AKGuy]

Creationists call Evolutionists stupid, and vice versa. I say that neither is intrinsically stupid though I have my views about which is logically supportable and which isn't...but ad hominem sure ain't no sign of brilliance...

 

[BHP FAN]

I never called you stupid.I've seen no evidence of it.What I said was that it was stupid to ignore the Lott study.He's something of an authority on the subject.

 

[AKGuy]

Well, BHP, I interpreted your comments differently...and I'll take you at your word regarding no intent on your part to have done so, and I apologize for misinterpreting your comment(s) in that regard.

I've seen the Lott study...and so have lots of people who are theoretically opposed to RTKBA. Where has it gotten us? And why has it gotten us to where we believe that we are? THAT is what I'm talking about.

In Thailand there's a concept called "cool heart," and it has to do with practically killing oneself to maintain an even strain, not react emotionally, keep one's cool, etc. And I'm here to tell you that anti's just L-O-V-E it when folks from within the RTKBA ranks pop off reactively.

And I'm also here to tell ya (not you personally, BHP) that time and time again, here in the US and even overseas (talking to Canadians, Brits, Aussies, Germans, French, Thais, Vietnamese, etc etc etc) that we RTKBA folks in the USA are NOT perceived as intelligent, or calm cool and collected in any way shape or form. And if I could have back every minute that I've had to spend UNdoing the damage that we have done to ourselves in this PR-regard before I could even begin to get to the true heart of the issue(s) at hand..well...then...I'd have...something We may not like that fact, but it's a fact that we are going to have to deal with nonetheless if we are going to survive.

 

[BHP FAN]

You're not wrong.And,I'm familiar with the ''Ugly American'' concept,I was a world traveller before I joined the Navy.I see your point.On the other hand trying to appease the Anti's hasn't gotten us anywhere either.

 

[Sinixstar]

On the other hand trying to appease the Anti's hasn't gotten us anywhere either.

I don't think it's so much a matter of trying to appease, as much as it is understand. How can you expect to defeat the merits of an argument if you don't understand the mentality from which that argument was born?

Know your enemy...

 

[JImbothefiveth]

so why can't folks see how/why more prisons and longer prison terms doesn't equate with less crime?

Because guns and prison terms are 2very different things. Criminals get guns regardless of the law, but when law-abiding people have guns, criminals have reason to fear, and are less likely to succeed at hurting people. When criminals get tougher prison sentences, they have reason to fear. Are you really going to sell drugs if you risk 20 years in prison? (Please note, I do not believe doing drugs should carry that heavy of a punishment, just selling them)
Will you invade someone's home? What if you do, and being violent towards the (armed)homeowner means double the sentence? Will you be violent?

It's all about making criminals afraid to commit crimes.

BTW, I wasn't intending this as a fix to the incarceration rate, just to crime. However, if less people commit crimes, that should lower the incarceration rate

Have the behaviors and arguments historically floated by us done anything at all to further our cause? Are we losing ground as RTKBA?

Yes, I've converted at least one person with the statistics I've cited, possibly as many as 4.

And the Wash DC thing, BHP...you have GOT to be kidding us in using that as an example of how gun control is flat out bad and ineffective, and I say that as an anti-gun-control RTKBA brother/sister! There is such a multiplicity of stuff going down in DC that is classically irrefutably tied to crime rates that singling out the gun aspect is as sick and blind as it is laughable.

Chicago also has a handgun ban, it hasn't done them too much good either.


Oh, and I forgot. You still haven't produced ANY study showing that gun owners in general are not as smart as most people. I can't even attack your source, you won't provide one. I doubt one even exists.

And you still haven't answered this question either: Do you support the '94 ban?