Lone Star College Shooting Leaves 3 Injured, 'Person of Interest' in Custody[W: 150]

Boo Radley said:

But if you want a quite:

Errors aside, the fundamental problem with Lott’s research can be summarized by the old social science adage “correlation is not causation.” Many variables may be related to one another yet not cause one another. For example, there is a significant association between a child’s shoe size and the child’s writing ability. But this correlation, of course, does not prove that large shoes improve writing ability.7



Exactly what I laid out for you earlier

Click to expand...

Jerry said:

Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers.
Luke, 6:44

I'm putting out Harvard, FBI, CDC, quoting state laws and SCOTUS decisions...and all the anti-gunners are using is wiki and a couple kook blogs.

#lowinformationvoters

Click to expand...

Jerry said:

That's wiki's say-so, that has no credibility or authority. It's hearsay at best.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Your not really paying attention. Btw, the FBI and CDC, both of which I've quoted in these threads, support me here.

Click to expand...

Jerry said:

That's wiki's say-so, that has no credibility or authority. It's hearsay at best.

And we haven't touched on the fact that I haven't sourced Lott at all, so why you think it's appropriate to debunk Lott is beyond me. go ahead and trash the guy, it does nothing to anything I've ever said because I've never used Lott as a source.

Click to expand...

Jerry said:

That's wiki's say-so, that has no credibility or authority. It's hearsay at best.

And we haven't touched on the fact that I haven't sourced Lott at all, so why you think it's appropriate to debunk Lott is beyond me. go ahead and trash the guy, it does nothing to anything I've ever said because I've never used Lott as a source.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

support what-that you don't like Lott's conclusions or that you can actually prove that the silly gun control schemes you support actually will make us safer

that the lunatic fringe gun haters constantly start blogs to attack Lott prove that his scholarship is taken seriously by those who matter

Click to expand...

Jerry said:

Scratch that: I used Lott once on this site, 4 years ago, got shot down. I haven't used Lott since.

I certainly haven't used Lott recently or in this thread.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

TD pay attention, I've never claimed gun control works entirely. I've stated clearly and directly both sides make false claims. You guys just deny yours more often when I say it.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

support what-that you don't like Lott's conclusions or that you can actually prove that the silly gun control schemes you support actually will make us safer

that the lunatic fringe gun haters constantly start blogs to attack Lott prove that his scholarship is taken seriously by those who matter

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Lott's where this thought is bred from.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

you are wrong. the anti gun side constantly lies. we don't.

Click to expand...

Jerry said:

Sigmund Freud is where Psychology bred from, and most of his work has been falsified and rejected, yet Psychology rages on.

Alchemy, attempts to turn lead into gold, is where chemistry bred from. Today we see the foolishness of the effort, yet Chemistry continues on.

Your point?

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Only in the bubble.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Hats true, but not by repeating his claim. They recognized the mistakes and moved in another direction.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

I am wondering if you are going to actually take a stand on all these gun restriction proposals as opposed to merely complaining about Lott when the ARC has nothing approaching his study to support their gun restrictionism

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

I have. They don't belong in schools. That's the debate Jerry and I are having. During which he claimed states with right to carry laws are safer. This was Lott's work. It's not valid.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

I have. They don't belong in schools. That's the debate Jerry and I are having. During which he claimed states with right to carry laws are safer. This was Lott's work. It's not valid.

Click to expand...

• Statistical publications | Home Office

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

Click to expand...

EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.
<snip>
Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.

<snip>

Click to expand...

• More children die from accidental drowning’s or burns than from gun accidents.
• Two Little Square Black Dogs: I do not have a gun... I am not a murderer
• UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph
• The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
• England's Homicide Rate
• England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study

Jerry said:

As did I with Lott, which is why I don't source his work to make my argument. I source the CDC, Harvard, the FBI, and other credible sources. I do not source Lott. So go ahead and rip the guy to shreds, it won't effect anything I've claimed in the least.

I'm more interested to see you try to debunk Harvard, whom I have sourced.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

CDC doesn't make the claim you cite. The make the claim of little effect of any gun regulation. Nor does the FBI back you up as they only give numbers and not reasoning.

As for Harvard, do you mean this study:


The study's author, Dr. David Hemenway, professor of Health Policy at Harvard School of Public Health, weighed the various risks of having a gun in the home, such as accidents, suicide, homicide, and intimidation and compared them to the potential benefits of having a firearm in a home such as deterrence and self-defense. He found that homes with guns were not safer nor did they deter more crime than those that did not have guns. Rather, having a gun in the home posed a greater threat to the family than not having a gun. In homes with children or women, the health risks were even greater.

Study: Guns in the home offer more risk than benefit | MNN - Mother Nature Network

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

But, the claim was born in his research.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

The only way to stop someone who has already decided he is going to die is to kill him before he kills lots of other people. and the only way to do that is to have armed responders on site at schools

Click to expand...

winston53660 said:

You don't think those guys the crazy ones wouldn't figure it out? And how to knock the armed responders in the first place.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

There's a reason why prisons are a growth industry in this country. But, I prefer others not pay for their lack of responsibility.

Click to expand...