Your first link is an anti-governemnt pro-guns lobbist.
Your second link is to the UK's equivalent of Fox News. A newspaper that always claims that crime is rising despite the fact that crime has actually been falling pretty consistently in all categories since 1995.
Your third link is broken, but at a guess it's to an opinion piece by Joyce Lee Malcolm. An author that writes pro-gun books.
It's all cherry picking and distortion. That's why I pointed you at Snopes.
What's needed is the lifting of the Republican ban on government research on gun crime. They are afraid of real definitive figures being researched and published.
What nonsense. Criminals also have car registration plates - because not carrying them would mark them out for being stopped by police. Not what a criminal wants. And most certainly car license plate numbers have helped the police detect millions of crimes. Even with the possibility of them being faked.
Yeah, Nineteen Eighty-Four is still fiction. You reveal your paranoia.
"1984" was a warning. One you seem to want to ignore.
To be a warning it would have to have been written by a time traveller. It was actually written by a novelist, from his imagination. Just like "Planet of the Apes" was.
You're gullible if you confuse fiction with reality.
Comparing rate of gun ownership with numbers of violent crimes is naive. A violent crime consisting of someone being shot is clearly worse than someone getting punched or stabbed. And all the statistical evidence is that more people do get shot when gun ownership is up.
Unfortunately most of the stuff you'll find if you google is pro-gun blogs interpreting the limited data to their own advantage. What is really needed is rigorous scientific study, including measuring raw data, not just adapting what scant resources are already out there. Unfortunately as such science tends to back the gun control lobby, the pro-gun lobby cynically pushed through legislation banning the government from financing such proper research.
"The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics"
Did you read my comment
Yes. It was attempting simplistic short-term analysis. For example comparing single years with each other. It was exactly what Snopes was warning against.
Using the below statement as any evidence against an event happening is stupid
It's certainly not. It would be wrong to try and use it as proof. But it's absolutely correctly used as evidence. It clearly lowers the probability of the prediction being true, if it's never happened in all of history,compared to there being historical examples. And evidence is all about probability or weight. That's why they talk of "the weight of evidence".
Actually the answer is yes. That's exactly what it is. The Koch Bros financed an AGW sceptical scientist to do this research, hoping that he'd produce results they liked. But he didn't. Having done the research the scientist was no longer skeptical of AGW.
So if China is worse, that's an excuse for doing nothing?
Actually China is investing more in renewables than the USA. Like the US, they come from a fossil fuelled history. But they're doing more to change than America.
1) The list of things that are legal now isn't the same as the list of things that are OK.
2) Laws change.
3) People who believe in the most unreasonable things that may be legal at the time, sometimes with the benefit of hindsight can be seen by all to be very wrong.
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize homosexuals. It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize Muslims. It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize African Americans.
No it's not.
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize Mac users.
Yes it is. And I say that as a Mac user.
In fact, if you do any of the above, you're an asshole and a jerk. And you're one when you "ostracize" people who own firearms, too.
Not at all. It's perfectly OK to make your opinion of people's behaviour known, and not to associate with people who's behaviour you disapprove of.
In return for Venezuelan oil, Cuba is sending approximately 30,000 to 50,000 technical personnel to Venezuela, including physicians, sport coaches, teachers, and arts instructors who offer social services, often in poverty-stricken regions. Under the programme Convenio de AtenciÃn a Pacientes implemented in 2000, Venezuela send patients and their relatives for medical treatment in Cuba where the Government of Venezuela pays the transportation costs, and Cuba bears all other expenses.[6] In April 2005, the two countries signed an agreement to increase the number of healthcare workers in Venezuela to 30,000 and initiated health programs which included establishment of 1,000 free medical centers, training of 50,000 medical personnel, and surgical treatment for approximately 100,000 Venezuelans in Cuba. Cuba also offered to train an additional 40,000 Venezuelan physicians. Meanwhile the oil shipment to Cuba is increased to 90,000 barrels (14,000 m3) per day.[17] In 2005 alone, 50,000 Venezuelans went to Cuba for free eye treatment.[5]
You might want to educate yourself on the real reasons for the differences between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. None of which has anything to say about Cuba.
It must be really hard form someone from a first world country, who has to stump up for private medical insurance, to believe that a third-world country, who offers medical services for free, has better healthcare.
Yet all the statistics and all the first hand reports show that it does.
If Cuban health care is so great, why do humanitarian organizations and relatives have to send in medicines from the USA all the time?
Cuba BUYS it's medicines from the USA. They received aid after the odd hurricane, but equally they give aid to other countries that have been hit by humanitarian disasters - they were the first to aid Haiti for example. And offered medical aid to the USA during Hurricane Katrina - 1500 doctors - though I think the USA was too proud to accept it.
How is it anyone else's business what I keep in my bedroom closet any more than it is anyone else's business
It depends entirely what it is. For example if it's a nuclear bomb, that's everyone's business.
There is more fervor over online published data on sex offenders in society than you people are expressing for legally registered gun owners (in the most restrictive state in the country) having the same done to them. That's kinda, I dunno, low.
You people say it's a crime deterrent. Therefore people knowing you have a gun is a good thing. You're less likely to get burgled. And the country is less likely to have someone shot.
Then why haven't they been such a "crisis-level" "problem" for the past 250 years?
You think the "wild west" wasn't a crisis level problem? You think the gangs of Chicago weren't a crisis level problem?
Seriously: do you REALLY believe that "the government" will ALWAYS have YOUR best interests in mind? Because if your answer to that is "No", then you have just identified the REAL reason that the 2nd Amendment exists.
Nonsense. That's the reason for the ballot box, not the gun.
No. You do not solve a crime problem by restricting the rights of the law abiding.
Sure you do. Why do you think your car has license plates? If everyone was law abiding there would be no need for them. But everyone isn't law abiding. So everyone has to carry visible car identification, even the law abiding ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Your first link is an anti-governemnt pro-guns lobbist.
Your second link is to the UK's equivalent of Fox News. A newspaper that always claims that crime is rising despite the fact that crime has actually been falling pretty consistently in all categories since 1995.
Your third link is broken, but at a guess it's to an opinion piece by Joyce Lee Malcolm. An author that writes pro-gun books.
It's all cherry picking and distortion. That's why I pointed you at Snopes.
What's needed is the lifting of the Republican ban on government research on gun crime. They are afraid of real definitive figures being researched and published.
What nonsense. Criminals also have car registration plates - because not carrying them would mark them out for being stopped by police. Not what a criminal wants. And most certainly car license plate numbers have helped the police detect millions of crimes. Even with the possibility of them being faked.
The statistics in england show gun crime rose when guns became more controlled and violent crime rose when guns became more controlled
They most certainly do not.
Erm...have you looked around lately?
Yeah, Nineteen Eighty-Four is still fiction. You reveal your paranoia.
"1984" was a warning. One you seem to want to ignore.
To be a warning it would have to have been written by a time traveller. It was actually written by a novelist, from his imagination. Just like "Planet of the Apes" was.
You're gullible if you confuse fiction with reality.
Comparing rate of gun ownership with numbers of violent crimes is naive. A violent crime consisting of someone being shot is clearly worse than someone getting punched or stabbed. And all the statistical evidence is that more people do get shot when gun ownership is up.
Unfortunately most of the stuff you'll find if you google is pro-gun blogs interpreting the limited data to their own advantage. What is really needed is rigorous scientific study, including measuring raw data, not just adapting what scant resources are already out there. Unfortunately as such science tends to back the gun control lobby, the pro-gun lobby cynically pushed through legislation banning the government from financing such proper research.
"The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics"
Did you read my comment
Yes. It was attempting simplistic short-term analysis. For example comparing single years with each other. It was exactly what Snopes was warning against.
Using the below statement as any evidence against an event happening is stupid
It's certainly not. It would be wrong to try and use it as proof. But it's absolutely correctly used as evidence. It clearly lowers the probability of the prediction being true, if it's never happened in all of history,compared to there being historical examples. And evidence is all about probability or weight. That's why they talk of "the weight of evidence".
None of it.
(Your link is broken)
Ever wonder why it's so hot in Australia right now? Not only is it summer there, but Earth's orbit is at perihelion, closest to the sun on January 3.
That's why it's warm in Australia every summer. The reason there's record breaking temperatures there in recent years is Anthropogenic Global Warming.
http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/CC_Jan_2013_Heatwave4.pdf
Actually the answer is yes. That's exactly what it is. The Koch Bros financed an AGW sceptical scientist to do this research, hoping that he'd produce results they liked. But he didn't. Having done the research the scientist was no longer skeptical of AGW.
Read the Snopes article.
So if China is worse, that's an excuse for doing nothing?
Actually China is investing more in renewables than the USA. Like the US, they come from a fossil fuelled history. But they're doing more to change than America.
No. Just pointing out that:
1) The list of things that are legal now isn't the same as the list of things that are OK.
2) Laws change.
3) People who believe in the most unreasonable things that may be legal at the time, sometimes with the benefit of hindsight can be seen by all to be very wrong.
If you insist on historical precendence to admit the possibility of something happening
I didn't.
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize homosexuals.
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize Muslims.
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize African Americans.
No it's not.
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize Mac users.
Yes it is. And I say that as a Mac user.
In fact, if you do any of the above, you're an asshole and a jerk. And you're one when you "ostracize" people who own firearms, too.
Not at all. It's perfectly OK to make your opinion of people's behaviour known, and not to associate with people who's behaviour you disapprove of.
If it is legal [for your neighbour to make large bombs in his house], then sure.
And there is the madness of the gun-lobby. No, it's not OK, it's too dangerous. And it still wouldn't be OK if the law allowed it.
Gun owners aren't criminals, though.
Well not yet. Slave owners were also not criminal at one time.
It's not a gift. It's not aid. It's called trade.
In return for Venezuelan oil, Cuba is sending approximately 30,000 to 50,000 technical personnel to Venezuela, including physicians, sport coaches, teachers, and arts instructors who offer social services, often in poverty-stricken regions. Under the programme Convenio de AtenciÃn a Pacientes implemented in 2000, Venezuela send patients and their relatives for medical treatment in Cuba where the Government of Venezuela pays the transportation costs, and Cuba bears all other expenses.[6]
In April 2005, the two countries signed an agreement to increase the number of healthcare workers in Venezuela to 30,000 and initiated health programs which included establishment of 1,000 free medical centers, training of 50,000 medical personnel, and surgical treatment for approximately 100,000 Venezuelans in Cuba. Cuba also offered to train an additional 40,000 Venezuelan physicians. Meanwhile the oil shipment to Cuba is increased to 90,000 barrels (14,000 m3) per day.[17] In 2005 alone, 50,000 Venezuelans went to Cuba for free eye treatment.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubaâ"Venezuela_relations
Chavez himself is being treated in Cuba for his Cancer, just as so many other Venezuelans are.
You might want to educate yourself on the real reasons for the differences between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. None of which has anything to say about Cuba.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1953959,00.html
It must be really hard form someone from a first world country, who has to stump up for private medical insurance, to believe that a third-world country, who offers medical services for free, has better healthcare.
Yet all the statistics and all the first hand reports show that it does.
If Cuban health care is so great, why do humanitarian organizations and relatives have to send in medicines from the USA all the time?
Cuba BUYS it's medicines from the USA. They received aid after the odd hurricane, but equally they give aid to other countries that have been hit by humanitarian disasters - they were the first to aid Haiti for example. And offered medical aid to the USA during Hurricane Katrina - 1500 doctors - though I think the USA was too proud to accept it.
How is it anyone else's business what I keep in my bedroom closet any more than it is anyone else's business
It depends entirely what it is. For example if it's a nuclear bomb, that's everyone's business.
There is more fervor over online published data on sex offenders in society than you people are expressing for legally registered gun owners (in the most restrictive state in the country) having the same done to them. That's kinda, I dunno, low.
You people say it's a crime deterrent. Therefore people knowing you have a gun is a good thing. You're less likely to get burgled. And the country is less likely to have someone shot.
Sure. That prohibition of addictive consumables, which can easily be made with naturally occurring foodstuffs, doesn't work.
Gun control on the other hand does work. We've seen it in many other countries.
which ignores the inevitable - there has to be a first time.
Well actually, no there doesn't. Most things never happen.
You do realise Nineteen Eighty-Four was fiction. So was Red Dawn. And Logan's Run. And Water World.
Then why haven't they been such a "crisis-level" "problem" for the past 250 years?
You think the "wild west" wasn't a crisis level problem? You think the gangs of Chicago weren't a crisis level problem?
Seriously: do you REALLY believe that "the government" will ALWAYS have YOUR best interests in mind? Because if your answer to that is "No", then you have just identified the REAL reason that the 2nd Amendment exists.
Nonsense. That's the reason for the ballot box, not the gun.
No. You do not solve a crime problem by restricting the rights of the law abiding.
Sure you do. Why do you think your car has license plates? If everyone was law abiding there would be no need for them. But everyone isn't law abiding. So everyone has to carry visible car identification, even the law abiding ones.
There are thousands of other such examples.