Concealed carry predictions way off target (No blood in the streets)

[hack89]

When the Wisconsin Senate gathered in June of 2011 to take up a bill allowing the state's citizens to carry concealed weapons, protesters around the Capitol building were still in a state of high dudgeon. As a result, Republicans were accused of "rushing" through "socially divisive" bills such as concealed carry and voter identification through the legislative process while the state's attention was focused elsewhere.

Naturally, there were hyperbolic predictions that Wisconsin would become the "Wild West," where hypothetical people at traffic stops would suddenly open fire on one another. Current Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling (D-La Crosse), whose parents were tragically shot to death more than 20 years ago, once argued that legalizing concealed weapons "kills people," and that "Guns will beget guns."

Yet nearly four years later, nearly 250,000 concealed carry licenses have been issued, and one would be hard-pressed to notice any difference in the state. Total violent crimes and murders dropped between 2010 and 2011, the first year concealed carry was partially in effect. After increasing between 2011 and 2012, both measures dropped once again in 2013. Between 2008 and 2013, Wisconsin averaged about 153 murders a year, a far cry from the average of 225 between 1990 and 1995.

Of course, anyone paying attention to the facts would have known this to be the case. When Wisconsin passed concealed-carry, it became the 49th state to do so. And upon passage of similar laws in other states, exactly none of them became the open firing ranges concealed carry opponents feared.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/concealed-carry-predictions-way-off-target-b99474747z1-298642531.html

[ileus]

1. Their fears never really pan out, they sell fear to folks that are ignorant of the facts

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. I can't imagine what it is to live in fear like that every minute of the day.

It seems obsessive and consuming for them.

[DonP]

2. Started our 2nd year in Illinois, 124,000 permits and still waiting ...

... for the oft mentioned; "cop shooting a ccw permit holder by mistake when they come upon an incident", or the "shooting of innocent bystanders by gun crazed concealed carriers who think they're Dirty Harry".

In fact, even most of the elected sheriff's in Illinois that protested shall issue have changed their minds after a year of experience.

The only exception is Tom Dart, sheriff in Cook County who, IMHO misses all the campaign contributions that a May Issue system would have provided him.

[Lurks Often]

4. No blood in calculuz classes either

despite what some seem to think might happen.

[NaturalHigh]

6. Wasn't there supposed to be a daily re-enactment...

of the OK Corral if this passed? After all, everybody who owns a firearm is just itching to shoot somebody, right?

[DonP]

7. The control side is absolutely sure of so many things that just never happen

But, in their defense, they never tire of being wrong and saying it louder the next time, as if that will make something change.

I mean how bad do you have to feel about yourself, to actually be disappointed and in denial over a 30+ year record low violent crime rate?

[beevul]

8. It isn't just that.

Its hatred, and we who believe strongly in amendment 2 are the hated "other".

Who can forget the host of the other group saying "It's not like we owe them anything but scorn".

That's just plain mean hatred.

[DonP]

9. I once used, "small I ignorant" in a post - it got hidden

I was trying to be charitable and assumed the person I was responding to, actually wasn't aware of court decisions and the FBI UCR.

Nope, it's OK to call us "Gun Humpers that want more dead children" but suggest one is ignorant of the facts and you get your hand slapped for it. Meh. Let 'em hate. hopefully it keeps them warm in winter.

Now I just ignore most of the noise, teach my CCW classes and comb the LGS for deals. Found three Remington Nylon 66's for sale in one week, two Apache Black and one in Mohawk Brown. The oldest grand daughter has already claimed one, I'm just "storing" it for her.

The funny part is, for all their wailing and gnashing of teeth, the grabbers are impotent and can't actually do anything anyway, not that they have any ambition or structure to achieve their ends in the real world.

So it's easier to just cruise on by, wave and smile on the way to a weekend at the range.

[jimmy the one]

10. a gn's false premises

donP: I mean how bad do you have to feel about yourself, to actually be disappointed and in denial over a 30+ year record low violent crime rate?

You create a bigoted & sickening false premise, obviously to feed your own ego & diminish your opponents, who make more sense than you ever will.

A couple things faulty in your implications. One is that, from early 90's to 2000, gun ownership declined approx. 30%, the same time period which saw dramatic declines in violent crime rates. Since 2000 gun ownership has also declined but not as large a rate, remaining approx. 2 in 9 personally own a firearm. Approx 3 in ten households own a firearm, iirc accd'g to GSS & Pew.

In other words, since the early 90's there is a correlation between declining gun ownership rates & declining violent crime rates.

Since JFK was assassinated, & semi automatic firearms came en vogue, the violent crime rate sits doubled in the year 2013;
Circa 1960's the national gunstock was approx. 75 millions, 300 millions today.
In other words, national gunstock increased 300% since 1960's and the violent crime rate has near doubled since then.
MORE GUNS MORE CRIME.
Moreover, in intervening years between 60's & now, the violent crime rate hit the top end of the roller coaster ride at near quadrupling.
You ignore the ugly years & cherry pick red delicious.

...... pop .......... total crime...... viol ... property ... murder
1964 .. 191,141,000 .. 2,388.1 .. 190.6 .. 2,197.5 .. 4.9
1993 ..257,908,000 .. 5,484.4 .. 746.8 .. 4,737.7 .. 9.5
2013 .. 316,128,839 .. 3,098.6 .. 367.9 .. 2,730.7 .. 4.5
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

don p: The control side is absolutely sure of so many things that just never happen

Well it actually DID happen, now didn't it? violent crime increased & murder increased (now simply down to parity with 60's)

donP: But, in their defense, they never tire of being wrong and saying it louder the next time, as if that will make something change.

You're the wrong ones, & you need pull those earplugs out.
MORE GUNS, MORE LIES. Donp is proof.

[Straw Man]

11. Are those gonzo stats?

national gunstock increased 300% since 1960's and the violent crime rate has near doubled since then.

Yet the murder rate was actually lower in 2013 than it was in 1964 (your chosen comparison years).

Need I remind you that violent crime is often committed with weapons other than guns, or even with no weapons at all beyond fists and feet?

So.. more guns = more violent crime but less murder? Correlation ain't causation, Jimmy. But you knew that.

[jimmy the one]

13. unrealistic & ridiculous

straw man: Yet the murder rate was actually lower in 2013 than it was in 1964 (your chosen comparison years).

You need to read thoroughly before you post a reply. Is the year 1993 invisible to you? Abracadabra:

...... pop .......... total crime...... viol ... property ... murder
1964 .. 191,141,000 .. 2,388.1 .. 190.6 .. 2,197.5 .. 4.9
1993 ..257,908,000 .. 5,484.4 .. 746.8 .. 4,737.7 .. 9.5
2013 .. 316,128,839 .. 3,098.6 .. 367.9 .. 2,730.7 .. 4.5

what I'd written: violent crime increased & murder increased (now simply down to parity with 60's)

What I wrote was true. You lie with statistics, ignoring intervening years & making a typical maths error in spreading your disinformation, thinking the big upward murder rate bulge signified nothing.
If you were to average all the years between 1964 & 2013 you'd get more than 5 murder rate, maybe 6 to 7 I'd guess. That is more indicative of the murder rates for those years, not 4.9 & 4.5, which are misleading.
You get on a roller coaster ride at the start, get off before it leaves, get back on when it completes its trip & say 'what's the big deal? its in the same place'.

straw man: So.. more guns = more violent crime but less murder? Correlation ain't causation, Jimmy.

Murder is but a small percentage of violent crime, a couple percent.
Correlation is correlation, it can either support causation or be coincidence. The axiom is meant to prevent unrealistic & ridiculous links based simply on correlation. But a link between guns & crime rates, is not unrealistic, nor ridiculous.

[Straw Man]

14. I lie? That's as obnoxious as it is untrue, Jimmy.

What I wrote was true. You lie with statistics, ignoring intervening years & making a typical maths error in spreading your disinformation, thinking the big upward murder rate bulge signified nothing.

And what I wrote was equally true. I did not lie, nor did I make any math error. I merely demonstrated that speculation about the meaning of statistics is just that: speculation.

I see that you're also avoiding the plain fact that "violent crime" isn't necessarily committed with guns.

Correlation is correlation, it can either support causation or be coincidence. The axiom is meant to prevent unrealistic & ridiculous links based simply on correlation.

Right. And you've done exactly that: made a link based on correlation alone.

But a link between guns & crime rates, is not unrealistic, nor ridiculous.

Maybe, maybe not. You've done nothing but posit a connection, but have ignored other factors, such as the crack epidemic and changes in policing policies.

[jimmy the one]

16. ignorable

straw man: And what I wrote was equally true. I did not lie, nor did I make any math error. I merely demonstrated that speculation about the meaning of statistics is just that: speculation.

In context, you lied with statistics, which is what I wrote. You 'lied with statistics' by inferring the murder rate difference between 1964 & 2013 had fallen ostensibly due to the presence of 'more guns', since the doubling of violent crime rates due more guns & less gun ownership, was my point. Or that murder rate parity in 1964 & in 2013 had somehow contradicted my point.

I wrote: national gunstock increased 300% since 1960's and the violent crime rate has near doubled since then.
straw man wrote: Yet the murder rate was actually lower in 2013 than it was in 1964 (your chosen comparison years).

Readers will see how straw man 'lied with statistics', by ignoring intervening years between 1960s & 2000's, when murder rates ranged much higher to double the 1964 figure. Straw man simply took the start & end point murder rate stats &, 'lied with statistics'.
His maths error was ignoring dozens of intervening years & merely taking a start year & end year & implying guns didn't affect murder rates long term, where national gunstock rose from 75 millions to 300 millions. Statistically invalid.

You accuse me of 'ignoring other factors' while you are the culprit yourself, ignoring the doubling in violent crime rate (in which murder is included) from 64 to 2013.

straw man: Need I remind you that violent crime is often committed with weapons other than guns, or even with no weapons at all beyond fists and feet?

go on.... what are the approx. percentages? do you remember jimmy's 'rule of thumb'?

[Straw Man]

17. Ignoble.

You 'lied with statistics' by inferring the murder rate difference between 1964 & 2013 had fallen ostensibly due to the presence of 'more guns', since the doubling of violent crime rates due more guns & less gun ownership, was my point.

I did no such thing. I never postulated any sort of causal relationship.

Readers will see how straw man 'lied with statistics', by ignoring intervening years between 1960s & 2000's, when murder rates ranged much higher to double the 1964 figure. Straw man simply took the start & end point murder rate stats &, 'lied with statistics'.

I could just as easily say that you "lied with statistics" by drawing cause-and-effect conclusions that ignore all other possible factors in the correlation. I was merely pointing out that you were cherry-picking data that supported your foregone conclusion and ignoring that which didn't.

His maths error was ignoring dozens of intervening years & merely taking a start year & end year & implying guns didn't affect murder rates long term, where national gunstock rose from 75 millions to 300 millions. Statistically invalid.

So what's the "national gunstock" now, Jimmy? Closer to 75 million, or closer to 300 million? If you're claiming a causal connection there, it would have to be the former figure in order to account for the lower murder rate. Simply put, you can't because it ain't.

I'm not making any errors, Jimmy, because I'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm citing the stats that you provided, and telling you why they don't support the conclusions that you have made: too many inherent contradictions. Correlation is not causation, Jimmy: that's axiomatic.

Furthermore, all the stats you cited are completely useless because they don't break down the crimes by weapon used.

[jimmy the one]

20. 2 + 2 = 4, a four-gone conclusion

I wrote: national gunstock increased 300% since 1960's and the violent crime rate has near doubled since then.
straw man wrote: Yet the murder rate was actually lower in 2013 than it was in 1964 .

straw man remarked: I never postulated any sort of causal relationship.

I postulated you implied a positive gun effect by citing murder rates in 1964 & 2013, ostensibly to negate the resultant & concomitant doubling of violent crime rates.

straw man: I could just as easily say that you "lied with statistics" by drawing cause-and-effect conclusions that ignore all other possible factors in the correlation.

DonP 'ignored' all other possible factors in his post. I clarified his oblivion with some salient facts.
I did not make a causal relationship between guns & violent crime, other than 'more guns more crime', which is demonstrably true what with the violent crime rate doubled since 1960's. 'More guns more crime' declares a correlation exists in the instance it is cited.

strawman: I was merely pointing out that you were cherry-picking data that supported your foregone conclusion and ignoring that which didn't.

If one answers 4, to the question what is 2 + 2, is that a foregone conclusion? My conclusion was based upon current & dated statistics I provided which I've realized for years, sometimes using earlier data.
And you used the murder rate figures which I 'cherry picked', for the crux of your argument. So I didn't 'ignore' data which didn't support my position, did I?
And are gunnuts ashamed that national gunstock has risen from 75 to 300 millions in the past 50 years? I thought that was a bragging point?

my 'cherry picked' post #10: 1) Circa 1960's the national gunstock was approx. 75 millions, 300 millions today.

2): ...... pop .......... total crime...... viol ... property ... murder
1964 .. 191,141,000 .. 2,388.1 .. 190.6 .. 2,197.5 .. 4.9
1993 ..257,908,000 .. 5,484.4 .. 746.8 .. 4,737.7 .. 9.5
2013 .. 316,128,839 .. 3,098.6 .. 367.9 .. 2,730.7 .. 4.5

[Straw Man]

21. Mixing causation with coincidence again, huh?

2+2 = 4 demonstrates a provable causal relationship. See the difference?

I wrote: national gunstock increased 300% since 1960's and the violent crime rate has near doubled since then.
straw man wrote: Yet the murder rate was actually lower in 2013 than it was in 1964 .

straw man remarked: I never postulated any sort of causal relationship.

I postulated you implied a positive gun effect by citing murder rates in 1964 & 2013, ostensibly to negate the resultant & concomitant doubling of violent crime rates.

You were wrong. That's what happens when you make unfounded claims about other people's intentions. I only posted those statistics to show the inherent weakness of equating correlation with causation.

I did not make a causal relationship between guns & violent crime, other than 'more guns more crime', which is demonstrably true what with the violent crime rate doubled since 1960's. 'More guns more crime' declares a correlation exists in the instance it is cited.

If there is no causation, then your post is pointless. We have more computers than we did in 1964. Shall we also broadcast the correlation of "more computers, more crime"?

If one answers 4, to the question what is 2 + 2, is that a foregone conclusion? My conclusion was based upon current & dated statistics I provided which I've realized for years, sometimes using earlier data.

What was your conclusion? Since you're disavowing causation, all we can say is that there are more guns and there is more violent crime. There are also more computers, not to mention electric cars, portable audio devices, and designer drug. Relevance?

And are gunnuts ashamed that national gunstock has risen from 75 to 300 millions in the past 50 years? I thought that was a bragging point?

It really doesn't matter to me one way or another. However, it's completely irrelevant unless you're claiming causation, in which case you've got some pretty heavy lifting to do.

[jimmy the one]

22. your inherent weakness

straw man: I only posted those statistics to show the inherent weakness of equating correlation with causation.

You 'post' 2 figures - the murder rate in 1964 & 2013 - to demonstrate the 'inherent weakness of equating correlation with causation'?
That's laughable in itself; explain how you demonstrated this correlative 'inherent weakness' by simply taking the start & end points & ignoring everything in between.

straw man: If there is no causation, then your post is pointless. We have more computers than we did in 1964. Shall we also broadcast the correlation of "more computers, more crime"?

It's logically unsound, unrealistic & a stretch, to link more computers with more violent crime - there isn't a plausible link.
Your example is a good one to cite the post hoc ergo propter hoc axiom.

To argue against this simply by continuously citing 'correlation does not prove causation', as if that in itself disproves a causative effect, demonstrates a sophomoric understanding of the axiom itself.
--- off for the day.

[Straw Man]

23. One hardly knows where to begin ...

You 'post' 2 figures - the murder rate in 1964 & 2013 - to demonstrate the 'inherent weakness of equating correlation with causation'?

That's laughable in itself; explain how you demonstrated this correlative 'inherent weakness' by simply taking the start & end points & ignoring everything in between.

I did it to show you that in the absence of any credible evidence of causation (or any evidence at all, really), posting two simultaneously occurring trends is meaningless. Murder rates rose and fell rather precipitously, while the number of guns in circulation rose steadily and kept on rising. This suggests that any causal explanation that involves the availability of weapons is highly suspect, to say the least.

straw man: If there is no causation, then your post is pointless. We have more computers than we did in 1964. Shall we also broadcast the correlation of "more computers, more crime"?

It's logically unsound, unrealistic & a stretch, to link more computers with more violent crime - there isn't a plausible link.

Really? How about a generation raised on a steady diet of graphically violent computer games? Of course, I can't prove it. Nor can you disprove it. It's just speculation, Jimmy, like yours about guns and violent crime.

Your example is a good one to cite the post hoc ergo propter hoc axiom.

Exactly. And I raised it to demonstrate what you are doing. Did you really not get that?

To argue against this simply by continuously citing 'correlation does not prove causation', as if that in itself disproves a causative effect, demonstrates a sophomoric understanding of the axiom itself.

I don't have to disprove a causative effect, Jimmy. You have to prove one. Merely stating the correlation does nothing toward that end, yet that's all you're doing. Apparently this continuous repetition is necessary because you just don't seem to be able to understand that.

[jimmy the one]

24. playing stupid?

straw man: Murder rates rose and fell rather precipitously, while the number of guns in circulation rose steadily and kept on rising. This suggests that any causal explanation that involves the availability of weapons is highly suspect, to say the least.

Are you playing stupid or what? Murder rate is incorporated into the violent crime rate, & accounts for only ~2% of violent crime & violent crime rate.
The correlations I note don't just involve rising national gunstock, but also rising & falling gun ownership rates, rising & declining violent crime rates, & the introduction of semi-automatic firearms post wwII - which had a lot to do with increasing violent crime, since by replacing the revolver as handgun of choice the semi-auto enabled much more kill & maim ability.
From mid 60's to mid 70's the national gunstock & the gun murder rate both doubled (75 million guns to 150 millions) It was well accepted then that guns were a prime mover - Nixon noted it, even lapierre-head & the nra noted it.

Reread the above thread, somehow you missed some crucial info: .. from early 90's to 2000, gun ownership declined approx. 30%, the same time period which saw dramatic declines in violent crime rates. Since 2000 gun ownership has also declined but not as large a rate, remaining approx. 2 in 9 personally own a firearm. Approx 3 in ten households own a firearm, iirc accd'g to GSS & Pew. In other words, since the early 90's there is a correlation between declining gun ownership rates & declining violent crime rates.

Since JFK was assassinated, & semi automatic firearms came en vogue, the violent crime rate sits doubled in the year 2013; Circa 1960's the national gunstock was approx. 75 millions, 300 millions today. In other words, national gunstock increased 300% since 1960's and the violent crime rate has near doubled since then. MORE GUNS MORE CRIME. Moreover, in intervening years between 60's & now, the violent crime rate hit the top end of the roller coaster ride at near quadrupling.

Another way of putting it: there were two distinct intervals involved; the first from approx. 1960 (even prior) to early 1990's which involved the dramatic upswing in both national gunstock & crime rates. Gunstock increased 200% (tripled) from 75m to 225m, while violent crime rate ~quadrupled & murder rate ~doubled.
The second interval was the dramatic decline in violent crime rates from early 1990's to now (~2014 stats), where national gunstock increased by 33% - in some good part to existing gun owners - while violent crime rates more than halved & similarly murder rates, concomitant with a ~30% decline in gun ownership rates from same time start to year 2000. The increase in national gunstock in interval 2 was largely due to existing gun owners, such that the percentage of gun owners did not increase at all, but rather decreased by approx. 30% from early 90's to 2000 (then lightly fluctuated to now).

In both intervals there is a logical connection involving - 1st interval) guns & increasing violent crime rates & increasing murder rates, or 2nd interval) a decline in gun ownership & a decline in violent crime rates & murder rates.

straw man: I don't have to disprove a causative effect, Jimmy. You have to prove one. Merely stating the correlation does nothing toward that end, yet that's all you're doing.

Where did I say you need disprove causation? post it; I claimed causation cannot be discounted simply by regurgitating 'correlation does not prove causation' every time an unpleasant correlation regarding guns, shows up. Gun crowd regularly cites this axiom as some sort of magic potion which exonerates guns from having much to do with crime & murder. Just another chapter from the 2nd Amendment Mythology Bible.

[Straw Man]

28. Ad nauseum, ad absurdum.

Where did I say you need disprove causation? post it;

OK -- here:

To argue against this simply by continuously citing 'correlation does not prove causation', as if that in itself disproves a causative effect, demonstrates a sophomoric understanding of the axiom itself.

You are defending your position by saying that I haven't disproven a causative effect; that much is abundantly clear. And I am telling you that I don't have to. It is axiomatic, Jimmy, that unless you demonstrate causative effect, correlation alone is meaningless. It doesn't "exonerate" guns from anything. It just means that all your babble about correlation of this and that is absolutely meaningless: the sound and the fury, but nothing of substance.

[jimmy the one]

30. scrutiny

I wrote: Where did I say you need disprove causation? post it;
..straw man wrote: OK -- here: {JTO}To argue against this simply by continuously citing 'correlation does not prove causation', as if that in itself disproves a causative effect, demonstrates a sophomoric understanding of the axiom itself.

I'll repeat, where did I say you need disprove causation? having problems with sentence comprehension again?

.. that you cite 'correlation does not prove causation', does not equate to me saying that you need disprove causation.
I made an observation that is commonplace with pro gun crowd, that the axiom is used as some blanket denial of there possibly being a causative effect from a correlation. But I did not contend anyone need 'disprove' causation.
.. another saying: absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

straw man: You are defending your position by saying that I haven't disproven a causative effect; that much is abundantly clear. And I am telling you that I don't have to.

... I say that the axiom 'correlation does not prove causation' does not disprove a causative effect. You argue as if it did. The axiom as intended means that correlations need logical & scientific scrutiny before being linked to causation, causation cannot just be arbitrarily applied.
You certainly don't have to disprove causation, but don't act as if you did, by merely citing the axiom.

[Straw Man]

31. I'll try to make this very plain for you, Jimmy.

I'll repeat, where did I say you need disprove causation? having problems with sentence comprehension again?

.. that you cite 'correlation does not prove causation', does not equate to me saying that you need disprove causation.

The relevant part was in bold, Jimmy:

...by continuously citing 'correlation does not prove causation', as if that in itself disproves a causative effect...

Why would you say "as if that itself disproves a causative effect" if you didn't think I needed to do so? You're telling me that I failed to disprove a causative effect: that's your defense against my charge of your failing to prove one. And I repeat, because you still don't get it:

I do not have to disprove a causative effect. You have to prove one, or else your correlations are meaningless. Saying I failed to disprove it does not mean you have proved it. You have merely posted correlations. No causation has been shown. You have failed.

[blueridge3210]

32. Hmm....interesting exchange.

What else was going on between '65 and '75? Oh, yeah, a military misadventure called Vietnam.

I'm not claiming causation, of course. Just curious what effect drafting a bunch of socially marginalized types to serve in a combat zone that no one seemed interested in actually winning; training them to kill others and bringing them back to a country that seemed to want to pretend that the conflict was not happening might have on the violent crime rate?

[jimmy the one]

25. pac man

straw man: How about a generation raised on a steady diet of graphically violent computer games? Of course, I can't prove it. Nor can you disprove it.

'Violent' computerized video games were not prevalent enough during the 60's & 70's to have much of any impact on rising crime rates. Back then it was mainly bouncing ping pong balls against the sides of a tv or monitor, progressing to pacman & missile command.

wiki: Since the early 1980s, advocates of video games have emphasized their use as an expressive medium, arguing for their protection under the laws governing freedom of speech and also as an educational tool.

Since the late 1990s, some acts of violence have been highly publicized because the perpetrators had a history of playing video games containing violent elements. Some research finds violent video game use correlates with a temporary increase in aggression and a decrease in prosocial behavior (caring about the welfare and rights of others) but these results have not been reproduced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversies

But but but, since the late 1990's, violent crime & rates have declined.

A new long-term study into violent media in the US could help settle the long-standing argument of whether or not violent films and video games are to blame for violence in society. The research, led by psychologist Christopher Ferguson and published in the Journal of Communication, not only found that there was no link between violent media and behaviour but also questioned the methodology of previous studies suggesting the two were related.

A second study into video game violence used data from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) to estimate the violent content of popular games from 1996 to 2011. This was then compared with data on youth violence during the same years, with the study finding a correlation between falling youth violence and the popularity of violent games.
During this time period “youth violence dropped precipitously”, the researchers write, “despite maintaining very high levels of media violence in society with the introduction of videogames.” http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/longterm-us-study-finds-no-links-between-violent-video-games-and-youth-violence-9851613.html

researchers at Villanova University and Rutgers University published the results of an in-depth study that suggested violent video games do not lead to increases in real-world violent behavior. Now, a pair of follow-up studies from Stetson University researcher Christopher Ferguson have reached the same general conclusion, finding that there is no evidence for a link between video game or movie violence and real-world violent behavior.
In fact, as reported by Medical Daily, Ferguson's studies found that the rise in popularity of violent video games was actually related to a decrease in youth violence. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/research-shows-no-link-between-video-game-violence/1100-6423385/

[Straw Man]

27. You just don't get it, do you?

The point is that this is all just speculation. My speculation about computers was as valid as yours about guns. These studies are an attempt to prove or disprove causal relations, something that you haven't even attempted to do with your posts. All you have provided is a correlation, which you somehow think is enough.

[DonP]

12. It's absolutely "bigoted and sickening" not to mention a shameful POV

Not celebrating, or at minimum, recognizing the drop in violent crime that is.

It's a shame no one actually pays any attention to your word salads anymore or believes any of your posts replete with selective "data". LoL.

But keep up the good, highly sporadic work and be sure and let us know if you ever actually achieve anything in the real world.

Buh bye!

[jimmy the one]

15. nobody pays attention to jimmy, except, nobodies

donp: Not celebrating, or at minimum, recognizing the drop in violent crime that is.

Flash, violent crime rates fell in strict gun control states as well during the past 30 years, new York states by ~60%.
So practice what you preach & acknowledge that gun control has worked well enough for gun control states (which comprise about 30% of national population).

donp: It's a shame no one actually pays any attention to your word salads anymore or believes any of your posts replete with selective "data".

Can't rebut or remark intelligently on anything I wrote so you resort to ad hominem. It's you, baby.
Selective data? My argument encompassed the entire time period 60's to now, yours the start & end only.

Well, I guess I do agree in a sense with something you said above; you & straw man are indeed, 'nobodies'.

[Straw Man]

18. Irony.

Well, I guess I do agree in a sense with something you said above; you & straw man are indeed, 'nobodies'.

This in a post where you complain about ad hominem. Oh it's rich, so rich.

[jimmy the one]

26. parry to parry

I wrote: I guess I do agree in a sense with something you said above; you & straw man are indeed, 'nobodies'.

straw man: This in a post where you complain about ad hominem. Oh it's rich, so rich.

You lift my rejoinder out of context, where it was a counterpunch to what donP wrote:

donp: It's a shame no one actually pays any attention to your word salads anymore or believes any of your posts replete with selective "data".
I rejoined: Can't rebut or remark intelligently on anything I wrote so you resort to ad hominem. It's you, baby.
I guess I do agree in a sense with something you said above; you & straw man are indeed, 'nobodies'

So my parry was a parry to donP's earlier parry of what I previously parried, which was what donP first wrote.
An ad hominem to parry an ad hominem towards yourself, is more justifiable than the initiators.

[Straw Man]

29. In other words ...

So my parry was a parry to donP's earlier parry of what I previously parried, which was what donP first wrote.
An ad hominem to parry an ad hominem towards yourself, is more justifiable than the initiators.

"But Mommy! Donnie hit me first!"

Ad hominem is ad hominem, Jimmy. Let he who is without sin, etc. You've initiated plenty of ad hominem here in your day. From one sinner to another, you're just making a fool of yourself now. But it's OK -- nobody's reading this anymore anyway.

[jeepnstein]

19. A few observations...

based on a fairly long life dealing with people in all sorts of nasty social situations.

Most people will behave in an orderly and safe manner if left to their own devices. Whether it's how they drive, how they behave in an emergency, or even how they carry a gun; doesn't matter. The vast majority of people are sane and responsible. That's the backbone of our society.

There will always be people who buck that system. They don't just happen over night. And they'll wind up hurting or killing someone somehow. Whether they get drunk and drive, beat their spouse to death with a leg of lamb, shoot the neighbor kid over a bad drug deal, or whatever scenario you envision there will be people who are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. You can't legislate the crazy out of them no matter how hard you try. All you can do is try to create an environment where their damage is minimized.

Concealed carry doesn't make a bit of difference in the overall scheme of things. Safe people will continue to be safe even while armed. And the monsters that live among us will continue to be monsters. So I see no reason to limit the liberty of the majority to try to control an uncontrollable minority.