MASSIVE Elementary School Shooting in CT *12-24 Maybe be dead

[Data Holmes]

MacLeod wrote:

---

So we agree, that a gun ban would have an impact on the murder rate, even if it was miniscule.

Guess what if that miniscule effect was even saving one life, it would be worth it.

That's just it, the FBI study showed that there was no discernible statistical effect to the assault weapons ban. They out right said that the murder statistics would have been the same with or without the ban.

So, the ban had no discernible effect to the firearm murder statistics!

In fact, not only did murder rates decline following the sun setting of the assault weapons ban, nearly every crime rate dropped. LATimes2005: The Big Lie of the Assault Weapons Ban!

[gturner]

Nightmare, I think we can work with his proposal. As gun owners, recognizing that many are demanding the surrender of Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in exchange for just one life, we just need to dictate terms.

"We will guarantee to drop the murders by one, but in return, we demand that you destroy your TV's, cars, smartphones, and toilets. Then vote Republican forevermore, submit all your comments for our pre-approval, give us the labors of all your offspriing in perpetuity in this world and the next, and worship us as divine gods. You must also make cat toys for us."

The Founders have endless quotes on trading liberty for security, but if you figure in the profit motive, maybe we should just go ahead and exploit the snot out of these folks before any one of a half-million criminal gang members beats us to it.

Go grab up a random nephew, teach him to scream on camera for ice cream treats, and we'll take this country to the cleaners. Even odds says we can get them to renounce the entire Bill of Rights and half the thoughts since the Enlightenment, but most importantly, ALL their money.

All those perps in the EU, UK, and FBI bank robbery stats? Total morons. If only they knew they could exploit anti-violence logic to clean out entire national treasuries and turn millions into willing slaves with nothing but a nasty misspelled note and a pair of panty hose.

[teacake]

When did toilets ever kill anyone?

Oh, there was Elvis. But that's all in the past now.

[beamMe]

gturner wrote:

---

Nightmare, I think we can work with his proposal. As gun owners, recognizing that many are demanding the surrender of Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in exchange for just one life, we just need to dictate terms.

"We will guarantee to drop the murders by one, but in return, we demand that you destroy your TV's, cars, smartphones, and toilets. Then vote Republican forevermore, submit all your comments for our pre-approval, give us the labors of all your offspriing in perpetuity in this world and the next, and worship us as divine gods. You must also make cat toys for us."

The Founders have endless quotes on trading liberty for security, but if you figure in the profit motive, maybe we should just go ahead and exploit the snot out of these folks before any one of a half-million criminal gang members beats us to it.

Go grab up a random nephew, teach him to scream on camera for ice cream treats, and we'll take this country to the cleaners. Even odds says we can get them to renounce the entire Bill of Rights and half the thoughts since the Enlightenment, but most importantly, ALL their money.

All those perps in the EU, UK, and FBI bank robbery stats? Total morons. If only they knew they could exploit anti-violence logic to clean out entire national treasuries and turn millions into willing slaves with nothing but a nasty misspelled note and a pair of panty hose.

You are scared, afraid, aren't you?

[Edit_XYZ]

Here's a compendium of studies showing, again - unsurprisingly -, that whether you look across cities, U.S. states, or countries, more availability of guns leads to more gun violence and more gun homicides.

Statistical data make the pro-gun anecdotes/rhetoric/straw-men look like the jokes they are.

[Edit_XYZ]

About Canada:
Guns are common enough in Canada. But not nearly as ubiquitous as in the USA. Also the type of firearms are quite different.

As far as I know, fully automatic hand guns are impossible for individuals to own. Also assault rifles, grenade launchers and other items that appear to be available in various jurisdictions in the USA.

To get the license to purchase a revolver or semiautomatic handgun in Canada requires a fairly thorough criminal record check, and provision of 2 references (who are themselves both given criminal records checks and grilled as to the suitability of the candidate to own restricted firearms). The only justification for owning one is sport shooting. (Personal self defense is NOT a valid reason to purchase ANY firearm.) The RCMP then keep a national database entry on both the owner and the weapon.

Unlicensed and illegal firearms do exist, but their ownership is a crime and leads to an automatic prison sentence when found out.

Most firearms are long guns (rifles) used in either sport shooting or hunting (which itself requires a license, unless one is aboriginal and has a subsistence hunting exemption).

A HUGE difference between this and the mess in the USA. Explaining nicely the lack of periodic mass shootings in Canada.

[gturner]

Well, okay, I was just trying to slip that one past them to see if they could figure out how to poop wihtout a toilet. I figured I could later give a speech about how they "worship the porcelain god" and then throw a beer, wine, and cheese festival to cement my rule by giving them all a guilt trip over their tummy's reaction to the cheap stuff I'll serve them. Divine gods, especially evil ones, do that kind of thing all the time.

Lately I am thinking that a homily on the sheepdog and the wolf might be in order, and how hard it is to protect the flock when the sheep think all sharp teeth are the same, but with people who think serious, heart rending problems are introduced in the first 15 minutes of the episode and solved once a planet agrees to the pat solution that doesn't make a lick of sense in the episode's last five minutes, I'm not sure any progress is possible.

[gturner]

Edit_XYZ wrote:

---

Here's a compendium of studies showing, again - unsurprisingly -, that whether you look across cities, U.S. states, or countries, more availability of guns leads to more gun violence and more gun homicides.

Statistical data make the pro-gun anecdotes/rhetoric/straw-men look like the jokes they are.

No, your study is junk because they didn't have the courage to take any actual academic risk. They say they controlled for povertty, but poverty is not a good indicator of crime, culture is. Turkey is extremely poor by EU standards but they rate like Germans on being proper and honest. Many rich kids will rob or kill you for jollies.

When you take state-by-state firearm rates versus murder rates, you get almost a shotgun pattern (I can IM anyone my spreadsheet so far). The first pass shows that Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Vermont, and other extremely high gun-ownership states have a murder rate lower than the UK, but so do some other wildly homogenous white states with low gun ownership rates, like Rhode Island or Massachusetts.

If you try to remove the influence of blacks on the data, the outliers shift to Alaska and the Southwest, and the core data is still a random shotun blast. There is no way to remove cultural influence without breaking things down further into Hispanics and Indians, and then Southern Baptist blacks versus rappers, Italians versus English, Japanese versus Somoans, Hondurans versus Mexicans.

The thing is, even if you take it to those levels, you can do it all day long in a futile attempt to tease gun vs. homicide rates out of noise, and you can create all kinds of patterns, and not one of them is valid on the next run. The gun data is actually noise.

ETA: The Harvard study would've browsed through countless junk plots until they started seeing what they wanted using a set of defensible metrics. They also could've shown you anything else you wanted to see. A previous Harvard study reached the exact opposite conclusions and was cited by the US Supreme Court.

When you're trying to tease tenth of a percent trends out of data (1.5 vs 1.6) and your sample includes hundrds of 1's and an occassional 300, whose behavior depends on what happened on MTV the previous night, it is da** hard to extract meaningful information.

[Edit_XYZ]

That would be 'studies' (NOT "study").
And one can't fake or 'academic risk' numbers and probability - as long as the studies follow logic (which they do).

It's your poor attempts at doctoring the data, rhetoric and straw-men that are 'junk' - as is blatantly obvious to anyone who cares to look.

But you don't care about that. You are only interested in continuing with your gun hobby regardless of how many die for it. And fooling yourself into thinking you are a human being beyond the biological level.

[gturner]

There are no American forces in Iraq! What you see is an illussion I tell you! We are slaughtering them everywhere. They are killing themselves with shovels.

Yeah, seen that one.

[Squiggy]

Hound of UIster wrote:

---

One, the study set the authors derived wasn't from "medieval Germany", it was from 17-18th century Germany and what was then the Kingdom of Hanover. Two, if you actually read the paper, you'd know that mass infanticide was never a conclusion made by the author. Their suggestion was rather that it was due to pressure, stress and conflict between the in-law and the mother, the same effect which latter papers has also observed in several countries including Japan and Canada

Aside from the when, the where, and the who...his quoting of the incredibly outdated source was correct.

[Edit_XYZ]

What exactly is the source of the USA far right/gun nuts paranoia and longing for weapons?
I recommend to read this article by Rick Perlstein in which he skewers the source of the right wing paranoia.

The concise version is, "follow the money, stupid". The right wing media machine, from Fox News down, is a massive money extraction mechanism that emits terrifying sound-bursts then offers to make the problem Go Away For Just $25 A Year.

The far right/gun nuts sure are soft targets for propaganda.

[Shazam!]

NightmareB4Holmes wrote:

---

an argument between one side wanting to ban guns as an answer to events like this, and people pointing out that mental illness and society are the driving factors

In wanting to own a gun? I agree.

[Data Holmes]

Shazam! wrote:

---

In wanting to own a gun? I agree.

I'm starting to think that the irrational fear of the gun banners is a clear sign of mental illness...

I mean, being afraid of something simply because it's "black and scary"? Justifying its banning because it will come after your children? What does that sound like?

[SmoothieX]

teacake wrote:

---

When did toilets ever kill anyone?

You'd be surprised.

http://www.kpho.com/story/18884301/p...oilet-tank-lid