Gun shootings in Detroit skyrocket, in spite of what the NRA promised us

[Lefty48197]

They promised us that the passage of our "shall issue" ccw gun laws would help eliminate crime, because all the criminals would be so afraid of an "armed populace", that they would be too afraid to commit crimes.
Here's a link to the story in the right wing sh*t wipe, the Detroit news. Even they couldn't spin the story.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/specialreport/0408/15/a01-242749.htm

The graph shows that now that the economy is tanking, the level of gun crimes has risen. Did the NRA mean to tell us that shall issue CCW laws only help prevent crime ONLY during good economic times? That would be very ironic, considering how the NRA endorsed Presidential candidates always send the economy into a tailspin, and thereby cause the level of gun crimes to rise.
Toss in the fact that the newly unemployed people can't afford guns to protect themselves, and it's clear that the NRA endorsed Presidential candidates increase crime.

[rednek_Liberal]

1. What??? Gun Crime linked to a bad Economy???

Why that makes no sense at all, shocked I am.

[Columbia]

2. Looks like it's time to end the war on drugs and reduce unemployment

Police and other experts say drug-related figures are higher — between 65 and 70 percent — because the initial analysis is based on whether drugs are found at the crime scene when police arrive.

“Shootings are over territorial disputes, among drug factions, and drug rip-offs,” veteran homicide Lt. William Peterson said. “As for this year, so far we’re looking at over 40 percent of those investigated are drug related. We’ll get to at least 65 percent range by the end of the year.”

...

Bully-Cummings said another factor is the high unemployment rates among young men, those most commonly involved in gun violence.

Detroit lost 36,300 jobs this year, more than any other U.S. city, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.


And hopefully John Kerry will be able to do that.

Additionally, the tiny portion of the population who CCW won't affect crime one way or another, although it does increase the freedom quotient a bit.

[MrBenchley]

9. Yeah....what are the Second Amendment Caucus doing about that?

Oh, that's right, those pro gun imbeciles are doing everything they can to make the problem WORSE....

"although it does increase the freedom quotient"
Only if you equate armed neurotics being a public nuisance as "freedom" which is absurd....

[Wcross]

3. From the article

2000-1792 shootings
2001-1694 shootings
2002-910 shootings
2003-1032 shootings
2004 (to date) 808 shootings

When did Michigan enact its carry law? I don't see an increase but rather a down trend in shootings. Care to explain how this is related to the carry law?

[library_max]

20. 808 shootings in six months translates into 1,616 a year. /nt

[iverglas]

32. just for those who didn't click

... and in case someone comes along demanding PROOF!!!! ...

More than 800 people were shot in Detroit in the first six months of this year, a 70 percent jump in gun violence that experts and police blame on a variety of factors, from upheaval and scarce resources in the police department to high unemployment rates among young males and a hip-hop culture that condones gunfire to solve disputes.

There are undoubtedly all kinds of factors that contribute to children starting fires. Wouldn't it be foolish to take steps to make it impossible for children to start fires with lighters, when we could be having a revolution instead?

[Wcross]

64. Wow, they had two good years!

Look at the 2000 and 2001 stats. Just for those that are ignoring that part.

[Wcross]

63. Indeed it is, as I mentioned in my post.

It is still a downward trend if you choose to include 2000 and 2001. Also, can you assure me another 808 people will shoot someone the rest of the year?

I am still waiting to hear how this is a result of the carry law. In order to prove that the carry law is resulting in more shootings we should look at the whole State of Michigan.

[iverglas]

66. wanna join me on this park bench?

I am still waiting to hear how this is a result
of the carry law.

I'm still waiting to hear who said it was.

Maybe if we wait long enough, Godot will come along.

We could try getting out our lanterns and going hunting
for an honest person. Think it's worth the trouble?


http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/c/castigli/diogenes.html

[Wcross]

73. I would enjoy sitting on a park bench with you.....

But there is no need. Look at the topic that started the thread. If not stated, it was implied that the Carry law recently enacted in Michigan did not decrease gun violence as the NRA promised.

[iverglas]

79. indeed, indeed, indeed

Look at the topic that started the thread. If not stated, it was implied that the Carry law recently enacted in Michigan did not decrease gun violence as the NRA promised.

Just so. And just as I have repeatedly said.

Unfortunately, it is not what *you* said in the post I replied to.

What *you* said was this:

I am still waiting to hear how this is a result of the carry law. In order to prove that the carry law is resulting in more shootings we should look at the whole State of Michigan.

Am I really the only person in the world who can tell the difference between

the Carry law recently enacted in Michigan did not decrease gun violence as the NRA promised

and

the carry law is resulting in more shootings

??

"Did not decrease" just IS NOT THE SAME THING AS "is resulting in more". And NO ONE SAID that the the rise in the number of shootings was "a result of the carry law".

Failed to cause a decrease just IS NOT THE SAME THING as caused an increase. Someone who says that "X failed to decrease Y" just IS NOT SAYING that "X increased Y".

Right?

So, shall we sit on the park bench and wait for someone to ask a poster who said "X did not decrease Y" why s/he has said "X increased Y"?

Maybe we can hold a sign telling passersby that snow storms do not decrease the incidence of tooth decay, and see how long it takes for someone to accuse us of saying that snowstorms cause tooth decay, and demand that we tell them how many cavities are caused by snowstorms ...

[Wcross]

92. My Bad.

We really should look at crime stats state wide to see if the law had any effect on the rate of shootings. I would really like to see the stats and see one way or the other.

[OpSomBlood]

4. The article you linked to doesn't mention CCW as a factor at all.

But it does link to another article about Michigan's zero-tolerance policy for ex-convicts who illegally carry:

http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0407/14/c01-212211.htm

Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

[Lefty48197]

60. It was the NRA that said the new law would reduce crime

No, I didn't believe their bullsh*t at that time, nor at any other time. It's those that fell for their lies that I worry about. You're not denying that the NRA claimed as I said they did are you?

[OpSomBlood]

65. Why don't you look at statewide statistics...

...instead of the poorest urban areas of one city?

Perhaps you can also post a link to an article that logically correlates CCW with the increase in gun crime...because you certainly didn't do that in your original post.

And for the record, I don't give a flying fuck what the NRA says about pretty much anything.

[iverglas]

67. then here's some advice

And for the record, I don't give a flying fuck what the NRA says about pretty much anything.

Since this thread is ABOUT what the NRA said, why don't you just give it a miss?

C'mon; let's have that reason.


Perhaps you can also post a link to an article that logically correlates CCW with the increase in gun crime...because you certainly didn't do that in your original post.

The fact that someone didn't do something that s/he did not suggest, imply, say, claim or otherwise indicate that s/he was doing or supposed to be doing is a REASON why s/he should attempt to PROVE the thing that s/he did not suggest, imply, say, claim or otherwise that indicate that s/he was doing or supposed to be doing?

That's novel. (Well, actually, it isn't. But there ya go.)

What you were saying (minus the dithering):

You should post a link to an article that logically correlates CCW with the increase in gun crime.
The reason you should do that is that you certainly didn't do it in your original post.

Id est:

You certainly didn't post a link to an article that logically correlates CCW with the increase in gun crime in your original post.
Therefore you should do it now.

Nope, not getting it, myself.

But what the hell, I'll play.

You certainly didn't post a link to an article that logically correlates rainfall with sales of tinned tuna.
Therefore you should do it now.

How's that. Did I do it right?

[Fescue4u]

5. How many of those Shootings were done by CCW'ers?

I bet the answer is zero.

Even if I take your ascertion that CCW didnt stop a rise in crime, it certainly did not contribute to a rise in crime. Plus it proably saved the lives of an unknown number of people, who were now able to defend themselves.

Nonethless, all that aside, your story and accompanying opinion reminds me of this:

The Gun grabbers have gone from "CCW will cause crime", to "CCW doesnt help stop it". Thats a pretty big shift and shows that freedom is begining to prevail over gun grab mindset.

[iverglas]

10. and we have a contender!

But sorry, it's too early to start handing out awards of the week yet.

They promised us that the passage of our "shall issue"
ccw gun laws would help eliminate crime, because all the criminals
would be so afraid of an "armed populace", that they would be too
afraid to commit crimes.

How many of those Shootings were done by CCW'ers?
I bet the answer is zero.

Bang. One straw fella down.

Even if I take your ascertion that CCW didnt stop
a rise in crime, it certainly did not contribute to
a rise in crime.

Boom. There goes another one. (Or was it the same one?)

The Gun grabbers have gone from "CCW will cause crime",
to "CCW doesnt help stop it".

And kazowie. Three straw fellas with one post.

[Fescue4u]

18. Care to answer the question then?

How many of those shootings were done by CCW'ers?

I don't mind being told Im wrong as long I hear the answer.

[iverglas]

33. "How many of those shootings were done by CCW'ers?"

What colour is orange -- true or false???

What is the square root of 2?

Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?


I don't mind being told Im wrong as long I hear the answer.

Why are you telling me this?

[Fescue4u]

35. So you don't know.

Thats fine.

Its a simple question. Really.

[iverglas]

40. and more than that

So you don't know.

I don't care.

Amazing, eh?

[RoeBear]

47. If you don't have the answer...

..it's ok to say so.

[iverglas]

49. what colour is orange -- true or false?

C'mon -- which is it?? True ... or false?

Of course, "If you don't have the answer... it's ok to say so."

But of course, the point always was, and still is --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=78913&mesg_id=78934&page=

-- that the question was plainly asked in a fit of diversionary grooming, to avoid addressing the facts raised in the thread in which the diversionary groomer in question chose of his/her own volition to post.

That's the actual subject of the thread: "Gun shootings in Detroit skyrocket, in spite of what the NRA promised us".

Fescue4u for some reason wanted the person who started the thread to tell him/her the answer to: "How many of those Shootings were done by CCW'ers?"

Who cares? If Fescue4u does, it would seem that he needs to look elsewhere for his answer.

Looking at me just isn't going to get him any further than looking at me for an answer to "Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?"

I don't know, and I don't give a shit. And I never gave any indication that I either knew or gave a shit. Any more than the person who wrote the initial post did.

Maybe you can help Fescue4u out with the question that is obviously burning a hole in his fingers. In fact, I think you oughta. There seems to be some kind of duty on anyone who posts in this thread to answer that question, so you'd better have at it. Just don't expect me to be caring about the answer.


Meanwhile ... won't someone tell us why the number of shootings didn't plummet when people got permission to tote guns around in their pants, and started doing it?

I think that was the actual question that the honest and reasonably intelligent person would have taken from the first post. And yet no one has answered it yet.

Of course, "If you don't have the answer... it's ok to say so."

And it's also perfectly okay to say you don't give a shit.

[MrBenchley]

51. Remember, the sole rationale

for that idiotic CCW law was that it was SUPPOSED to make crime drop....the gun lobby even commissioned a racist crackpot named Mary Rosh er, John Lott to "prove" it.

[FeebMaster]

52. I thought the sole rationale for

that idiotic CCW law was to allow people to legally carry a handgun to defend themselves.

[MrBenchley]

54. Yeah, but feeb....

you also thought the NRA has nothing to do with gun laws....

[FeebMaster]

55. When did I say the NRA has nothing to do with gun laws?

They've supported pretty much every federal gun law ever passed, after all.

[RoeBear]

74. No it wasn't...

..you are wrong. Again.

[Fescue4u]

48. Im really not surprised

I've found that most anti-gunners are more concerned about emotional pleadings, than any real facts.

But I have to wonder. Why are you bothering to respond to my posts?

Slow day?

[iverglas]

50. amazing!

But I have to wonder. Why are you bothering to respond to my posts?

And that was exactly what I was asking about that post of yours:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=78913&mesg_id=78934&page=

(see here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=78913&mesg_id=79188&page=
for a fuller explanation, should it for some reason be needed)

If you didn't want to discuss the topic of the thread, what the hell were you posting random noise in it for?

[Fescue4u]

53. Start at the top and work your way down

This is a tough one. It may take several tries, or maybe even all day depending on your aptitude.

But start at the top of the thread and read down through it.

The answer is there.

On the other hand, if dealing with facts bothers you, there is no shame in givig up.

[iverglas]

56. phew, I'm all worn out

Start at the top and work your way down
This is a tough one. It may take several tries, or maybe even all day depending on your aptitude.
But start at the top of the thread and read down through it.

Well, I'd done it a whole lot already, but here you go.

I started at post #0.

And then I went to post #5 -- your reply to post #0.

I don't seem to be missing anything at all. Your post #5 is what I started out talking about, and have been talking about ever since.


The answer is there.

Well, the question is there -- How many of those Shootings were done by CCW'ers?

And I'm still trying to figure out why.

[Fescue4u]

57. Keep at it!

Its there I promise.

[Lefty48197]

61. Actually, the whole point of my post was to point out that the NRA lies

Some people already knew that. Others will never see it. It's the ones that remain that I was directing the post at.

[slackmaster]

6. Sounds like the proponents of CCW were wrong

Maybe society gains no protection from liberalized concealed carry laws. Personally I've never bought into that theory. There isn't any historical evidence to support a causal link between more ordinary citizens carrying weapons and decreases in crime.

That's a shame, maybe the gun lobby lied to us (and it wouldn't be the first time), but if it doesn't cause an increase in shootings then what's the problem?

:shrug:

[turnkey]

7. Show me where CCW is at fault? n/t

[slackmaster]

8. I didn't say anything was at fault

There is no problem here.

Some people claimed that liberalized concealed-carry laws would cut crime. Available data suggests that either it didn't, or that the effect is too small to be measured. OTOH the evidence doesn't suggest CCW made things worse. No harm, no foul, more freedom of choice is good.

[iverglas]

11. and a challenger!

Show me where CCW is at fault?

But the strawperson argument of the week may have to go to Fescue4u just because of his attention to detail.

Although I must say that yours is classically elegant in its simplicity ... and has the merit of consisting of a false premise-loaded question as well, thereby increasing its entertainment value.

The jury is still out, and of course I'm sure we'll have more contestants before the week ... the day ... is out.

[dyersville]

12. Wait a minute!

When the restriction of guns in England caused the rate of gun crime to go up, absolutely no correlation could be drawn. it seems the same argument applies here

[MrBenchley]

13. Geeze, the phony British bloodbath AGAIN.....

"When the restriction of guns in England caused the rate of gun crime to go up"
It didn't...as has been shown on these pages AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN.....

But that's the RKBA cause in a nutshell: phony from stem to stern....

[LibLabUK]

14. Not the p.B.B-b!

Run for the hills, the p.B.B-b is coming!

[MrBenchley]

15. Next up...

More pissing and moaning about that brutal tyranny down in Australia....

[dyersville]

16. just tying to figure out

If in Detroit, relaxed gun laws caused more gun deaths....and more restrictive gun laws in England caused more gun deaths...Where is the correlation that more gun laws will result in more deaths?

[MrBenchley]

17. Try looking at some facts instead of NRA propaganda....

[dyersville]

19. I have seen the facts and so have you

Which is it, more guns = more deaths (Detriot) Less guns = Less deathe = (England)

Your call

[MrBenchley]

21. And yet you got no facts at all.....

just phony NRA propaganda....

"Which is it, more guns = more deaths (Detriot) Less guns = Less deathe = (England)"
Gee, weren't you claiming just the opposite for Britain not so long ago?

[dyersville]

23. How 'bout we stick to the facts

do more restrictive gun laws = less gun deaths?

It seems that after England (Britain) imposed very strict gun laws, Gun deaths went up.

Detroit backed down an their CCW permit requirements and gun deaths went up. The correlation between Detroit's CCW requirements and people with CCW permits has not been shown. But lets not let a mere mater of truth cloud the waters.

Don't know why you think you've me before?

[library_max]

25. Except that gun deaths in England did not go up.

The method of reporting them changed. But let's not let a mere matter of truth cloud the waters.

[iverglas]

27. should sun screen be banned?

It seems that after England (Britain) imposed very strict gun laws, Gun deaths went up.

And no matter how many people use sun screen, no matter how religiously, skin cancer deaths will go up. And up and up.

So I say: ban sun screen. It doesn't do any good at all.


Sun screen will not prevent skin cancer deaths from rising.
Therefore no one should use sun screen.


Do feel free to demolish that little argument. Please. For me. I mean, you know how Finding Iverglas being reasonable is quite a shock and all, so do please show us how unreasonable I'm being.

[dyersville]

29. This is just getting silly

You will have to show me how the increased use of sun screen will increase the rate of skin cancer??

I am not aware of that study, maybe you could illuminate that for the rest of us?

Yea sure

[iverglas]

30. but first

You will have to show me how the increased use of sun screen will increase the rate of skin cancer??

You will have to show me where I said that the increased use of sun screen will increase the rate of skin cancer.*

<* that's not a question, you see, so there are no question marks after it.>

Are you really illiterate? Do you really read "the sky is blue" and see "the ocean is purple"?

What I said:

And no matter how many people use sun screen, no matter how religiously, skin cancer deaths will go up.

Sun screen will not prevent skin cancer deaths from rising.

If I said something else that has now become invisible to me, that was or amounted to "the increased use of sun screen will increase the rate of skin cancer", you let me know now, 'k?

Yea<h> sure, if I may quote you ... again.

[dyersville]

37. "YOU" said that

no matter how many people, no matter how often used, skin cancer will go up.

Yes that is an accurate reprsentation of your statement.

The only thing lacking is any semblence of proof. But then facts are not a big factor here.

[iverglas]

39. indeedy I diddy

I did indeed say:

no matter how many people use sun screen, no matter how religiously, skin cancer deaths will go up.

-- as you have, again quoted me as saying. (That was more than an accurate representation by you: congratulations, it was a direct quote.)

The only thing lacking is any semblence of proof.

Are you really demanding proof that no matter how many people use sun screen, no matter how religiously, skin cancer deaths will go up??

I'll happily show you how, no matter how many people use sun screen, no matter how religiously, skin cancer deaths will go up. (Although I really do think that this is one of those common knowledge things that we can all take discussion-board notice of.)

But, getting back to the sheep you decided to import into the discussion: I'm STILL trying to figure out why you said to / asked me:

You will have to show me how the increased use of sun screen will increase the rate of skin cancer??

-- that being the part that you're not bothering about now.

Why would *I* have to show you that? Why don't you go ask someone who has said "the increased use of sun screen will increase the rate of skin cancer" why the increased use of sun screen will increase the rate of skin cancer??

If you actually want an answer, it strikes me that this would be the smart thing to do.

[goju]

68. Hilarious

"Amazingly, what I don't do is pretend that people meant things that they plainly did not mean.

Unhappily, there are a lot of people who do just that all the damned time."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=78620&mesg_id=78858&page=


LMAO, yep there sure are!


"I'll happily show you how, no matter how many people use sun screen, no matter how religiously, skin cancer deaths will go up."

Can you show me?

[iverglas]

80. well that was just incoherent

That link, and your cryptic comment. But I'm glad you found it entertaining. The ability to amuse one's self is important.

"I'll happily show you how, no matter how many people use sun screen, no matter how religiously, skin cancer deaths will go up."
Can you show me?

Indeed I can. Whether I feel like bothering to do something in response to a request (if that is a request) that I find utterly disingenuous is another matter.

Can you show me that the moon is not made of green cheese? Wanna do it?

But what the hell.

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1028043646.html

Easy to Avoid and Usually Treatable

Skin cancer is largely preventable, simply by avoiding sun and sunlamp exposure. Yet the number of skin cancer cases keeps growing. The American Cancer Society says that since 1973, the incidence rate of melanoma has increased about 4% every year. As recently as 1995, the ACS reported approximately 800,000 new cases of non-melanoma skin cancer. In 2001, that number had risen to more than 1 million new cases.

The incidence of malignant melanomas is also increasing: in 1995 the ACS predicted about 34,100 new cases. In 2001, that number had risen to 51,400. This year, the number of new of malignant melanoma cases is expected to reach 53,600.

David Allen, MD, chief dermatology resident at the Medical College of Wisconsin, notes: “In the 1930s, only 1 American in 1,500 developed invasive melanoma every year. By 1960, it had risen to 1 in 600. Today, it’s 1 in 66.” The National Cancer Institute now estimates that 1 out of 7 people in the United States will develop some form of skin cancer in their lifetime.

Quib as many quibbles as you might like, but skin cancer deaths will increase no matter how many people use sun screen, no matter how religiously.

Sun screen alone will not prevent skin cancer deaths. Avoidance of exposure and early detection and treatment are essential, as is a reduction of activities that destroy atmospheric protection, if there is to be no increase in skin cancer deaths. And those things are not happening to an extent sufficient to counteract rising numbers of fatal skin cancers.

My father died of metastacized melanoma last year, btw.

Now, prove to me that the earth is not made of green cheese.

[goju]

93. Oh my

How the sword cuts both ways....

yada yada, big fancy study, yada yada, you found google congratulations, yada yada...."Quib as many quibbles as you might like, but skin cancer deaths will increase no matter how many people use sun screen, no matter how religiously."

This is typical anti gun logic. A weak correlation with an admitted lack of direct causality nevertheless leads to predictive language. Skin cancer deaths WILL go up, unless... people stay out of the sun? That might just blow your silly statement back pre-law huh? They WILL go up, unless we find a cure for skin cancer... that too might blow your bs back to the books eh? Surely if everyone used sunscreen AND stayed out of the sun AND sought regular skin cancer checkups, the deaths would go down, correct? Or did I miss something? Im sure we could go through a myriad of "other factors" that would render your statement untrue, but I think you get it by now.
On to your gun control "language". Lets use your logic but replace some words...

Gun crime deaths will increase no matter how many states employ gun control, no matter how religiously.

Comfy with that statement?

You see, what you have failed to do in your sunscreen diatribe, and what you continually fail to do in your gun control jihad, is make ANY mention of "other variables" that have "direct" causative influence on the death rates. You know, those factors "other" than sunscreen use or gun ownership.

You know that sun screen use doesnt "directly" increase skin cancer death rates, yet you assert with tenacity the correllation between the two. You know that handgun ownership rates dont "directly" increase crime gun deaths but.... well, why DO you continue that crusade?

[iverglas]

96. I love a newbie

You see, what you have failed to do in your sunscreen diatribe, and what you continually fail to do in your gun control jihad, is make ANY mention of "other variables" that have "direct" causative influence on the death rates. You know, those factors "other" than sunscreen use or gun ownership.

When newbies make statements about things of which they know nothing, their statements are so often, well, false.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=73321

... Income disparity in the US is remarkably greater than in any comparable nation: the UK and Canada are higher on the scale than the Scandinavian countries and Japan, say, but still well below the US. (The CIA factbook country listings show the "GINI index", which is a measurement of income disparity: the higher the index, the greater the disparity.) And the gap in the US has been growing for quite a few years.

The greater the income disparity, the greater the level of violence can be expected, there is evidence to suggest. There is at least an obvious correlation between violence and income disparity.

Canada does not have the stratified society that is found in the US -- actually physically stratified by income, for instance, in terms of geographic mixing. We have much greater diversity and more mixed-income neighbourhoods in our large cities, for instance. The same is true for ethnicity, generally speaking. The large cities do have some areas where there is a concentration of alienated and disadvantaged groups -- Aboriginal people in the West, black immigrants (e.g. Somalis) and children/grandchildren of immigrants (e.g. Jamaicans) in Toronto -- but the phenomenon just is not as intense and widespread as in the US.

Another big difference is the firearms themselves, and the reasons for which they are owned. Ordinary Canadians do not own handguns, and do not own firearms for "self-defence". The 1/4 or so of households that own firearms legally, own them mainly for hunting/rural purposes, so they are conventional long arms and they are not widespread in cities. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=58809

... The thing is that anyone who would deny that the number of firearms in a population has SOMETHING to do with homicide rates -- i.e. says that it has NOTHING to do with them -- is the one really making the assertion that needs proving here.

The strong correlation observed in so many instances is obvious prima facie evidence that the number of firearms in a population has SOMETHING to do with homicide rates. That prima facie case *does* need rebutting.


Obviously, when investigating causation and examining potential causal factors, one would like to consider all other things being equal situations and compare outcomes in them. We seldom have the good fortune of finding such situations.


As we all know, one of the "things" that is not "equal" as between the US and other mature, industrialized democracies is that income disparity in the US is hugely more pronounced than in those other, otherwise relatively comparable societies - and is growing faster than in those other countries (if it is growing in them).

And we know that violence (e.g. homicide rates) correlates positively with income disparity -- the larger the gap between rich and poor, the more violence. Russia and South Africa bear this correlation out, for instance.

A sensible person might look at the situation and say:

Obviously, we can expect higher levels of violence and crime in societies where more income is concentrated in the hands of fewer people than in societies where income is more evenly distributed.

Obviously, any propensity to violence and crime will be exacerbated by ready access to effective, efficient and low-risk means for committing violent/criminal acts.

One might tentatively conclude: In a country in which one condition (extreme income disparity) is not present, the number of firearms present will have a relatively less significant causal effect on homicide rates. In a country in which that condition is present, the number of firearms present will have a relatively more significant causal effect on homicide rates. One way to test the conclusion would be to find countries with high income disparity and low numbers of firearms, and see how they compare. Unfortunately, we can't just order up guinea pigs in this experiment.

Other factors will certainly have to be considered in determining what other factors exacerbate the tendency and what factors mitigate it: the content of laws and the effectiveness of law enforcement, for instance, need to be compared as well. ...

Interestingly, figures out this week show that income disparity in the US has continued apace in the last year -- and that the top 20% of the population (in terms of income level) has now managed to get its hands on 50% of income, while the bottom 20% has slipped to 3-point-something per cent. There simply is no "all other things being equal" comparison possible between the US and any other country, because there just isn't any other country in the world with anywhere near the amount of income there is in the US *and* anywhere near the disparity in the distribution of that income.

But that does not mean that nothing can be done about violence *without* addressing what appears to be a major causal factor - income disparity.

Yes -- skin cancer could be eliminated IF we all never went out in the sun. Well, not eliminated; skin cancers do occur for reasons other than sun exposure.

But meantime, given the improbability of that happening, and the sheer impossibility for most people of avoiding all sun exposure, sun screen offers some protection for those who use it. Sun screen can be expected to decrease the incidence of skin cancer as compared to a world in which all other things were equal but sun screen was not used.

And it is patently obvious that violent injuries and deaths could be reduced -- not eliminated, just as skin cancer would not be eliminated, because of other causal factors -- by restricting access to firearms generally, and to particular kinds of firearms in particular.

So ...

Gun crime deaths will increase no matter how many states employ gun control, no matter how religiously.
Comfy with that statement?

Nope. Because there just isn't a parallel between "gun control" and "sun screen", you see. You can't just pretend that two things are analogous; you have to actually demonstrate some analogous-ness.

Just for starters, "sun screen" protects only the individuals who use it, and only in certain circumstances. "Gun control" is not something that depends on individual choice. If your "sun screen" were, say, a giant umbrella over your country, you might have a better analogy (though still very imperfect, of course -- it would certainly have to leak, for starters).

You know that sun screen use doesnt "directly" increase skin cancer death rates, yet you assert with tenacity the correllation between the two.

In fact, I have absolutely no such thing. I asserted no such correlation. As anyone presuming to talk about such matters should have grasped.

I said that skin cancer death rates would go up despite increased sun screen use. I did not say that there was a correlation between sun screen use and skin cancer rates. If I had said that, I would also have been saying that skin cancer death rates would decrease if sun screen use decreased. I would have hoped that you knew what "correlation" means.

Having asserted no correlation, I very certainly did not assert evidence of a causal connection.

YOUR PAL (forgive me if at any point I have inadvertently disregarded the substitution of players at any point) was the one apparently asserting correlation:

It seems that after England (Britain) imposed very strict gun laws, Gun deaths went up.

*I* was the one saying that even if there appeared to be a correlation, it was not any evidence of causation. My point was that skin cancer deaths would rise despite sun screen use, NOT because of it. And that I would consider it entirely reasonable to posit that IF firearms deaths rose in the UK after strict controls were imposed, they rose despite those controls, NOT because of them.

This means that there is NO correlation (sun screen use with skin cancer deaths, firearms control with firearms homicides) -- a negative correlation, offset by other factors -- NOT that there is a correlation. I really would have thought that this was clear in the first place.

You know that handgun ownership rates dont "directly" increase crime gun deaths but.... well, why DO you continue that crusade?

I guess I also know that anthrax ownership rates don't "directly" increase crime anthrax deaths, but ... well, I just really wouldn't want to see anthrax in every household pot.


You're familiar with the concept of necessary and sufficient conditions, maybe?

My possession of anthrax spores wouldn't be sufficient for there to be an outbreak of anthrax in my community, but somebody's possession of anthrax spores appears to be little short of necessary for that to happen.

Causation is usually thought of as a chain. Remove one link in that chain, and it may be capable of reconnecting -- but remove another, and it may end right there.

If the dog hadn't stopped to pee, it might have caught that rabbit.

If Person X hadn't had that handgun, Person Y might still be alive.

Now, the rabbit might still have escaped the dog. And Person Y might have died of cholera. Who knows? And who's saying that we shouldn't take steps to prevent cholera infection? Or that we shouldn't act on any of the other factors that might have resulted in Person X killing Person Y even in the absence of a handgun?

And of course, I'd still like to see you demonstrate that income disparity (or any other causal factor you might choose to cite) has some "direct" causative influence on the death rates that handgun possession rates doesn't have. How you'd make that proof without falling into the traps you cite against me should be interesting.

Grinding poverty amidst obscene wealth causes people to shoot other people, does it?

[MrBenchley]

44. How about you get some facts first....

"It seems that after England (Britain) imposed very strict gun laws, Gun deaths went up."
But it only seems like that to those who have NO facts at all....

[iverglas]

22. of course, it could always be

"Which is it, more guns = more deaths (Detriot) Less guns = Less deathe = (England)"

I think it's more guns = more pink flamingos (Detroit) and fewer* guns = fewer* great white sharks (England).

<* a smaller number of separate items is called "fewer"; a smaller quantity of a single thing is called "less">

Or maybe more pink flamingos = more deaths (Detroit) and fewer great white sharks = fewer deaths (England)

Or maybe it's actually all about polar bears.

... Whatever "IT" is.

[dyersville]

24. Ahh yes

lacking a cogent answer, giberish is always the best option.

[iverglas]

26. but actually

lacking a cogent answer, giberish is always the best option.

When one does not have* a coherent question, mockery is often the best response.


<* in your sentence, "lacking" modified gibberish -- it's called a dangling participle -- and what we had was gibberish indeed: gibberish, when it is lacking a cogent answer, is always the best option.>

[dyersville]

28. you win in the race to diagram a sentence

what with my dangling participle and all, it is just a ruse to allow yourself some time to actually 'think'. And I can understand that, being that facts, are so hard to deal with, when a philosophy is at stake.

[iverglas]

31. now that's a fascinating theory

you win in the race to diagram a sentence
what with my dangling participle and all, it is just a ruse to allow yourself some time to actually 'think'.

Yes indeed, I always think best while typing grammar advice. And it would never occur to me to think *before* clicking on "reply" ... or to pour myself some diet coke and light up a matinée slims extra mild while thinking instead of typing grammar advice ... or even to just sit still and pretend I hadn't even clicked on "reply" yet and hope nobody noticed that I was sitting there with a blank box in front of me without a thing to say ...

No, I've always found that typing grammar advice is the best thing to do while floundering around trying to find the best way of mocking gibberish and hoping that nobody's spy camera is trained on me as I flounder.


When one does not have a coherent question, mockery is often the best response.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

41. hmm

"mockery in absence of thought does convince those wanting"

... hot dogs? high-heeled shoes? world peace?

Don't leave us in such suspense! What are they wanting??

[dyersville]

42. I am wanting you

To prove your statement that no matter how much sunscreen is used, the the rate of skin cancer will increase. Thats all, proof of a declarative statement.

But I am also assured due to radial tires attached to your chimney the $ mentioned will fall short the our Kindergarten test scores

[iverglas]

43. oh, well that's news!

I am wanting you
To prove your statement that no matter how much sunscreen is used, the the rate of skin cancer will increase.

'Cause it sure ain't what you've ever said you wanted before.

What you *said*, and what you wanted, was this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=78913&mesg_id=79116&page=

You will have to show me how the increased use of sun screen will increase the rate of skin cancer??

Retracting that one now, are you? Do speak up.

And then ask me for proof that the earth is spheroid, why don't you?


(edit: just in case anybody did ask me for proof the earth is speroid, I mended it.)

[dyersville]

45. Yes please do speak up

do more guns in the hands of citizens = more gun deaths?

I know the the length of the rear leg of a Rotwieler compared to the gdp of Vanity Fair has relevence...But

Do less guns cause less deaths?

That seems to be more improtant that the ratio of gerbill length the my nearest cell phone tower heighth.

[iverglas]

46. Ah jest gives up

do more guns in the hands of citizens = more gun deaths?

do more pink flamingos = more great white sharks?

How could a flamingo "equal" a shark?

How could a gun "equal" a death??


Do less guns cause less deaths?

How can fewer of anything cause anything at all??

Does less sun cause fewer deaths?

What sense does this make???


Now, I can see, maybe, "guns cause fewer deaths than floods" (i.e. guns cause fewer deaths than floods cause). Or "fewer guns cause deaths than floods" (i.e. there are fewer deaths than floods caused by guns). Or "fewer guns than floods cause deaths" (i.e. the number of floods that cause deaths is lower than the number of guns that cause deaths).

But "less guns cause less deaths"? How can fewer of something cause anything, and how can anything cause fewer of something??

You've left my head spinning. I have to go read some more about Guy Lafleur being charged with killing a deer out of season on a game ranch in Quebec in 1983. Seriously. That's my job du jour. 'Scuse me.

[goju]

69. If you havent got the message yet

let me help you. Some posters here dont feel compelled to answer questions directly or honestly. They would much rather pick you apart semantically than watch their argument go up in flames. They understand very well the limits of their zealous anti gun stance and the weakness of that position. Rather than debate honestly, well... you found out what they do.

[library_max]

70. Hey goju, you're talking to a tombstone.

But don't let that stop you from praising the honesty of his/her debating style.

[goju]

71. Huh?

Might I ask what the hell the tombstone reference is?

[library_max]

72. Sorry, I'll explain.

When a poster gets booted off DU for being a freeper, troll, or disruptor, he or she gets a "tombstone." If you'll click on dyersville's author profile (the little face after the username), you'll see the tombstone for yourself.

I just thought it was ironic that you were defending the ethics and honesty of someone who was booted from DU for being a disruptor.

[goju]

75. Oh, silly me

:crazy:

Blame it on the late hour and empty glass ;)

How did you know he got booted aside from looking at his profile? All his posts are still up on my end.

[library_max]

76. Aside from looking at his profile? That's how I knew.

They don't remove the posts of banned posters, for some reason. But all the trolls and disruptors in this forum (and there are a lot of them) seem to argue the same side of the issue and seem to employ a certain consistent debating style. So, every now and then, I check the profiles of posters of that stripe who don't have very many accumulated posts and haven't posted in a while.

[thomas82]

34. There is no

tyranny in Australia the unarmed sheep graze along happily and if one is killed no one cares because the rest will be safe since guns and swords are off the streets.
Tom

[iverglas]

38. something bad is plainly going on

the unarmed sheep graze along happily and if one
is killed no one cares because the rest will be safe
since guns and swords are off the streets

But there is obviously trouble in paradise:

http://svc008.wic122dp.server-web.com/woolpoll2000/volume1/volume1_executive.html

The number of sheep in Australia has declined by
over 50 million or around 30 percent since 1991 ... .

Somebody'd better look into this. My guess is that the sheep got tired of bearing wool and started trying to keep it ... but of course they'd have had to use hoofs, rather than arms, and certainly only for the purpose of shear self-defence ... .

[Wickerman]

78. Shear self defence?

Well Jeebus Chreest on a roller skate, give me a break - I hought you knew how to spell. And the right to keep and bear wool that is just silly. Next you will tell me they unionize... oh, I get it now,

ROTFLMAO

is that better?

[iverglas]

81. me

mollified. Moderately.

For the moment.

[Wickerman]

84. so many masters

so little time.

[library_max]

58. Well, the murder rate in Australia is about one third the rate in the U.S.

And that's per capita. So apparently all those "unarmed sheep" are considerably better off than us macho Yanks, at least on that score.

[library_max]

59. Except that the rate of gun crime in England did not go up.

The method of reporting changed.

[Lefty48197]

62. Lying just bugs me. I think the NRA lies inspired GWB to lie about WMD's

How can we raise our children if the NRA and the President are setting such a bad example? This may destroy our nation, if we aren't careful.

[slackmaster]

89. The solution is clear enough to me

Get rid of George W. Bush.

[RoeBear]

77. I guess you should show proof...

...of what the NRA 'promised'.

[iverglas]

82. I guess someone could do your research

Have you no native curiosity?

This one's a little vague:
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/ccw2_20020102.htm

While untoward incidents have been rare, so have reports of defensive uses of a weapon by a CCW licensee. Backers of the new law predicted that it would save lives as armed citizens warded off attackers.

Hey, parenthetically: is this a case we've heard tell of?

In Ogemaw County, a 61-year-old man was charged with felonious assault in October after he drew his weapon during a traffic altercation. No shots were fired. He pleaded guilty and his license was revoked, authorities said.

The VPC tells us:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/cccrimst.htm

The NRA's greatest success in lobbying for looser concealed weapons laws has been through framing the issue in terms of self-defense against crime. Yet the NRA has not been able to offer much in the way of hard evidence to support its assertion that armed citizens make for a safer society. ... The NRA vigorously touts relaxed concealed carry laws as a mechanism to arm law-abiding citizens against predatory criminals. And in each state where it battles to "reform" concealed carry laws the organization points to Florida as proof that such laws work. ... Meanwhile, the battle over such laws continues in Michigan, Ohio, and other states. In every state, however, proponents of relaxed concealed carry laws, led by the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), hold up the state of Florida's concealed weapons law as a model to be replicated throughout the nation. ... Since 1987 the NRA has successfully conducted a state-by-state campaign to loosen concealed weapons laws, holding up the Florida statute as the model of how such laws work.

Now of course it's always possible that the VPC is just lying about the NRA. Quite the elaborate lie, if so.

Well, how about the horse's mouth?

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18 (emphasis added)

More RTC states, less crime. The nation`s violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991 and in 2002 hit a 23-year low. In the same period, 17 states adopted and 13 states improved RTC laws. RTC states have lower violent crime rates, on average: 24% lower total violent crime, 22% lower murder, 37% lower robbery, and 20% lower aggravated assault. The five states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI)

RTC and crime trends. Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard found, "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly. ...(T)he estimated annual gain from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion. ... (W)hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent." ("Crime, Deterrence, and Right To Carry Concealed Handguns," 1996.)

And I'm afraid all that goes a little beyond observation of correlation, and crosses right over the line into assertion of causation: would have been avoided, just for starters.

And that just looks an awful damned lot like a "promise" to me -- an assertion that if your state had adopted the NRA's recommended legislation, a rather specific number of murders, rapes and aggravated assaults would have been avoided can't really be understood other than as an assertion that if your state adopts the NRA's recommended legislation, some ascertainable number of murders, rapes and aggravated assaults will be avoided, I don't think. Speaking honestly.

Anybody else interested in speaking honestly is invited to do so.

[MrBenchley]

83. Roe, it seems is hoping

that nobody knows who dredged up that idiotic racist Mary Rosh John Lott before the Michigan legislature and had him testify as an "expert" on how much crime rates could be expected to go down if neurotics could run around with pistols in their pockets.

[RoeBear]

85. Two swings...

...two misses.

[iverglas]

86. the moon

is made of green cheese.

[TheRovingGourmet]

87. No, it consists of yellow cheddar.

I know; I've been there. :)

[RoeBear]

90. And apparently so is...

...the matter between your ears.

ZING!

[MrBenchley]

88. One crock of crap

called the RKBA

[Lefty48197]

91. Yeah, gosh, "we never heard the NRA say THAT"

spare me please?

[RoeBear]

94. Then provide a link...

...or retract the statement.

[Lefty48197]

99. Sorry son, you don't have a big enough gun to order me around

try your tactics on some little kid on a playground somewhere.

[iverglas]

100. 'course, the damned thing is

... I provided links, right underneath there in the thread. Numéro 97.

No response to date ...

[MrBenchley]

95. Just to remind the board...

Crackpot racist Mary Rosh John Lott was imported to tell the Michigan legislature just that in 1998....

[iverglas]

97. just some info

We should forgive some of the sources down at the bottom.

This one comes from Lott's testimony to a US Congressional committee (emphasis added):

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63126.000/hju63126_0F.htm

If you are asking about the issue of how many people die, again, let me just show you the number of deaths for multiple-victim public shootings in the United States for States without right-to-carry laws over this 19-year period of time. It goes up and down a lot. There is a general upward trend. If I had 1996 in here, it would be another relatively high year. But there is basically, if anything, maybe a slight upward pattern. Now, these are for the States without right-to-carry laws.

... You can see in the years before these laws, for the 6 years prior to the laws going into effect, they are nowhere near as low as even the highest values for the 8 years after these laws go into effect. There is a sudden drop, and it stays low after people are allowed to defend themselves.

The bottom line is that when citizens are allowed to defend themselves, you see a huge drop in the rate at which these attacks occur, an even larger drop in the rate at which deaths occur.

... If my research convinces me of anything, it is that rules which relatively disarm the law-abiding increase crime. I believe that the proposed laws will either have no effect on crime or that they will actually increase the amount of harm suffered by good citizens.

That ain't just an assertion of correlation -- it's an assertion of causation. And it just has to work both ways.

To spell it out: if Lott asserts that "rules which relatively disarm the law-abiding increase crime", he IS asserting that rules that allow the "law-abiding" to arm themselves decrease crime. No way around that.

Of course, I'm sure we all know that RoeBear is really just playing that semantics game here, and coyly asserting that the NRA did not "promise" anything. Maybe he needs a dictionary; let's offer him the Oxford Concise:

promise
v. tr. ... 3 colloq. assure, confirm (I promise you, it will not be easy)

Since we know that the NRA was not "making a promise to do a thing" -- from the mere context in which the word was used; the NRA did not promise, i.e. undertake, that it would help eliminate crime --

They promised us that the passage of our "shall issue" ccw gun laws would help eliminate crime, because all the criminals would be so afraid of an "armed populace", that they would be too afraid to commit crimes.

-- we necessarily infer that the statement made meant that the NRA had assured the public that the passage of <the> "shall issue" ccw gun laws would help eliminate crime.



The order in which Lott's name appeared in the list was of course just alphabetical ... and he was of course just there on a whim of his own ...

LaPierre, Wayne, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association

Lott, John R., Jr., John M. Olin Law and Economics Fellow, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL

Regarding Michigan:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds16.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a77bd7a2537.htm

Sorry folks, best I could do. If Lew Rockwell's writer can't find the transcript of Lott's Michigan testimony, I doubt I will; he apparently didn't inquire of the Michigan Legislature for a paper copy, and I doubt that I will either. Maybe RoeBear can dig up something to rebut the more than prima facie proof of the accuracy of the statement he's so het up about ...

[MrBenchley]

98. Great post....

This "the NRA never promised anything" is one of the lamest tacks yet....