Alabama Shooting

blackascoal said:
Honestly my brother I'm not proposing either. This is America where people have orgasms over their guns. Gun sanity will never happen here.

In my opinion, enacting laws similar to those in the UK is the only sane thing to do, but it will never happen here in the the greatest arms selling nation in the world .. which also happens to be the greatest prison nation in human history.

In my opinion, we are not fully sane people.
Click to expand...

typical statist response and opinion. WE the people are free because we had our own arms. WE are mostly free because we still have our arms. The UK people are not free anymore. They are subjects and victims because they willingly gave over their guns under the mistaken belief that guns cause people to lose their minds and go on rampages.

you also have a disconnect between arms selling and prison nation. I can't fathom what that is about.
 
Good Luck said:
Your own statistical post negates your argument that gun control laws do make a difference in gun violence.

For instance, Brazil, 2nd from the top as well as Mexico, 3rd from the top, have very stringent gun control laws. OTOH, you can look at Sweden, Switzerland, and ISRAEL(!!), places where private firearms ownership is even higher than the U.S., including legal ownership of full auto firearms, yet far lower incidences of firearms related violence.

Another statistic you totalitarians keep ignoring is the fact that the U.S. leads the world in ALL types of criminal violence: muggings, assault, domestic violence, gang activity, rape, etc. We have become a very violent society in every aspect, and it has NOTHING to do with the availability of firearms.

It's time to quit taking the feel-good politically (and utterly brain dead) approach to our violent society and start actually addressing the problem. Owning firearms does not MAKE a person violent, nor even more likely to use violence. If we want to TRULY address the level of violence in our society, we need to first figure out the real CAUSES of our level of violent crime. WHY are people in today's society so willing to turn to a violence in response to a particular set of circumstances? Why is it road rage has literally turned dangerous, whereas 30 years ago it was limited to gestures and profanity, and wasn't even THAT much another 20 years before? We are NEVER going to get the NEEDED questions answered when mindless totalitarian drones keep harping about firearms. Firearms are NOT the problem.
Click to expand...

There is all manner of ambiguous data and information that supports either side of the issue .. which is why I'm just an observer giving my opinion. I don't really care what America does with guns because there is no solution to be found.

Additionally ..

"Another statistic you totalitarians keep ignoring is the fact that the U.S. leads the world in ALL types of criminal violence: muggings, assault, domestic violence, gang activity, rape, etc."
Click to expand...

What you seem to ignore is that guns are used in all of that and make the commission of such crimes much, much easier.

And ..

"Owning firearms does not MAKE a person violent, nor even more likely to use violence."
Click to expand...

That ain't (eb) true eithet.

Guns at home equal higher suicide risk: study

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Suicide rates among people of all ages are higher in states where more homes have guns, U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday.

Twice as many people committed suicide in the 15 states with the highest levels of household gun ownership, compared with the six states with the lowest levels, even though the population in all the states was about the same, the researchers found.

"We found that where there are more guns, there are more suicides," said Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health, who led the study.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0934955120070410

That's kinda' the good news .. gun owners are killing themselves more than anyone else.

The bad news ..

A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative.

... when a firearm is present, domestic violence can and all too often does turn into domestic homicide.

... having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of such a homicide.

Having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner.
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/domviofs.htm

Additionally, one of the best sources foir guns for criminals are the guns they take from homeowners .. guns that are seldom used for self-defense.

I'm simply not hung upon gun control in America. Let them continue to kill themselves if they choose
 
People with guns usually have higher suicide rates because men usually just use the most fatal method they can find when they decide to do it. And, of course, a gunshot to the head is almost 100% more fatal. It's not really about "making" a person more violent, it just makes it a lot easier to be irresponsibly severe, when normally such a person would do something like swallow a bunch of aspirin, which could easily be pumped out of their stomach.
 
Watermark said:
People with guns usually have higher suicide rates because men usually just use the most fatal method they can find when they decide to do it. And, of course, a gunshot to the head is almost 100% more fatal. It's not really about "making" a person more violent, it just makes it a lot easier to be irresponsibly severe, when normally such a person would do something like swallow a bunch of aspirin, which could easily be pumped out of their stomach.
Click to expand...

Guns are successful in suicide attempts 90% of the time .. other methods only successful 3% of the time.

I'm not sure how "more violent" fits into the equation. The act is all that need be judged .. just as in the Alabama case.
 
There is all manner of ambiguous data and information that supports either side of the issue ..
Wrong. The data is not "ambiguous". What is ambiguous is the way the data is used (misused) skewed, etc. Statistical analysis is a hard science. Unfortunately, very few people have a good enough grasp on the science of statistics to understand when statistics are being incorrectly applied. That makes it easy to lie using statistics.

The statistics you posted on various countries and their gun crime rates is a case in point. You tried to use it to prove/support the idea that there is not only a correlation, but cause/efect relationship between gun control laws and gun crime levels. However, a VALID analysis of the data shows there is not even a statistically significant correlation, let alone a cause effect relationship.

What you seem to ignore is that guns are used in all of that and make the commission of such crimes much, much easier.
Not all violent crimes involve firearms. For instance, less than 50% of muggings involve a firearm. Less than 20% of rapes involve a firearm. As stated ALL types of violent crime in the U.S. are up - INCLUDING those that do NOT involve a firearm.

Suicide rates among people of all ages are higher in states where more homes have guns, U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday.
Those studies are a class example of lying with statistics. Did you note that neither study made ANY attempt to account for those factors which lead to suicide attempts? They associated suicides by STATE. Did it occur to them (or you) that societal conditions may have a role in suicide? Nor did they account for unsuccessful suicide attempts, which would vastly skew the data against firearms, since suicides involving firearms are far more likely to be successful (by their own admission). It's just another bull shit "study" (ie: lie using bogus statistics) aimed at finding more excuses for developing the modern liberals' beloved totalitarian society.
 
Good Luck said:
There is all manner of ambiguous data and information that supports either side of the issue ..
Wrong. The data is not "ambiguous". What is ambiguous is the way the data is used (misused) skewed, etc. Statistical analysis is a hard science. Unfortunately, very few people have a good enough grasp on the science of statistics to understand when statistics are being incorrectly applied. That makes it easy to lie using statistics.
Click to expand...

I disagree .. but if your suggestion is that only one side skewers the data, that is seriously disingenuous.

The statistics you posted on various countries and their gun crime rates is a case in point. You tried to use it to prove/support the idea that there is not only a correlation, but cause/efect relationship between gun control laws and gun crime levels. However, a VALID analysis of the data shows there is not even a statistically significant correlation, let alone a cause effect relationship.
Click to expand...

Again, I disagree completely, but I can respect your OPINION.

What you seem to ignore is that guns are used in all of that and make the commission of such crimes much, much easier.
Not all violent crimes involve firearms. For instance, less than 50% of muggings involve a firearm. Less than 20% of rapes involve a firearm. As stated ALL types of violent crime in the U.S. are up - INCLUDING those that do NOT involve a firearm.
Click to expand...

That's not true either ..

2007

According to the report released Monday (Crime in the United States 2007), in 2007 there were about 1.41 million instances of violent crime in the U.S. (down 0.7 percent from 2006), and approximately 9.84 million property crimes (a 1.4 percent decrease from 2006). All seven crimes tracked in the FBI's "specific offense" category -- murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, and motor vehicle theft -- were down for 2007. To compile the 2007 report, the FBI worked in conjunction with more than 17,000 local, city, state, tribal, and federal agencies -- groups that represented almost 95 percent of the U.S. population.
http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2008/09/fbi-violent-cri.html

2008

Violent crime nationwide fell 3.5 percent, and property crime dropped 2.5 percent, according to the bureau's preliminary figures released Monday morning.

The latest FBI data indicates violent crime has fallen for a second straight year, after increases in 2006 and 2005.

The crime rate began to rise after historic lows that began during the Clinton administration and continued into President Bush's first years in the White House.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/13/fbi-crime-in-us-down-in-early-2008/

Suicide rates among people of all ages are higher in states where more homes have guns, U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday.
Those studies are a class example of lying with statistics. Did you note that neither study made ANY attempt to account for those factors which lead to suicide attempts? They associated suicides by STATE. Did it occur to them (or you) that societal conditions may have a role in suicide? Nor did they account for unsuccessful suicide attempts, which would vastly skew the data against firearms, since suicides involving firearms are far more likely to be successful (by their own admission). It's just another bull shit "study" (ie: lie using bogus statistics) aimed at finding more excuses for developing the modern liberals' beloved totalitarian society.
Click to expand...

There is little ambiguity in this study .. you simply don't like the results and you're looking for a way to excuse it .. case in point from my first comment in this post.

Irrespective of the excuses (societal conditions) there is no disputing the raw data. A gun in the home makes that home more likely for suicide or domestic homicide.
 
Good Luck said:
There is all manner of ambiguous data and information that supports either side of the issue ..
Wrong. The data is not "ambiguous". What is ambiguous is the way the data is used (misused) skewed, etc. Statistical analysis is a hard science. Unfortunately, very few people have a good enough grasp on the science of statistics to understand when statistics are being incorrectly applied. That makes it easy to lie using statistics.

The statistics you posted on various countries and their gun crime rates is a case in point. You tried to use it to prove/support the idea that there is not only a correlation, but cause/efect relationship between gun control laws and gun crime levels. However, a VALID analysis of the data shows there is not even a statistically significant correlation, let alone a cause effect relationship.

What you seem to ignore is that guns are used in all of that and make the commission of such crimes much, much easier.
Not all violent crimes involve firearms. For instance, less than 50% of muggings involve a firearm. Less than 20% of rapes involve a firearm. As stated ALL types of violent crime in the U.S. are up - INCLUDING those that do NOT involve a firearm.

Suicide rates among people of all ages are higher in states where more homes have guns, U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday.
Those studies are a class example of lying with statistics. Did you note that neither study made ANY attempt to account for those factors which lead to suicide attempts? They associated suicides by STATE. Did it occur to them (or you) that societal conditions may have a role in suicide? Nor did they account for unsuccessful suicide attempts, which would vastly skew the data against firearms, since suicides involving firearms are far more likely to be successful (by their own admission). It's just another bull shit "study" (ie: lie using bogus statistics) aimed at finding more excuses for developing the modern liberals' beloved totalitarian society.
Click to expand...

You DON'T think that the gun lobby uses skewed data?
 
Watermark said:
You DON'T think that the gun lobby uses skewed data?
Click to expand...

As he said, data is unambiguous. What is skewed is perception of the data, and it is perceived differently by both sides, depending on the argument being made with the data. The point GL so brilliantly made, is that "gun control" doesn't equate to a reduction in gun related violence. Perceptions of the data are skewed to "see" that result. The same thing happens from the opposite perspective, but the data is what it is... data. Unless, of course, the data is completely made up, then it is a lie.

This has been an interesting thread, we have the typical views from the left, wanting to blame this tragedy on guns, and screaming yet again for stricter gun control laws. I interjected the rational thought that we may want to look at our culture and what it has become, how we have abandoned morality and the teaching of ethics in school, while glorifying violence through music and entertainment. I was quickly branded a religious nut who wanted children to be forced to pray and be Christians, but again, that is emotive reactionaryism from the left. No, let's not look at what may be the actual cause of such acts, let's focus on some pet agenda item where we can lobby the government to strip more freedoms away from the people! It's typical pinhead liberalism on display!
 
First, not ONCE did I say, or even remotely imply that only the anti-gun faction uses falsee statistics. I said that it is easy to lie with statistics because few people understand the science of statistical analysis. WHERE does that say anything about ONE side? But typical of the way the modern brain dead argue - (called STRAWMAN) However, to ease your simpleton minds, I will point out an obvious lie told by pro-gun advocates based on the fact that areas which have high firearms ownership also have low crime rates. The claim from that basic fact is that firearms ownership prevents crime. Sorry, pro-gun guys, but there is no actual statistical analysis that supports that conclusion.

Second: the analysis that there is no statistical significant correlation between gun control laws and gun crimes is NOT an opinion. It is a statistical analysis of FACT. Take the numbers and run a scatter plot yourself. Compute the R and R-squared. Use any damned VALID statistical analysis you want. You will NOT find any actual FACTS to support your claim that there is a correlation. And without a correlation, there cannot be ANY valid attempt at an associated cause/effect relationship.

Three: excuse my use of the wrong word. I meant ALL kinds of violent crime is HIGH (not "up") in the U.S. Crimes rates are HIGH, as in way, WAY higher than they SHOULD be. The REASONS for our high crime rates - especially violent crime - is what we need to seriously investigate instead of focusing on mindless politically correct drivel about gun control.

Four: there is ZERO "ambiguity" in your beloved suicide study. It is plain assed, 100% lie-in-the-fold FALSE. It is another prime example of using invalid statistics to LIE. The study did not make ANY attempt to isolate the factor of gun ownership from all other relevant factors in suicide. All they did was simply compare SUCCESSFUL suicide rates (again, ignoring another relevant factor in suicide) and associated them with gun control laws in the associated states. It is a poor study. In fact it goes beyond "poor study" -- as in a deliberate LIE - deliberately using incorrect methods of statistical analysis to support liberal preconceptions.
 
Dixie said:
As he said, data is unambiguous. What is skewed is perception of the data, and it is perceived differently by both sides, depending on the argument being made with the data. The point GL so brilliantly made, is that "gun control" doesn't equate to a reduction in gun related violence. Perceptions of the data are skewed to "see" that result. The same thing happens from the opposite perspective, but the data is what it is... data. Unless, of course, the data is completely made up, then it is a lie.

This has been an interesting thread, we have the typical views from the left, wanting to blame this tragedy on guns, and screaming yet again for stricter gun control laws. I interjected the rational thought that we may want to look at our culture and what it has become, how we have abandoned morality and the teaching of ethics in school, while glorifying violence through music and entertainment. I was quickly branded a religious nut who wanted children to be forced to pray and be Christians, but again, that is emotive reactionaryism from the left. No, let's not look at what may be the actual cause of such acts, let's focus on some pet agenda item where we can lobby the government to strip more freedoms away from the people! It's typical pinhead liberalism on display!
Click to expand...

Injected rational thought? Wow, I must have missed that. I saw you talking about the problem being a lack of respect for God in schools. Which is nonsense.

The government stripping freedoms away? Given the choice of having my freedoms stripped by the government or the church, I will take the government. At least they will allow the same stripping for all.
 
Solitary said:
Injected rational thought? Wow, I must have missed that. I saw you talking about the problem being a lack of respect for God in schools. Which is nonsense.

The government stripping freedoms away? Given the choice of having my freedoms stripped by the government or the church, I will take the government. At least they will allow the same stripping for all.
Click to expand...

Solitary. You're oversimplifying and mischaracterizing like you always do.

Dixie is bringing up legitimate points about our culture, and you respond with strawman arguments.
 
Solitary said:
Injected rational thought? Wow, I must have missed that. I saw you talking about the problem being a lack of respect for God in schools. Which is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Give the guy SOME credit. The idea that we need to take a good hard look at our culture of violence instead of mindlessly blaming firearms ownership IS a rational thought. Now, you may take exception to WHICH aspects he suggests are at fault. But the base premise that there are factors out there influencing a culture of violence that need to be studied and subsequently addressed is a valid and rational idea.
 
Solitary said:
Injected rational thought? Wow, I must have missed that. I saw you talking about the problem being a lack of respect for God in schools. Which is nonsense.

The government stripping freedoms away? Given the choice of having my freedoms stripped by the government or the church, I will take the government. At least they will allow the same stripping for all.
Click to expand...

You obviously have some reading comprehension problem, whereby, you read something I post, and it automatically translates into your brain as something absurd which you can argue against. I merely pointed out, since we decided to abandon God as a society, in government, in schools, in the culture as a whole, we have seen an increase in this sort of craziness. It's far more prevalent today than it was 60, 80, 100 years ago. I made the point that, if we are going to examine further gun control restrictions, we would be just as well off to examine our culture and how we've stripped God from society and promote violence in music and entertainment across the board. I happen to think that has a helluva lot more to do with this kind of insanity, than the lack of gun control.

You twisted what I said into some silly debate against "Dixie: Religious Nut who Wants to Force Children to be Christians!" I've not taken such a position, you transferred me there when you miscomprehended what I originally said, and we've been going in circles ever since. You've railed against religion, you've railed against Roy Moore, you've done everything short of erecting a pentagram and speaking in tongues to the Devil himself, while maintaining you are a wholesome God-fearing man, who is courageously standing up for the Constitution.... (which you have no clue on the foundation of.)

Now, what I say may seem very "politically incorrect" to you, it may go against the grain of your liberal anti-religious, anti-God agenda and propaganda, but the fact remains... before we decided that God had no place in our schools, when we still made the attempt to instill values and morality in our youth, when we were still a decent God-fearing society for the most part, we didn't have nuts running around Smalltown, Alabama, committing mass murder on innocent people! It just didn't happen much back then.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Solitary. You're oversimplifying and mischaracterizing like you always do.

Dixie is bringing up legitimate points about our culture, and you respond with strawman arguments.
Click to expand...

You're full of shit. Dixie's bringing up imaginary bogies who don't and never have existed. What is this wingnut shit where if someone tells you something often enough it becomes the truth, regradless of what the facts are?
 
Good Luck said:
Give the guy SOME credit. The idea that we need to take a good hard look at our culture of violence instead of mindlessly blaming firearms ownership IS a rational thought. Now, you may take exception to WHICH aspects he suggests are at fault. But the base premise that there are factors out there influencing a culture of violence that need to be studied and subsequently addressed is a valid and rational idea.
Click to expand...

OK, you do make a point but I have to make one here too. Show me one...just one...thought of Dixie's that is rational.
 
Dixie's pretty rational in this entire thread. Hell, even liberals complain our society is too violent. Get brains, you jackals of sub par intellect; you're like a swarm of retarded Melvins.
 
This is typical Mottleyism! He can't offer anything of substance to refute what I've said, so he goes into personal attack mode. This is usually followed with a post of braggadocio about his own level of intellect, or educational credentials. In essence, his generic argument for everything is, he is smarter than me, and I am dumb, so he wins. The funny thing is, I was earning college credits when he was still shitting yellow in his diapers.

Back on topic... this nut in Alabama didn't do what he did because guns were too easy to obtain! And he may not have done it because he lacked any kind of moral and ethical influence in his life... BUT, it is worth considering, in a culture where we've glorified violence, desensitized people to death, and basically forsaken the mere mention of God in public, as if it's a dirty word... that MAY have played a role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top