• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stabbing injures several on Lone Star College Cy-Fair campus

Have to be a member to view source.

/invalid

that is interesting. It is a US source. I am not a member, and yet the link I gave you works for me.

is there internet censorship in the US?
 
that is interesting. It is a US source. I am not a member, and yet the link I gave you works for me.

is there internet censorship in the US?
This is what I get when I click your link:


5.jpg


I guess....DebatePolitics.com doesn't have any rules for actually debating, so if you don't want to use an open source, whatever, just know that your argument isn't being supported. But then you can't make complete sentences, either, so this isn't really surprising.
 
Last edited:
This is what I get when I click your link:


View attachment 67146049


I guess....DebatePolitics.com doesn't have any rules for actually debating, so if you don't want to use an open source, whatever, just know that your argument isn't being supported. But then you can't make complete sentences, either, so this isn't really surprising.

interesting.

I checked initially after you said you could not access it, and had no difficulties, but when I went back to show you a screen shot of what I got - I get the same page as you.

never mind, there are plenty of other sources:

http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children_and_Families/Guns.pdf


A study of risk factors for violent death of women in the home found that women living in homes with 1 or more guns were more than 3 times more likely to be killed in their homes. The same study concluded that women killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative were 7 times more likely to live in homes with 1 or more guns and 14 times more likely to have a history of prior domestic violence compared to women killed by non-intimate acquaintances.7
Family and intimate assaults with firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm assaults. This research suggests that limiting access to guns will result in less lethal family and intimate assaults.8
A study of women physically abused by current or former intimate partners revealed a 5-fold increased risk of the partner murdering the woman when the partner owned a firearm. In fact, 9
Homicide risks were found to be 50% higher for female handgun purchasers in California compared with licensed drivers matched by sex, race, and age group.10 Among the women handgun purchasers who were murdered, 45% were killed by an intimate partner using a gun. In contrast, 20% of all women murdered in California during the study period were killed with a gun by an intimate partner.11
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/cente...policy-and-research/publications/IPV_Guns.pdf

Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
 
You asked what the difference was. I told you. Sorry it wasn't what you wanted to hear.

right. so the high rate of gun homicides in the home is irrelevant. why do you think so?

also, why are murder rates lower in a country with a greater percentage of total population living in cities bigger than one million people?
 
right. so the high rate of gun homicides in the home is irrelevant. why do you think so?

I didn't say it was irrelevant. :roll: You asked what the difference was. I told you. Again, sorry it wasn't what you wanted it to be. :shrug:

also, why are murder rates lower in a country with a greater percentage of total population living in cities bigger than one million people?

They don't have the same kind of gang violence.
 
I didn't say it was irrelevant. :roll: You asked what the difference was. I told you. Again, sorry it wasn't what you wanted it to be. :shrug:



They don't have the same kind of gang violence.

why not?

WRT spousal murder - why do you ignore the information showing the increased risk of being killed when there is a gun in the home?
 

:shrug: Dunno. That's a question for sociologists to answer.

WRT spousal murder - why do you ignore the information showing the increased risk of being killed when there is a gun in the home?

Because, even though it's obviously the axe you have to grind, it's not the answer to the question you asked, no matter how badly you want it to be.

(Never mind that those "studies" have uniformly turned out to be bogus.)
 
but why is your murder rate so high relative to similar countries?

And that is the question. If crime is down while gun ownership is up then it isn't the guns. But people are going to skirt the real issues and hide behind their own agendas. There are deeper issues here. We have crumbling family structure, a decline in spirtual influence, an increase in the speed of available information leading to smaller personal worlds and a decrease in human interaction. But none of those issues will be addressed because they don't fit on a bunmper sticker and suggesting people put down their electronics and get to know their neighbors personally wouldn't be as much fun right this minute. That's what gets tiresome about this argument. Everybody posts their opinions on it based on their own opinions rather than honestly looking at all the evidence first.

I'll give you an example. We are currently visiting my in laws. My wife is in the kitchen with her father making breakfast, I'm sitting on the couch typing on a Kindle and the kids are in to the second day of smashing things on a PS3 and a huge TV. Of the three kids one is playing, one is directing (it's his game so he knows where everything is) and the third is playing a handheld game waiting his turn to smash some more stuff. Anyone think there might be something wrong here? The kids of course will continue to smash stuff, but in a few minutes we'll be tuning in to see our pastors sermon for today. I'm jonesing to get home so I can get outside and get some work done. This all seems like a waste of time. Unfortunately this has become the new reality. These kids have shot thousands of people in the past 24 hours in a pretty realistic looking game and I'm sure that even after all this time when we break this party up there will be complaints.
 
Inner-city gang violence.



Exactly right.


If you factor OUT inner city violence related to gangs and/or drugs, the US murder rate OTHERWISE is much more comparable to other Western nations.

It isn't the guns. What do you have in gang-infested, drug-riddled inner cities?

Gov't/LE is often corrupt or ineffective (see Chicago)... poverty/wealth inequality yes... gangs/factions yes... drug trades yes.... you have all the ingredients I spoke of as the commonality for high homicide rates.

/thread
 
And that is the question. If crime is down while gun ownership is up then it isn't the guns. But people are going to skirt the real issues and hide behind their own agendas. There are deeper issues here. We have crumbling family structure, a decline in spirtual influence, an increase in the speed of available information leading to smaller personal worlds and a decrease in human interaction. But none of those issues will be addressed because they don't fit on a bunmper sticker and suggesting people put down their electronics and get to know their neighbors personally wouldn't be as much fun right this minute. That's what gets tiresome about this argument. Everybody posts their opinions on it based on their own opinions rather than honestly looking at all the evidence first.

I'll give you an example. We are currently visiting my in laws. My wife is in the kitchen with her father making breakfast, I'm sitting on the couch typing on a Kindle and the kids are in to the second day of smashing things on a PS3 and a huge TV. Of the three kids one is playing, one is directing (it's his game so he knows where everything is) and the third is playing a handheld game waiting his turn to smash some more stuff. Anyone think there might be something wrong here? The kids of course will continue to smash stuff, but in a few minutes we'll be tuning in to see our pastors sermon for today. I'm jonesing to get home so I can get outside and get some work done. This all seems like a waste of time. Unfortunately this has become the new reality. These kids have shot thousands of people in the past 24 hours in a pretty realistic looking game and I'm sure that even after all this time when we break this party up there will be complaints.

none of this is unique to the US. It is true of other countries with much lower murder rates.
 
:shrug: Dunno. That's a question for sociologists to answer.



Because, even though it's obviously the axe you have to grind, it's not the answer to the question you asked, no matter how badly you want it to be.

(Never mind that those "studies" have uniformly turned out to be bogus.)

oh ... I see ... all these studies are part of a giant conspiracy by leftist social scientists and other academics to deprive you of your toys.
 
Exactly right.


If you factor OUT inner city violence related to gangs and/or drugs, the US murder rate OTHERWISE is much more comparable to other Western nations.

It isn't the guns. What do you have in gang-infested, drug-riddled inner cities?

Gov't/LE is often corrupt or ineffective (see Chicago)... poverty/wealth inequality yes... gangs/factions yes... drug trades yes.... you have all the ingredients I spoke of as the commonality for high homicide rates.

/thread

so why is poverty and inequality so much worse in the US than in other OECD countries?
 
oh ... I see ... all these studies are part of a giant conspiracy by leftist social scientists and other academics to deprive you of your toys.

No, they turned out to be bogus. "Conspiracy" is something you dragged into it.

You apparently don't actually want to discuss this; you want things to be the way you want them to be, no matter what they actually are. Sorry, but the world just isn't the way you obviously wish it was.

(And the rhetoric about "toys"? Not surprising you tip your hand so easily.)
 
The problem with many "studies", they start off with an intended end and the evidence and conclusions are bent toward that end. It's sloppy lab work. And where is it taught? In universities which we should be able to agree are typically liberally biased. Any study should be scutinized for it's bias, just the fact that there are opposing conclusions in similiar studies proves bias, otherwise the results would all be the same every time. That's why the very concept of a "scientific concensus" should be dismissed. Real science has no opinion and therefore can not reach a concensus.
 
No, they turned out to be bogus. "Conspiracy" is something you dragged into it.

You apparently don't actually want to discuss this; you want things to be the way you want them to be, no matter what they actually are. Sorry, but the world just isn't the way you obviously wish it was.

(And the rhetoric about "toys"? Not surprising you tip your hand so easily.)

If you want to see the tables turned start a thread about the dangers of texting while driving and watch the young liberals who refer to guns as toys cry about not being allowed to play with their toys while driving for the public good. They will each try to explain how they possess superior multitasking skills (and indeed would do so to a cop who pulled them over for eradic driving), and how our wanting to limit such behavior is a personal attack on them.
 
We were driving thru Atlanta last night on the way home. Anyone who has done this knows it can be a bit of a cluster**** with a lot of lanes and exchanges. We saw not one but two drivers running 70 - 80 mph, both all over and in one case out of their lane. when we got to go around them they were both texting. One at least had one hand on the wheel, the other was holding the phone with both hands. And there are signs along the road that warn that texting while driving is illegal. Maybe we need another law that says texting while driving is really REALLY illegal. That will stop them...
 
No, they turned out to be bogus. "Conspiracy" is something you dragged into it.

You apparently don't actually want to discuss this; you want things to be the way you want them to be, no matter what they actually are. Sorry, but the world just isn't the way you obviously wish it was.

(And the rhetoric about "toys"? Not surprising you tip your hand so easily.)

the inability to accept the results of evidence based research, and refer to it as "bogus" suggests a conspiracy fantasy.
 
The problem with many "studies", they start off with an intended end and the evidence and conclusions are bent toward that end. It's sloppy lab work. And where is it taught? In universities which we should be able to agree are typically liberally biased. Any study should be scutinized for it's bias, just the fact that there are opposing conclusions in similiar studies proves bias, otherwise the results would all be the same every time. That's why the very concept of a "scientific concensus" should be dismissed. Real science has no opinion and therefore can not reach a concensus.

don't understand much about social research or universities, do you?
 
If you want to see the tables turned start a thread about the dangers of texting while driving and watch the young liberals who refer to guns as toys cry about not being allowed to play with their toys while driving for the public good. They will each try to explain how they possess superior multitasking skills (and indeed would do so to a cop who pulled them over for eradic driving), and how our wanting to limit such behavior is a personal attack on them.

that is one of my pet hates ... its more of a danger in this country because we have sensible gun legislation.
 
the inability to accept the results of evidence based research, and refer to it as "bogus" suggests a conspiracy fantasy.

Really. What do you call clinging to research revealed to be bogus because it's what you want to believe?
 
don't understand much about social research or universities, do you?

I have done unbiased research. I aid our county sheriff's department in vehicle investigations and have done considerable research on hydrogen fuel systems for cars. These systems hit the market a couple of years ago when gas prices first hit $4 a gallon. People who produce them make some amazing claims, doubling gas mileage and such. I service several fleets and if these systems worked as advertised I stood to make a considerable amount of money installing them. So I installed one on my own vehicle for objective testing. My results showed a 9% increase in gas mileage and found that many of the control systems installed with them were what caused higher fuel savings by running the engine so lean it led to higher nitrogen emissions and in several cases massive engine damage. I wanted them to work, but it turns out that 9% gains to operate one safely included considerable work to keep electrolyte levels balanced, not something your average driver would or could keep up with. People who build and sell these systems were quite upset with me. Later an independent lab tested these systems and found... 9% increase in mileage.
 
Really. What do you call clinging to research revealed to be bogus because it's what you want to believe?

I call it junk science, and it is usually driven by greed.
 
Back
Top Bottom