Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics

July 31st, 2012   Submitted by Davi Barker

Firearm prohibitionists love to use tragedy to leverage their agenda. So, it’s important for gun rights advocates to stand their ground and fire back (proverbially) whenever this happens.

I posted a graphic on Facebook claiming the average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 18.25, and the average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by civilians is 2.2. I based it on 10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere. I honestly don’t even remember where. I presented the case studies in a blog post on the Silver Circle blog and I did the math myself.

The graphic was met with great enthusiasm and much skepticism. Leave it to Facebook users to demand an audit on a meme. So, I started over, only much more meticulous this time. I compiled and analyzed 100 shootings, noting my methodology, and I am now prepared to present my findings, complete with links to the data. But here’s a spoiler… It’s not that different.

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

I was so close! Here’s what I think accounts for the difference. In the first sample there was likely a selection error based on what grabs headlines. Larger shootings get more press, so if you take a small sampling you’re going to be working with a data set of the worst shootings. As for the consistency of the civilian statistic, it makes perfect sense if you think about from inside the mind of a heroic civilian with a concealed carry permit. It goes something like this:

BANG!
“Holy crap! that guy shot that other guy.”
BANG!
“He’s just going to keep shooting people.”
BANG!

And the shooter goes down.

Quite a few cases went something like that. In fact, I found only one example of a shooter stopped by civilians who killed more than 3 people. Jared Loughner killed 6 people in Tucson, Arizona before he was tackled by two civilians. An astute reader informed me that at least one of the civilians that helped stop Jared Loughner was carrying a concealed weapon, but he did not use his gun out of concern for innocent bystanders.

I want to be perfectly clear. I am not much of a firearms enthusiast. I don’t own a firearm. I’ve only ever been shooting twice. For me it’s not an issue of gun rights. It’s about property rights. A person has a natural right to own a hunk of iron in any damn shape they want, and they shouldn’t be criminalized until they use that hunk of iron to harm someone. People can argue crime statistics ’till they’re blue in face. I frankly don’t care about people’s ideas for managing society.

What I am is a math enthusiast. So, without further delay, here’s how I arrived at these numbers.

Step One: Amassing a data set

I searched for timelines of shootings and selected 5 that appeared the most comprehensive.

  1. Info Please
  2. CNN
  3. Denver Post
  4. News Max
  5. TruTV

While doing this I learned some important vocabulary. A “spree shooting” is when a killer murders in multiple locations with no break between murders. As in the Virginia Tech killer who began shooting in one hall, and then walked across campus and continued shooting in another hall. A “mass shooting” is when a killer murders multiple people, usually in a single location. As in the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 people at one military base. A “school shooting” can be either of these as long as one or more locations is a school. As in the Columbine shooting, which is also classified as a spree shooting because they went from room to room. The term “rampage shooting” is used to describe all of these, and does not differentiate between them. So that is the term I’ll be using from here on out.

As many have pointed out, none of the weapons involved are “automatic weaponry” or “assault rifles” but they are often misreported as such by media outlets that lack knowledge of firearms.

I selected these lists because they were the most comprehensive of those that I found, and I was seeking as large a data set as possible. I combined them all, including the first 10 from my previous post, and removed all redundant data for a total list of 100 shootings.

Step Two: Trimming irrelevant data.

While the list was comprehensive, the details about each shooting were not. In each shooting I had a date and a location, but often important details, like the number of people killed, or how the shooter was apprehended were missing. So, I set to the long task researching each incident to fill in the missing data. I didn’t incorporate the number of wounded people because so many were not reported. But the reason they call a single death a shooting rampage is because there were many injuries. All relevant data is contained in the links in the finished list below or in the timelines linked above. Most of the data came from either Wikipedia, a mainstream news article about the incident, or a handy resource I discovered called Murderpedia.

Next I removed incidents that did not fit within the scope of this analysis. Even though every incident on the list was a shooting, not every incident was a rampage shooting. So, I selected for incidents that included at least some indiscriminate targeting of bystanders. I removed incidents like Dedric Darnell Owens who shot and killed his classmate Kayla Rolland and then threw his handgun in a wastebasket (*meaning I removed incidents where the shooter killed all he was going to kill and stopped, because neither police or civilians actually reduced the deaths at the scene.) And I removed incidents like Michele Kristen Anderson who killed her entire family at a Christmas Party. So what remained were specifically rampage shootings in which a killer went someplace public and began firing at random people.

Suicide presented a tricky variable in the analysis. Roughly half of the remaining rampage shooters ended their own lives. So, I removed all incidents where the shooter killed themselves before police arrived reasoning that they had killed all they were going to kill and police had no impact in stopping them. Theoretically these incidents could have been stopped sooner by a civilian, but let’s not speculate. What I left in were incidents where shooters commit suicide after engaging the police, either during a shootout with police, or after a chase. I included, for example, Jiverly Wong, who witnesses say stopped shooting and killed himself as soon as he heard sirens but before police arrived, crediting the police’s response time with stopping the murders. But I did not include the shooters themselves in the total number of people killed.

I also removed cases like Edward Charles Allaway who shot up a library, then fled to a nearby hotel and called police to turn himself in, and cases like Darrell Ingram who shot up a high school dance and fled the scene only to be apprehended later after a long investigation. I was only looking for incidents when intervention from police or civilian saved lives.

What remained was 32 cases of gunmen firing indiscriminately whose rampage was cut short through the intervention of either a civilian or a police officer.

Step Three: The List

I divided the remaining cases into two categories, those stopped by police and those stopped by civilians. I included both armed and unarmed civilians for reasons that will become clear in the final analysis. I also removed cases like Dominick Maldonado and Charles Joseph Whitman. Moldonado went on a shooting rampage in a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, and ultimately surrendered to police but was confronted by two legally armed civilians who interrupted his shooting. They did not fire for fear of hitting innocent bystanders. Whitman climbed a tower at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas and began shooting at other students and faculty with a sniper rifle. The police who stopped Charles Whitman were assisted by a civilian with a more powerful rifle. I’m calling incidents like this an assist from civilians and removing them from the analysis as anomalies.

  • 9/6/1949 - Howard Barton Unruh went on a shooting rampage in Camden, New Jersey with a German Luger. He shot up a barber shop, a pharmacy and a tailor’s shop killing 13 people. He finally surrendered after a shoot-out with police.
  • 7/18/1984 – James Oliver Huberty shot up a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California killing 21 people before police shoot and killed him.
  • 10/16/1991 - George Hennard entered Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and began indiscriminately shooting the patrons. He killed 23 people in all. He commit suicide after being cornered and wounded in a shootout with police.
  • 12/7/1993 – Colin Ferguson brought a handgun into a Long Island Rail Road car and opened fire at random. He killed 6 people before passengers Michael O’Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled him while reloading.
  • 11/15/1995 – Jamie Rouse used a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle to fire indiscriminately inside Richland High School in Lynnville, Tennessee. He killed 2 people before being tackled by a football player and a coach.
  • 2/2/1996 - Barry Loukaitis entered Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington with a rifle and two handguns. He killed 3 people before the Gym teacher, Jon Lane grabbed the rifle and wrestled the gunman to the ground.
  • 10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.
  • 12/1/1997 - Michael Carneal brought a pistol, two rifles and two shotguns to his high school in Paducah, Kentucky and opened fire on a small prayer group killing 3 girls. His rampage was halted when he was tackled by another student.
  • 4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.
  • 5/21/1998 - Kipland Kinkel entered Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle hidden under a trench coat. He opened fire killing 2 students, but while reloading a wounded student named Jacob Ryker tackled him.
  • 4/20/1999 - Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the killers behind the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado. The two both commit suicide after police arrived, but what many people do not know is that the school’s armed security guard and the police all stood and waited outside the library while executions happed right inside. 15 people died, not including the shooters.
  • 7/31/1999 - Mark Barton was a daytrader who went on a shooting rampage through two day trading firms in Atlanta, Georgia. He killed 12 people in all and after a police chase he was surrounded by police at a gas station where he commit suicide.
  • 1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. 3 people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by 3 students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.
  • 8/27/2003 – Salvador Tapia entered an auto parts store in Chicago, Illinois and shot and killed 6 people with a handgun. He then waged a gunbattle with police before a SWAT team fatally wounded him.
  • 9/24/2003 – John Jason McLaughlin brought a .22-caliber pistol to Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minnesota. He killed 2 people before PE teacher, Mark Johnson confronted him, disarmed him, and held him in the school office for police to arrive.
  • 2/25/2005 – David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.
  • 3/21/2005 – Jeff Weise was a student at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. He killed 7 people including a teacher and a security guard. When police cornered him inside the school, he shot and killed himself.
  • 11/8/2005 – Kenneth Bartley, Jr. brought a .22 caliber pistol to Campbell County Comprehensive High School in Jacksboro, Tennessee and killed 1 person before being disarmed by a teacher.
  • 9/29/2006 – Eric Hainstock brought a .22 caliber revolver and a 20-gauge shotgun into Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconson. He killed 1 person before staff and students apprehended him and held him until the police arrived.
  • 4/16/2007 – Seung-Hui Cho was the shooter behind the Virgina Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. Police apprehend the wrong suspect allowing the shooter to walk across campus and open fire again in a second location. He eventually commit suicide after murdering 32 people.
  • 12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed 2 people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing 2 more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and commit suicide before police arrived.
  • 9/3/2008 – Isaac Zamora went on a shooting rampage in Alger, Washington that killed 6 people, including a motorist shot during a high speed chase with police. He eventually surrendered to police.
  • 3/29/2009 – Robert Stewart went on a killing rampage armed with a rifle, and a shotgun in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina. He killed 8 people and was apprehended after a shootout with police.
  • 4/3/2009 – Jiverly Wong went on a shooting rampage at a American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York where he was enrolled in a citizenship class. 13 people were killed before the shooter killed himself. Witnesses say he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard police sirens approaching.
  • 11/5/2009 – Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter behind the Fort Hood shooting at a military base just outside Killeen, Texas. The shooter entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where personnel are disarmed, armed with a laser sighted pistol and a Smith & Wesson revolver. He killed 13 people before he was shot by a Civilian Police officer.
  • 2/12/2010 – Amy Bishop went on a shooting rampage in classroom at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama. She killed 3 people before the Dean of the University, Debra Moriarity pushed the her out of the room and blockaded the door. She was arrested later.
  • 1/8/2011 – Jared Lee Loughner is charged with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that killed 6 people, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll. He was stopped when he was tackled by two civilians.
  • 2/27/2012 – T.J. Lane entered Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio with a handgun and started shooting. 3 students died. The shooter was chased out of the building by a teacher and apprehended by police later.
  • 4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.
  • 7/20/2012 – James Holmes went into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opens fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. 12 people were killed, before the shooter surrendered to police.
  • 8/5/2012 – Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and opened fire killing 6 people. He commit suicide after being shot by police.
  • 12/14/12 - Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School with two handguns and a riffle and went room to room shooting students and staff. He killed 27 in all including 20 children, and commit suicide after police arrived.

Step Four: Final analysis

With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33.

The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.

Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

So, given that far less people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?

* Updated 12/15/2012 – This article was originally posted shortly after the Dark Knight premier shooting in Aurora, Colorado, but I have continued to refine the data set and update the statistics. I am especially grateful to all the knowledgeable commenters who have helped correct my errors. I was also contacted by a college professor who I supplied with all my research notes, so they can be peer-reviewed and perhaps published in a more academic setting. So, in light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut that has left 27 dead, including 20 children, I updated this article to reflect shootings that have occurred since the Aurora, Colorado shooting, and corrected the errors that readers brought to my attention. I have preserved the integrity of the original analysis and have only updated the raw numbers and a few factual errors.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

11,533 Responses to “Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics”

  1. BruceNo Gravatar says:

    Sure, shoulder to shoulder with terrorists such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Adams. Much better than being a functionary of a would-be totalitarian regime, as you seem content to be.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      And Timothy McVeigh…

      Terrorists want unfettered access to guns, you want unfettered access to guns, you are a terrorist.

      That line of reasoning sound familiar? It should.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        You are mistaken, terrorists can get guns (and a whole lot worse) irrespective of any gun laws. In fact, they’d probably *prefer* that guns be heavily restricted, which is why they prefer venues such as schools in which to carry out their dastardly deeds. (Remember Beslan?) Furthermore, McVeigh didn’t use guns, although you might well wonder whatever happened to John Doe #2, the most unwanted person in America at the time. So your entire terrorism/gun control argument is a red herring, because it distracts from the two issues that terrorists don’t obey laws, and often don’t use guns at all. (McVeigh, 9-11)

        Meanwhile, on the subject of terrorism, you’ve had nothing more to say about the terrorist organization the BATFE, other than:

        Birds fly.
        Helicopters fly.
        So, birds must be helicopters.

        Do you really want to talk about terrorism, or are you just trolling?

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “Do you really want to talk about terrorism”

          No, you are the one that went down the terrorist identification rabbit hole.

          My question was simple, should terrorists have access to guns? The definition of who is a terrorist is not a part of my question. That is your question that I do not wish to debate.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            Mark The Troll writes: “My question was simple, should terrorists have access to guns? The definition of who is a terrorist is not a part of my question.”

            If you are not willing to discuss the meaning of one of the words you use in a question, then your question isn’t sincere, troll. You are not here for honest, logical debate, but you might well be here for some other reason. What is that reason?

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              “If you are not willing to discuss the meaning of one of the words you use in a question, then your question isn’t sincere, troll. ”

              Nope it’s a not so skillful dodge by you to not answer the question. It’s why you picked up on that one instead of one where it is more difficult for you to like illegal aliens. You didn’t answer that one either, or the one about a spousal abuser going through a messy divorce and a restraining order.

              Similar to your democide example you strive to confuse the matter. Now you have gone to the extreme of identifying the BATF (which I think has done wrong) as a terrorist group so you can pretend to actually discuss the issue.

              No Bruce, you want access to guns and terrorists want access to guns. You’re a terrorist. That accusation should ring familiar to you.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                You keep using this word “terrorist.” What do you mean by that word, exactly?

              • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                Actually, you’ve been dodging the same question the whole thread: What to you is a “terrorist”? By what definition is the government branch he gave you as an example not a terrorist? The goals match, the methods match… Do they need balaclavas? Is that what it hinges on? Give something to work with… Socratic method doesn’t fly when someone asks you for an ANSWER instead of a question, and you turn out to be unable to supply one.

                Are the guys who blew a hole in the USS Cole terrorists? According to the government’s definition, they’re not: They attacked a military target for a tactical end, not a policy change… So now you have a baseline for what is, and is not, terrorism.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  “The goals match, the methods match”

                  What goals? What methods?

                  “According to the government’s definition”

                  When did the government define the term?

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Babs, remember Randy Weaver? There was a good example of an undercover operation that was government terrorism. But it happens all the time. Governmental thugs say one is doing something “illegal” and put surveilance on that person. Ultimately this can lead to men with guns coming and taking away that person’s freedom or even life. Free men see that as a form of terrorism sponsored by government. Collectivists see it as “enforcing their rules”. In our revolution England considered the rebels to be terrorists. Today our government consider opponents as “terrorists”. It all depends on who’s ox is being gored. I find it hugely funny that our government supports the rebel’s government in Ukraine but is opposed to the Russian backed new government in the Crimean which at least was supposedly elected freely. Global politics back to cold war norms. We helped build Russia back up into a believable enemy just as we are doing with Red China. Why? Because government requires believable external threats to keep the patriotic appeals going so as to have ready payment of taxes and cannon fodder for the military. Thus the ruling elite consolidate their control.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  I have given an answer.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  “The goals match, the methods match…”

                  All fish swim. Michael Phelps swims. Michael Phelps is a fish.

                  If you can’t understand that I can’t help you.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

                  I have offered a description of someone I would consider a terrorist.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    You are apparently unable to discern the difference between a syllogism and a definition.

                    Swim: propel the body through water by using the limbs, or (in the case of a fish or other aquatic animal) by using fins, tail, or other bodily movement.

                    By this definition, fish do indeed swim. So does Phelps.

                    It’s a good definition. If you gave someone else the definition, he would be able to answer for himself whether swims or doesn’t swim. He would gain understanding.

                    But that’s not what you seek to do here, apparently. Just dodges and evasions.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “You are apparently unable to discern the difference between a syllogism and a definition.”

                    You left out the part about Phelps being a fish which is where your BATF being considered a good definition of a terrorist goes.

                    You can’t tell a syllogism from a fallacy. No surprise I guess.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Trolling again? You didn’t define “fish”, you just said Phelps and fish both swim. And therefore Phelps is a fish. Fallacy.

                      In contrast, I defined “swim” and concluded that both Phelps and fish swim by that definition. Obviously it is fallacious to conclude Phelps is a fish because they both swim. Which, once again, gives credence to the hypothesis that you are simply trolling. (Let me guess: you consider that characterization an ad hominem, even though it is supported with facts in evidence.)

                      I also defined “terrorism”. By the definition I gave of terrorism, the example you gave of someone hijacking a plane and crashing it into a building could be terrorism, depending on his motivations for doing so. It might, on the other hand, be simple mass murder, as opposed to terrorism, if his intention was only to kill someone else on the flight, or even simply to kill himself. On the other hand if it were, say, an Islamic radical who wished to alter US foreign policy, then yes, he would be a terrorist, under my given definition. Which, oh by the way, also includes the BATFE. (Too bad; deal with it. By a manner other than dodges and obvious trolling.)

                      Incidentally, Pyro: You say the BATFE is only missing the balaclavas? Guess what? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_k07pirzBU34/TMLkjaQfQyI/AAAAAAAAGJQ/k2r hTZMjXaU/s400/agent1.jpg You can see “ATF” on his right lapel. You can also see that he has masked out the name on his badge with tape. Looks like they have that one covered, too. Anything else?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Trolling again? You didn’t define “fish”, you just said Phelps and fish both swim. And therefore Phelps is a fish. Fallacy.”

                      Exactly. You are catching on.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Funny that we should now have to define “fish” now to have a conversation.

                      Trolling much?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “[me]Trolling again? You didn’t define “fish”, you just said Phelps and fish both swim. And therefore Phelps is a fish. Fallacy.”

                      “Exactly. You are catching on.”

                      I’ve been on to the fact that you are a troll for some time now, actually.

                      “Funny that we should now have to define “fish” now to have a conversation. Trolling much?”

                      No one has defined fish. There is no need to define fish. Funny, though, that I should need to define “swim” to make a better analogy to my claim that the BATFE is a terrorist organization, because you won’t answer simple, direction questions, posing, instead, obviously fallacious syllogisms that include the red herring of fish (of all things) … and then you turn around and accuse me of trolling.

                      Troll.

                      It’s too bad, though, that the BATFE actions fit, to the letter, Google’s definition of terrorism.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Running undercover operations is the definition of terrorism? Bruce, you re-define stupidity daily. It can’t keep up with you.

                      You still haven’t given any evidence that they have:

                      1. used violence and intimidation
                      2. in the pursuit of political aims

                      Let us know when you can back up your claims with facts. We’ll be waiting.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Som more of that goal post moving or obfuscation to avoid real discussion. I’m counting the terrorist discussion an admission of “bad idea” for handing out guns. Bruce and his alter ego can’t offer up a common terrorist identifier so they lose.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Goal post moving? I’ve kept to the Google definition since the start of this discussion. (Liar.) You are the one obfuscating, refusing to furnish a definition that is satisfactory. Yet you aren’t specific what is wrong with Google’s, except that is gets the wrong answer in the case of the BATFE.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      No one asked you for googles definition or associated fallacies. So yes, talking about google definitions and the BATF is an unxpsolicited goal. The true goal remains mine.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      But yea, I see that you are going out if your way to be annoying. It doesn’t work by the way. It just makes you look pathetic.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Here’s a recap:

                      You stated that I wanted to hand guns to terrorists. I asked what you meant by the term. You refused to answer. So I cited a very commonly-used source, possibly the most commonly-used source in the entire world, today. (You accused me of “cherry picking” by so doing.) You rejected the definition, but refused to provide your own, after I made the case that the BATFE was a terrorist organization, by this definition, and noted that you seek to give them more power than they already have. In response, you gave utterly non-analogous fallacies (“Phelps is a fish”) in response to my use of the definition. You even confuse a definition for a fallacy, accusing my use of definitions as fallacies, but then refuse to explain how they are fallacious.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Again, I gave you a description of someone I would consider a terrorist. Your description I reject.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Once again, the question isn’t the description, it’s the definition. I asked you what you meant by the term “terrorist,” as in “You[Bruce] want to hand guns to terrorists.” From that I have only gotten generic examples and a definition that doesn’t even include McVeigh. And of course that Phelps is a fish.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      You’ve offered a false example. Terrorist is a generic term therefore it is possible to construct generic examples that are not false that encompass that term. You have offered a specific example that is unacceptable. You know it’s unacceptable and that is why you chose it.

                      It’s still my question. You can’t hijack it. Would you give a gun to a foreign national in this country who has plans for attacking the population at large for the purposes of causing political unrest?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      The fact that you cannot answer it reveals quite a lot. You know the answer, and so do the rest of us.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “You’ve offered a false example. Terrorist is a generic term therefore it is possible to construct generic examples that are not false that encompass that term.”

                      For the fifth time, it’s not about the examples at all. It’s about the definition. Your obtuseness is approaching Bab’s now.

                      “You have offered a specific example that is unacceptable. You know it’s unacceptable and that is why you chose it.”

                      No, I have followed the definition and applied it, accurately, to a case which you wish it didn’t apply to, but it does.
                      If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck…

                      “It’s still my question. You can’t hijack it. Would you give a gun to a foreign national in this country who has plans for attacking the population at large for the purposes of causing political unrest?”

                      No, I wouldn’t, not intentionally. (Happy?) Then again, I most certainly wouldn’t want to criminalize the action, and give the power of its enforcement to a group of other people, irrespective of their place of birth, with similarly evil intentions. As you do. In fact, the latter is not only much more evil, but you are too because you can’t admit the greater evil.

                      You appear to be a government supremacist, and choose willful blindness of the crimes of government, giving them passes far in excess of what they deserve, whether it’s running guns to known criminals and then capitalizing on the resulting (and fully expectable) violence to further constrain the rights of the rest of us, or outright killing their own citizens in democides by the many tens if not hundreds of millions, and dismissing the acts as “crimes” and also dismissing any measures that could be indicated to prevent such. Indeed, you seek to advance measures that enable such. Despicable.

                      “I’m here to learn”, you wrote. What exactly are you intending to learn?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “No, I have followed the definition and applied it, accurately, to a case which you wish it didn’t apply to, but it does.”

                      Except that you you haven’t tried making an argument for either of the 2 requirements of your definition. You have not proven this in the least. You just claim it is so. You have yet to prove that the BATFE:

                      1. used violence and intimidation
                      2. did so in the pursuit of political aims

                      Still waiting for that kind of crucial step in applying your definition. You seem incapable of doing so. I wonder why.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      “If the convicted murderer is supposed to stay in jail, I agree that handing him a gun is a bad idea, he could use it to threaten his way out of jail. ”

      But he’s just trying to defend himself. You’re denying him his right to self defense.

      You do realize that by denying a prisoner a gun you have opened the door for denying anyone for any reason. What next? Women can’t have guns? People under 5 feet tall? You are clearly on the side of those who would commit democide. You terrorist you. You and your gun loving buddies.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        First, prison denies many more rights than just self-defense. Obviously.

        As for your slippery slope, no. If I draw the line at people in custody, the line is drawn and you are not free to move it to women, or any other people. People *then* in custody. Full stop.

        You then go on to use the word ‘terrorist.’ What, exactly, do you mean by this word? Please define it for me.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “If I draw the line at people in custody, the line is drawn and you are not free to move it to women, or any other people.”

          If I draw the line at background checks, the line is drawn and you are not free to move it to confiscation, or democide.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            The difference is, I don’t have to move the line. Government have already used, and are *using now* information collected during background checks to commit confiscations, e.g. in CA. If you enable a tyrant, you can’t wash your hands from the subsequent crime if the tyrant then unstoppably commits misdeeds, that were not only foreseen, but specifically warned about.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              You moved the line to any and all confiscation which you concluded led to democide.

              So if someone is arrested for committing a crime with a gun, the gun should not be confiscated?

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                It should not be confiscated permanently unless and until a jury has found that the crime was actually committed, and furthermore, that it was a crime other than mere possession of a banned gun. Which is a far cry from letting the police confiscate anything and everything from anyone they arrest, for any reason, as is presently the case. Especially in the face of illegal, unconstitutional and immoral malum prohibitum gun bans. Because, I suppose you wanted to trick me into allowing police to confiscate when guns were banned, in an end-run around the confiscation question. So, to be clear, if a bank robber uses a gun to rob a bank, yes, I would support taking the gun away from the robber, and furthermore, incarcerating the robber until such time as he no longer presents a threat. On the other hand, I would *not* support CT police kicking down the doors and confiscating guns from civilians who had declined to register guns, and are now in “possession of an unregistered gun,” a crime of a very different sort than bank robbery. I’m not sure, though, that you are able to distinguish the crimes into fundamentally different categories.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  And those in turn lead to democide.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    It might, it might not, but you seem to have forgotten to respond to any point that I made. Are you trolling?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      And those in turn lead to democide.

                      BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      It might, it might not,

                      Hey Bruce, that’s your argument summed up right there. “It might, it might not”. Very convincing.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Bruce, what other things do you oppose/support because of reasons that may or may not come true? This is getting interesting.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Bruce, what other things do you oppose/support because of reasons that may or may not come true? This is getting interesting.”

                      I have to laugh, because I’m willing to bet you’re fully in favor of DUI laws, “because of reasons that may or may not come true”… Am I wrong?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      You are comparing hypothetical future democides to DUI laws. Just in case you weren’t aware. How many DUIs occur every year? How many democides brought on by gun confiscation due to registration? Not very good with numbers are you? Or generally, with thinking.

                      Curious that you haven’t responded to more significant points brought up in other recent posts but you come here trying to snipe me with stupid fucking comments like these.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    I see, not answering mine either. Seem like you are say’ing we should go with easy access to guns because democide might or might not happen. So basically you are saying nothing besides, “we want free access to guns”. Back to that red herring.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Another lie. Your last question was, “should someone being arrested have their gun confiscated” and I answered it.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Nope, I have asked the same question over and over. And you have avoided answering it over and over. The question, in case you are confused is “should a terrorist be allowed to have a gun”? Instead of answering it you answered a different question.

                      You should read “Thinking, Fast and Slow”…that is of you’d like to improve your thinking.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I have asked you for clarification about what you mean by terrorist. Repeatedly. You refuse to answer. Without knowing what you mean by the question, how could you possibly expect me to answer? Furthermore, why do you refuse to clarify what you are asking?

                      Should a terrorist have a gun?
                      Should a wbkjecke have a gun?

                      If you don’t define your terms, the two questions ask exactly the same thing. I have presented what I think is a good definition for the term terrorist, but you have rejected the definition. So I have no idea what you are asking.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “I have asked you for clarification about what you mean by terrorist. Repeatedly. ”

                      I looked back through the blog because I very recently answered that question. Specifically it had the word hijack in it. I could not find it. I’m suspecting some glitch or moderation omitted it. I’ll try again.

                      We have to agree in what a terrorist is first. You mentioned the BATF as a terrorist organization. I can’t go with that. I proposed someone from another country who has sworn to destroy America and attack it by hijacking an airplane and crashing it into a building.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      But I thought you said that you considered McVeigh to be a terrorist. But he was from this country. Do you no longer think so, or perhaps should your definition be a little more general?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Yet another non answer.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Yet another troll.

                      You said you considered McVeigh a terrorist, but your definition only pertains to foreign people. McVeigh was born here.

                      You’re just playing games.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      So you want to run with McVeih and then accuse me of not answering your question.

                      Can you agree with a yes or no to whether the hijacker I gave as an example is a terrorist.

                      Or would you like to continue to play games with words?

  2. pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

    http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/04/05/chicago-murder-rates-drop -illinois-passes-conceal-carry-law/

    Gosh, what more can we do. We tell you what will make the violent crime rates drop, it gets done, crime rates drop. But we’re all crazy, so how much more evidence will you discount before accepting reality?

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Utterly meaningless. “Coincidence? Hard to say. And too early to tell.”

      Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/04/05/chicago-murder-rates-drop -illinois-passes-conceal-carry-law/#Dw5raSpgp34Mk1Ml.99

      In addition, one standard deviation for murders from 1993 to 2013 is 154. The “drop” has virtually no significance.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

      • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

        And the reason you picked those years is what? Dare we pull up a graph and see that you’ve cherry-picked your years for data? Say it ain’t so!
        Wait, so any change in homicides less than 150something is insignificant? Gosh, I guess you’ll stop bitching about school shootings then, because there’s never been a “significant” one, by your own criteria. Thankfully *my* criteria allows them to be considered, at which point we get to observe that they’re “gun-free* zones”
        *not apparently gun free in reality.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          I picked the last 20 years. Going back further makes it even worse for your case. Go run the standard deviation with any figures you like but unless you do so you have no basis to question my figures.

          Even the author of your infotainment piece admits there’s not much to work with for ONE data point In addition, there has been a distinct downward trend for the last 20+ years so something else besides CC is involved.

          Do your own homework.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “Wait, so any change in homicides less than 150something is insignificant?”

          If you had even the slightest inkling of statistics you’d understand that a Standard Deviation of 150 means that any number inside +-150 is within one standard deviation where 68 percent of all values will be. The change is insignificant because it lies squarely inside the noise and that noise is rather large. The lost lives are not insignificant and it’s not 150 LIVES you dolt.

          • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            [me]“Wait, so any change in homicides less than 150something is insignificant?”

            “If you had even the slightest inkling of statistics you’d understand that a Standard Deviation of 150 means that any number inside +-150 is within one standard deviation where 68 percent of all values will be. The change is insignificant because it lies squarely inside the noise and that noise is rather large. The lost lives are not insignificant and it’s not 150 LIVES you dolt.”

            Thanks, my degree DID teach me statistics. I don’t think there’s ANY degree you can get that doesn’t require it, anymore. Having a number within the first standard deviation does NOT make it statistically insignificant. That would be a retarded thing to say: “Your data is similar to MOST data, so it’s not worth noting”. What would be worth noting then? Data that’s out on its own, looking dissimilar to almost everything else? Oh, you DO believe that. That’s why school shootings are your focus, huh?

            From the article:
            ‘The first three months of the year saw 6 fewer murders than the same time frame in 2013–a 9 percent drop–and 55 fewer murders than 2012, according to a statement from Chicago Police.
            There were 90 fewer shootings and 119 fewer shooting victims, drops of 26 and 29 percent respectively, according to police statistics.
            Compared to the first quarter of 2012, there have been 222 fewer shootings and 292 fewer shooting victims. Overall crime is down 25 percent from last year, and police said more than 1,300 illegal guns were recovered in the last three months.’

            So you say one standard deviation for murders is 154… but that’s not measured in lives? Go on: tell me what murders are measured in.
            Tell me further what percentage change gets to be “significant”. not 9%? Ok, it’s less than 10%, I can buy that… Not 25%, 26%, 29%? Justify.

            See, at that point, they’re measuring 3 months data against another 3 months data. Complete data sets. Not partial, or inferring further trends.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              “Your data is similar to MOST data, so it’s not worth noting”

              The data within one standard deviation is expected so saying the number went down when it is within the expected range doesn’t tell you that CC made the number change. It’s meaningless as far as trying to tie it to a change in CC laws. If CC was such a significant factor, why didn’t the homicides go down by half or a third or something more than one standard deviation away. You have no outlier here to point to.

              There has been a fairly consistent DECLINE in homicides over the last 20 years. Saying its CC is ridiculous without further data.

              • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                Further data like… Using the stats YOU showed to point out that the most drastic INCREASE in Chicago homicides happened when they passed the gun control act of 1968? Guess you thought you could just bluff out that claim that if I looked any farther back, it would go worse for me.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

              The entire data-set for murder rates is 50 years. The standard deviation for those 50 years is 166. I told you it would be worse even before I did the calculations.

              The biggest increase was in 1973. In 1968 it went up 61; that was not the biggest increase. The biggest PERCENTAGE increase was in 1966. There were similar DECREASES to the one you cite which stands to reason. Those decreases were NOT due to the new CC law. THAT is why the decrease cited tells us NOTHING about the efficacy of CC.

              I’m not hiding anything from you. The data speaks for itself. Do your own calculations if you don’t believe mine. Why would anyone lie about something so easily checked?

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      Maybe you should read the article so you don’t look so stupid.

      • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

        Maybe YOU should take your own advice, troll.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Is that really your answer? Hahaha.

          The article doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s completely in line with many of your arguments. Many of your arguments are based on what “may” be. What someone might have said. What polls might have been conducted. And here, what might be the cause of the decline in crime. It’s such standard operation procedure for you right wing idiots that you don’t even bother hiding it. It’s in plain English! In the article itself!

          “Coincidence? Hard to say. And too early to tell.”

          Great. Then what is the point of the article again? Oh yea, what may or may not be causing a decline in crime. All the while, dropping hints and drawing parallels with conceal carry. It’s so fucking amateur that it’s unbelievable. It’s spin that is saying it is spin. No shame. And people like you eat it up.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Yes, we all know that a drop of even one death a year is a success story for CC. See, the gun nuts were right. Of course, if it goes up even ONE next year we can declare it an utter failure…trends be damned.

          • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            “Is that really your answer? Hahaha.”

            Why? It’s no more embarrassing than yours, which was complete bullshit. I read it twice just to see what sort of piddling details YOU would be eagerly snapping at, before posting it.

            “The article doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s completely in line with many of your arguments. Many of your arguments are based on what “may” be. What someone might have said. What polls might have been conducted. And here, what might be the cause of the decline in crime. It’s such standard operation procedure for you right wing idiots that you don’t even bother hiding it. It’s in plain English! In the article itself!”

            In other words, you will NEVER EVER agree on causation unless you have a captive population that you can control all correlative data, and kill certain people in certain ways, to be sure there’s no ambiguity. Remind me why you didn’t like the holocaust as an example of why gun control sucks? Oh right: The conclusion.
            By the way: You look stupider every time you call us right-wing. The amount of right-wing bigger government bullshit is about as big as the amount of left-wing bigger government bullshit… You’re just not denying you do it, on the left.

            ““Coincidence? Hard to say. And too early to tell.”

            Great. Then what is the point of the article again? Oh yea, what may or may not be causing a decline in crime. All the while, dropping hints and drawing parallels with conceal carry. It’s so fucking amateur that it’s unbelievable. It’s spin that is saying it is spin. No shame. And people like you eat it up.”

            Something on the input side changes, measure the output change, but that’s “fucking amateur”. So tell me: YOU design this great social experiment, from top to bottom, and YOU tell us how you would require such a social experiment to go, to reach a conclusion? Because the left PIONEERED this exact thing, dropping the brady assault weapon bill into an already-declining violent crime trend, and then tried to take credit for it.
            But I’m sure that’s somehow different, because it would help make YOUR point, so… different.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              “Oh yea, what may or may not be causing a decline in crime.”

              Sounds familiar.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              “Why? It’s no more embarrassing than yours, which was complete bullshit.”

              My answer was quoting your article. I’m glad you think it’s total bullshit. Why did you link it then?

              “I read it twice just to see what sort of piddling details YOU would be eagerly snapping at, before posting it.”

              You read it twice and didn’t catch that it says in plain text that it’s hard to say what is causing the decline in crime and that it’s too early to tell? You read it twice and then keep defending your position? Well then maybe next time you should read it three times. Then you might not look so god damn stupid. Or are you still trying to challenge the fact that the article is trying to sell the point that conceal carry lowered these rates, yet openly admits it’s too hard to tell and too early to conclude anything. Why would you link garbage like that? Why would you start your own post, presenting that as evidence, when it contradicts itself and openly admits it? Why?

              “In other words, you will NEVER EVER agree on causation unless you have a captive population that you can control all correlative data, and kill certain people in certain ways, to be sure there’s no ambiguity.”

              Well, if you know shit about science you know that causation is almost impossible to prove and that degree of correlation is what you’re aiming for. Now, I know you don’t know shit about science because you don’t even understand how to form coherent arguments. You link self-contradicting articles that say absolutely nothing and present it as factual information. Supporting a theory that your article claims it cannot support. Very smart.

              No, unlike you, I’m not trying to pull answers out of thin air. Professionals are and have been working on these questions and they can’t even come to a consensus. It is a complicated question with infinite variables.

              “Remind me why you didn’t like the holocaust as an example of why gun control sucks? Oh right: The conclusion.”

              Wait, do you think the holocaust was caused by gun control? If not, what are you talking about with the “conclusion”? Are you talking about the extermination of Jews? Being caused by gun control? Do you know anything about German history? I already told you why the holocaust example sucks, why should I remind you? Scroll up and read for yourself. If that doesn’t help, google it. How much do you know about gun laws in the Weimar Republic, before Hitler gained power? Not shit? Alright, sit down and let me teach you something. They had extensive, almost absolute, gun control BEFORE Hitler came to power. He actually relaxed the gun laws considerably.

              “As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

              The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.”

              http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

              “By the way: You look stupider every time you call us right-wing. ”

              Really? Should I call you left wing then? Fine with me. How about I just call you stupid instead? You don’t seem to know where you fall on the political spectrum so that’s fine.

              “Something on the input side changes, measure the output change, but that’s “fucking amateur”.”

              Yes, indeed, it is. Do you think the only thing that changed on the input side was conceal carry laws? If so, how do you account for the steady decline in crime since the late 90s?

              “So tell me: YOU design this great social experiment, from top to bottom, and YOU tell us how you would require such a social experiment to go, to reach a conclusion?”

              Easy. We already have the experiment, we’re living in it. Now all we need is more scientists researching and collaborating to get us definitive answers on questions relating to gun control. So less harassment and more encouragement for this field of inquiry. Money helps too.

              “Because the left PIONEERED this exact thing, dropping the brady assault weapon bill into an already-declining violent crime trend, and then tried to take credit for it.
              But I’m sure that’s somehow different, because it would help make YOUR point, so… different.”

              So you are admitting that you’re wrong here? That when the left did this, it was wrong. But when you do it, it’s right? If you would like to provide evidence of the left tried to take credit for the decreasing crime rate after the AWB implementation, you are free to link it. Unless they were citing scientific research when making these claims, I wouldn’t agree with them, just like I don’t agree with you here. All the science I’ve read, which has been quite stunted by the anti-gun powers, has said that it’s inconclusive. Which is why people are coming together under the CDC, directed by Obama, to investigate these affairs and get more concrete results. Something your lot has been delaying, with great success, since the 90s. So do you support increased research in firearms and their role in our society? Or are you happy with the lack of answers we have today?

              • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                “My answer was quoting your article. I’m glad you think it’s total bullshit. Why did you link it then?”

                You’re a fucking liar. Show me where in the article you were “quoting” this:

                “Maybe you should read the article so you don’t look so stupid.”
                Well? That’s your answer. You say it’s quoting the article. Make 1=0, Einstein.

                [me]“I read it twice just to see what sort of piddling details YOU would be eagerly snapping at, before posting it.”

                “You read it twice and didn’t catch that it says in plain text that it’s hard to say what is causing the decline in crime and that it’s too early to tell?

                I read an article with facts, and you decided to quote a person. I posted research, and YOU picked the single piece of it that was an editorial comment. Moron.

                “You read it twice and then keep defending your position? Well then maybe next time you should read it three times. Then you might not look so god damn stupid.”

                Maybe you should read it TEN times, and then go off and learn the difference between presented facts, and quoted opinions. Moron.

                “Or are you still trying to challenge the fact that the article is trying to sell the point that conceal carry lowered these rates, yet openly admits it’s too hard to tell and too early to conclude anything. Why would you link garbage like that? Why would you start your own post, presenting that as evidence, when it contradicts itself and openly admits it? Why?”

                Why would you want SO BADLY to discredit a correlation that you’d quote one man’s opinion to attempt that? The correlation EXISTS. It has existed in SO many places, SO many different groups of people whose right to carry has been added, or rescinded, and the violent crimes follow, in just this manner… Why would you try SO HARD to equivocate data with opinion? Gee… I guess we know why… Because emotional arguments are the only ones you’ve ever won, on.

                [me]“In other words, you will NEVER EVER agree on causation unless you have a captive population that you can control all correlative data, and kill certain people in certain ways, to be sure there’s no ambiguity.”

                “Well, if you know shit about science you know that causation is almost impossible to prove and that degree of correlation is what you’re aiming for. Now, I know you don’t know shit about science because you don’t even understand how to form coherent arguments. You link self-contradicting articles that say absolutely nothing and present it as factual information. Supporting a theory that your article claims it cannot support. Very smart.”

                You’re gonna keep trying to fuck that same chicken, equating the single editorial opinion, versus an article full of facts… Go ahead: I’ll be here to rub your nose in that shit EVERY time you try. Maybe you enjoy eating shit, who can say? Despite your ridiculous assertion, the argument remains more coherent than any theory YOU’VE put forth: Adding lawful gun-owners to a given society reduces the number of crime-victims.
                But what’s most amusing about the above paragraph is that as SOON as I challenge you to present ANY coherent alternative, you bitch about how causation is almost impossible to prove… But you’re not NEARLY that cautious when you talk about what *you* think guns do, in society. I asked you for an experiment to show something worthwhile, and YOUR answer is that we’re LIVING in it? Yeah, so many different geographical, cultural, religious, and even climate groups, and you think you can “control” for enough of that that if YOU were the critic, you wouldn’t be able to tear your own work to shreds instantly… But I’ll get to that, farther down.

                “No, unlike you, I’m not trying to pull answers out of thin air. Professionals are and have been working on these questions and they can’t even come to a consensus. It is a complicated question with infinite variables.”

                You really are, but you’re trying to disguise them as asking hard questions, but socratic method works like the scientific method, NOT religion: You can’t start with a conclusion, and fix the questions to try and get back to your predetermined outcome.

                [me]“Remind me why you didn’t like the holocaust as an example of why gun control sucks? Oh right: The conclusion.”

                Wait, do you think the holocaust was caused by gun control? If not, what are you talking about with the “conclusion”? Are you talking about the extermination of Jews? Being caused by gun control? Do you know anything about German history? I already told you why the holocaust example sucks, why should I remind you? Scroll up and read for yourself. If that doesn’t help, google it. How much do you know about gun laws in the Weimar Republic, before Hitler gained power? Not shit? Alright, sit down and let me teach you something. They had extensive, almost absolute, gun control BEFORE Hitler came to power. He actually relaxed the gun laws considerably.”

                He relaxed the gun control laws for GROUPS of people… They’re easy to identify: They’re the groups who SURVIVED. The laws for jews, gypsies, and the other persecuted minorities? Completely outlawed. I don’t need to scroll up to see you wordfucking yourself on the same subject again. Not sure about that? Check the German gun control act from 1938. Oh, those Weimar republic laws? Yeah, those were meant to prevent communists and Nazis from getting guns… But they didn’t work too well once the Nazis were IN POWER, and they got to alter the laws for their own benefit. But yeah, Weimar republic, Holocaust… May as well blame the articles of confederation for the Whiskey rebellion.

                “As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

                The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.”

                http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

                Oh look, at least you learned how to CITE your sources, no matter how wrong they are.
                I saw that, while trying to see what the fuck you thought you were talking about. Let’s continue that citation:
                “The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general.”

                Yes, it fucking should be. It’s a STANDARD tactic to allow persecuted people to be more persecuted. It’s NOT an aberration.

                “Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning?”

                No, it indicts GUN CONTROL again. How many forced evictions from homes and homelands have happened to armed, versus disarmed, population?

                “Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews?”

                Just the State ones who think “I was only following orders” is anything less than the worst kind of immoral.

                “What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide).”

                …And they use gun control to get away with it!

                [me]“By the way: You look stupider every time you call us right-wing. ”

                “Really? Should I call you left wing then? Fine with me. How about I just call you stupid instead? You don’t seem to know where you fall on the political spectrum so that’s fine.”

                You’ve confused YOU not knowing where an anarchist falls on the political spectrum with US not knowing. That’s ok, Dunning Krueger strikes again. Too dumb to know what you don’t know, so you think the OTHER guy’s the idiot. Moron.

                [me]“Something on the input side changes, measure the output change, but that’s “fucking amateur”.”

                “Yes, indeed, it is. Do you think the only thing that changed on the input side was conceal carry laws? If so, how do you account for the steady decline in crime since the late 90s?”

                I don’t. Do you? I asked google. Here’s what google had for me: “Steady Decline in Major Crime Baffles Experts”
                http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html?_r=0
                “The only thing that is reassuring being in a room full of crime experts now is that they are as puzzled as I am,” he said.

                So I’ll rephrase for your delicate sensibilities: Whatever CAN be controlled for, seems to be controlled for. There are no obvious changes causing it, no (other!) major new legislation, and the primary one I could guess was discussed, and was not convincing (higher crime during recessions)

                [me]“So tell me: YOU design this great social experiment, from top to bottom, and YOU tell us how you would require such a social experiment to go, to reach a conclusion?”

                “Easy. We already have the experiment, we’re living in it. Now all we need is more scientists researching and collaborating to get us definitive answers on questions relating to gun control. So less harassment and more encouragement for this field of inquiry. Money helps too.”

                Yeah, right. See above objection, hell, YOUR earlier objections, about populaces that can’t be compared. Not to mention it seems to be pretty impossible to get gun control legislation repealed and a totally free and open society examined. *I’M* in favor of seeing the results, but the gun control side says they already know the answer is too horrible to try. How they know that is a mystery though, since any time you point to a time where you say there were ower levels of control, they (you) whip out a variety of laws that nobody will ever otherwise reference, to claim that those colonial times were as much or more controlled than today’s police state.

                [me]“Because the left PIONEERED this exact thing, dropping the brady assault weapon bill into an already-declining violent crime trend, and then tried to take credit for it.
                But I’m sure that’s somehow different, because it would help make YOUR point, so… different.”

                “So you are admitting that you’re wrong here?”

                That would literally be an identical admission that YOU’RE wrong. You just wanna choose?

                “…That when the left did this, it was wrong. But when you do it, it’s right? If you would like to provide evidence of the left tried to take credit for the decreasing crime rate after the AWB implementation, you are free to link it.”

                Yeah, next you’ll try to send me off on a week long quest to prove to your satisfaction that water is something known as “wet”, objectively. Face it, the Brady folks pointed to a declining trend in gun violence and tried to claim they caused it. It blew up in their faces when it was pointed out that it had started way before their bill became law.

                “Unless they were citing scientific research when making these claims, I wouldn’t agree with them, just like I don’t agree with you here. All the science I’ve read, which has been quite stunted by the anti-gun powers, has said that it’s inconclusive. Which is why people are coming together under the CDC, directed by Obama, to investigate these affairs and get more concrete results. Something your lot has been delaying, with great success, since the 90s. So do you support increased research in firearms and their role in our society? Or are you happy with the lack of answers we have today?”

                So you think the center for disease control has an objective stance on bullet-itis? Or jurisdiction, somehow? When did they join the DoJ?
                I’m all about increased research, but if you and yours won’t even entertain a discussion including ideas like arming teachers, then it’s not a discussion at all, it’s a lecture. I think we already have definitive research on what happens WHEN armed people with ill-intent enter a forcibly disarmed school.
                Similarly, we have many data points that when only one party, such as government, is legally armed, the rest of the population doesn’t get a say in what comes next… And when, like Mexico, the government and the drug-trade are the only armed parties, everyone else is pretty well GUARANTEED to be fucked.

                Unfortunately for talking with you, you never supply anything, you just require more and more citation from us to bog things down. It’s just what you do. Do YOU have a solution? A plan? A theory? Even an idea? I grew up with an “it won’t work” person in my household, and I learned early on that the only response to him was “Yeah? Watch.” Good thing he wasn’t government or his answer might have been “No, I forbid you from trying” and nothing would ever be learned.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  “You’re a fucking liar. Show me where in the article you were “quoting” this:”

                  Look at what post you responded to. Just look at it. Fucking idiot. You responded to the post where I quoted “Coincidence? Hard to say. And too early to tell.”.

                  “I read an article with facts, and you decided to quote a person. I posted research, and YOU picked the single piece of it that was an editorial comment. Moron.”

                  Oh yea, and the facts say that conceal carry is causing this decline in crime? No, they don’t. That’s why the author of the article clearly states that. Because no dumb fuck would actually be able to claim that and still keep their job. The author of your post, the one you chose, said it was hard to say and too early to tell. Basically saying nothing. You chose the post. But now you’re arguing against what the author is claiming? Are you fucking stupid or something? If you didn’t agree with it, why the fuck did you post it? Seriously, how fucking stupid of you.

                  “Maybe you should read it TEN times, and then go off and learn the difference between presented facts, and quoted opinions. Moron.”

                  What facts? That certain crimes are going down? Sure, everyone agrees with those facts. Kind of hard to argue with them. But that’s not the point that you or the author are trying to make. You and the author are trying to take those facts and make the claim that conceal carry is responsible for them. Fucking idiot. Why do I have to explain this to you?

                  “Why would you want SO BADLY to discredit a correlation that you’d quote one man’s opinion to attempt that?”

                  Actually, you are the one who brought the article forward. You are the one quoting him and his facts. But now you are trying to dismiss it? Are you confused?

                  “The correlation EXISTS. It has existed in SO many places, SO many different groups of people whose right to carry has been added, or rescinded, and the violent crimes follow, in just this manner…”

                  Really? So many places? Then you must have many examples of this, right? Maybe think a little bit before linking another article like the one you linked. So please, let us see all these many different groups, these many different places.

                  “Why would you try SO HARD to equivocate data with opinion?”

                  Your data doesn’t draw any comparison. It doesn’t prove anything. All it does is show a trend, it doesn’t try and prove any forces were responsible for the trend. So it’s pretty fucking useless for your purposes, isn’t it?

                  “Despite your ridiculous assertion, the argument remains more coherent than any theory YOU’VE put forth: Adding lawful gun-owners to a given society reduces the number of crime-victims.”

                  What argument? The article says IT CAN NOT MAKE such an argument. Literally, it says that. I don’t know why you present the argument when your article contradicts it? Aren’t you fucking seeing this yet?

                  “But what’s most amusing about the above paragraph is that as SOON as I challenge you to present ANY coherent alternative, you bitch about how causation is almost impossible to prove”

                  Actually, I answered it in a very straight forward fashion. Maybe you are blind. Or fucking stupid. I will repeat: “No, unlike you, I’m not trying to pull answers out of thin air. Professionals are and have been working on these questions and they can’t even come to a consensus. It is a complicated question with infinite variables.”

                  “You really are, but you’re trying to disguise them as asking hard questions, but socratic method works like the scientific method, NOT religion: You can’t start with a conclusion, and fix the questions to try and get back to your predetermined outcome.”

                  No idea what you’re fucking saying here. Pretty sure you don’t either. Recap: Your article presents trends and tries to imply that conceal carry is responsible, yet no evidence is presented for this connection.

                  “Oh, those Weimar republic laws? Yeah, those were meant to prevent communists and Nazis from getting guns”

                  No, they were in response to the 1919 Treaty of Versailles calling for disarmament after WW1. You fucking twat.

                  “Oh look, at least you learned how to CITE your sources, no matter how wrong they are.”

                  When you claim something is wrong, usually you need to substantiate those claims. Did you know this?

                  “No, it indicts GUN CONTROL again. How many forced evictions from homes and homelands have happened to armed, versus disarmed, population?”

                  Right. It indicts gun control. Nothing to do with the massive German power. If Jews had guns, none of this would have happened. That’s your claim.

                  “…And they use gun control to get away with it!”

                  They don’t need gun control to get away with it.

                  “You’ve confused YOU not knowing where an anarchist falls on the political spectrum with US not knowing. ”

                  So you are left wing? I called you right wing, you said I was wrong. So what is it? There is only left and right. Stop fucking dodging, you twat.

                  “I don’t. Do you? I asked google. Here’s what google had for me: “Steady Decline in Major Crime Baffles Experts””

                  You don’t? Then why the fuck do you attribute the drop in crime in Chicago to one factor: conceal carry? You are again arguing against yourself. Are you so fucking stupid that with one sentence I can get you to argue against yourself? I’m glad you asked google. And google gave you the exact fucking same answer I gave you above. Experts have not come to a consensus and this is a complicated question. Thank you for validating my points.

                  “So I’ll rephrase for your delicate sensibilities”

                  Thanks. How about you answer to why violent crime has been falling since the late 90s? You can only explain the drop in crime as of 2014 once conceal carry was made legal? And you can’t say shit for why it’s been declining since the late 90s at a rather constant rate? Damn, that’s embarrassing.

                  “Yeah, right. See above objection, hell, YOUR earlier objections, about populaces that can’t be compared.”

                  My argument was that you can’t compare different countries, you fucking idiot who can’t remember shit. You don’t even have to remember it, it’s all written in stone. All you have to do is read.

                  “That would literally be an identical admission that YOU’RE wrong. You just wanna choose?”

                  No, it wouldn’t. I never claimed that the AWB was responsible for the decline in violent crime in Chicago. But you DID claim that conceal carry was responsible for it. So no, that wouldn’t be an identical admission. It would be an admission that you a total fucking idiot.

                  “Face it, the Brady folks pointed to a declining trend in gun violence and tried to claim they caused it.”

                  I asked you to prove this in my previous post. You still have not.

                  “So you think the center for disease control has an objective stance on bullet-itis? Or jurisdiction, somehow? When did they join the DoJ?”

                  When did they join the DoJ? Hahahaha. My GOD, your stupidity really is infinite. You think only the DoJ can research public health/safety issues? Jurisdiction? Is the CDC arresting anyone? Do you know what jurisdiction means? It means the authority to deal justice aka law. The CDC doesn’t do that. Fucking MORON!

                  “I’m all about increased research, but if you and yours won’t even entertain a discussion including ideas like arming teachers, then it’s not a discussion at all, it’s a lecture.”

                  You are about increased research? Oh really? And what research has shown that arming teachers is beneficial? And it’s actually not anti-gunners who won’t entertain that discussion. It’s the market that says no. Insurance companies say it’s too risky, they have refused to insure schools if they try and adopt these policies.

                  “Unfortunately for talking with you, you never supply anything,”

                  What would you like me to supply? Name it. You haven’t asked for anything.

                  “Do YOU have a solution? A plan? A theory? Even an idea?”

                  I’ve already answered this. More research so that eventually a consensus can be built. Not sure why you have trouble reading or comprehending this answer. But I think that you are such a fucking cave-man that you think that people need to actually test theories in real world scenarios in order to get answers. You think we need to eliminate gun control in order to see what it would be like. That’s like saying, hey, let’s eliminate all laws in “xyz” field in order to see how it will work out. And that’s fucking stupid and childish. You obviously have not the slightest understanding of how such research is conducted. It’s okay, I’ll hold your hand.

  3. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    I’m thinking this is why we don’t give kids guns. There are just sime people who shouldn’t have them…but yea, you know, “what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand”…and all that rot. Kids like this shouldn’t have them, some “adults” shouldn’t have them either.

    http://aattp.org/2-year-old-fatally-shoots-11-year-old-in-philade lphia-video/

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Philadelphia isn’t exactly a bastion of the gun culture, “gunland,” notwithstanding the representations of the linked article.

      In any case, what is your intention of posting this? The gun was already legal and even registered, the woman lost her daughter, and is likely to face criminal charges besides. What more do you want? Do you think you can legislate away the small number of accidents that inevitably happen every year, somehow? (In much smaller numbers than drownings, to say nothing of car accidents.)

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        I think if you read what I wrote rather than casting your own warped sense of communication upon it you will gather its meaning. Then again, you don’t know what a fallacy, terrorist, crime, child, and so on, are so understanding it may be impossible for you.

  4. TerrenceNo Gravatar says:

    Tort law can be highly complex, which is why Denver car
    accident lawyers spend sveral yearss studying such laws as well as casse findings and ideally,
    the workings and machinations of the insurance
    industry. This iis the reason why remaining cool and calm immediately after
    an auto accident is extremely important. Finding yourself in the motor crtash could be a terrible happening.

    my website: car accident lawyer; Terrence,

  5. TriciaNo Gravatar says:

    My Partner And I just recently set up a steam shower unit,
    the best item we’ve bought for some time, kids and family members love it, just
    can’t see everybody heading back to traditional showers
    ever again

  6. Its like you learn my thoughts! You appear to understand a lot approximately this, like you wrote the e book in it or something. I believe that you can do with a few percent to force the message house a little bit, however other than that, this is magnificent blog. An excellent read. I will definitely be back.

  7. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I truly appreciate your efforts and I will
    bee waiting for your next write ups thank you once again.

    My weeb blog auto accident

  8. Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

    Wow!!! Talking about ignorance. One would think that someone who supports the 2nd amendment would have posted something about what was happening outside of Las Vegas this past week.
    It is depressing: You have the evil party who wants to give more and more power to the federal government. Then you have the ignorant stupid party whose idea of news is some whack job shooting someone else. If it bleeds it leads is the motto of news agencies whose target is stupid people)

    I saw no mention of ranch, bundy las vegas cattle: For all you ignorant 2nd amendment right wingers out there: THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-fed eral-government/story?id=23302610

    So yea. An armed populace can stand up to the feds.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      I don’t think it’s the right wingers who dispute your reason for the Second Amendment. I think it’s the left wingers who wonder “what good can a gun do against an army?”

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        ” think it’s the left wingers who wonder “what good can a gun do against an army?”

        those lefty hoplophobes have’nt read much history,obviously.The Hungarian uprising against Soviet Occupation in ’56 began with sidearms seized from police,along with a battallion’s worth of rifles provided by a sympathetic Hungarian Army SGM.And the Mujahadeen in Afhganistan began the war against the Soviet army in ’79,armed primarily with 19th century Lee-Enfields,and in many cases,muskets.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Your rancher hero is a thief.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        Your government heros are also thieves. They don’t call it theft, though. They call it seizure, taxation, asset forfeiture, confiscation and probably a hundred other things. Just not ‘theft’. But if you or I did any of those things, we’d be arrested. Because civilized people have agreed to not do those sorts of things.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Bundy is grazing cattle on land that doesn’t belong to him. He’s a thief. What do gun lovers think should happen to theives? Hypocrite much?

        The fallacy you are using above is called Tu Quoque.

        http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/13 -ad-hominem-tu-quoque

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          You call Bundy a thief, and without agreeing or disagreeing, I call the federal government a thief. My statement has no more nor no less logical validity than yours does, and this is true irrespective of the order in which the statements are made. In particular, my statement is not rendered into a fallacy, while yours endures, merely because you made your statement first. Either your statement is true or false on its own, and either my statement is true or false on its own; In particular, I am not claiming “Bundy is *not* a thief because the federal government also steals.” That would be a Tu Quoque. (But, because I didn’t make it, you are making a straw man.) Instead, we are merely at a standoff.

          You have a habit of falsely charging me with fallacies that I do not employ. So it would appear to me that you are once against using the “Throw some half-cooked fallacy accusations against the wall and see what sticks” fallacy. In addition to the straw man, I might add.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            You have use the exact definition of Tu Quoque. The “you too” fallacy. I called Bundy a thief you said the government is too. It doesn’t get more cut and dried than that.

            Bundy is a thief. Period. I don’t have to agree with anything else for that to be a FACT.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              From your own link: “[Tu Quoque is:] Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.” I am not claiming your argument is flawed. (Claiming so is a straw man.) Your own link which you supplied as evidence to contradict me, instead supports me and contradicts you.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                If course you are.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                “I am not claiming your argument is flawed.”

                Then why say “the government does it too”. You might as well have said nothing. There are an infinite number of things you didn’t claim. But in response to my accusation that Bundy is a thief you asserted that the government is a thief too. (Tu Quoque, Latin for “you too” fallacy)

                “Your government heros are ALSO thieves.” Emphasis mine…

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  You apparently can’t read what he’s actually saying, which is “You’re a hypocrite for claiming an action is wrong when done by one party, while you purposefully ignore it when done by another.”

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Theft is wrong.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Bundy is grazing cattle on land he doesn’t own. The only reason you’re talking about it is because home grown terrorists are defending his theft to stick it to the government (with guns). If this asshole were living on land you owned the story would be completely different. Don’t EVEN talk about being a hypocrite you hypocrite.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Basically it looks like if you have a gun you can force your will upon others. Whoever draws first wins. They’ve changed the game but not the outcome.

        Your freedom fighters and their guns are defending a thief. What was that again about the government taking things by force?

  9. BruceNo Gravatar says:

    I don’t have to agree with Bundy being a thief, for the federal government to be a thief. They are thieves irrespective of anything Bundy did or didn’t do. That too is a fact.

    Incidentally, I don’t think order of presentation matters from a logical perspective, but if you think it does then you are the one guilty of Tu Quoque because I have called the government thieves on these pages long ago, while you’re just raising the Bundy matter now.

    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

      Because one acts contrary to the rulings of federal courts does not make them a thief, though it does make them “outlaws”. I am not intimately familiar with the situation or the law in this case, but have enough experience, both first and second hand, to realize that the government does not always follow its own laws or rules, and that the government courts often go out of their way using humpty dunpty language and Orwellian doublespeak to find in favor of the government.

      Weather or not Bundy is a thief is a red herring relevant to 2nd amendment arguments. It would appear that a very large number of people familiar with the situation, with ranching, with western ecologies and wildlife were willing to put their bodies on the line to back up his position vis-a-vis the government.

      I have noticed that when on the losing side, almost everyone here will use either a non-sequiture, red-herring or ad-hominid argument. I was simply making a self evident observation that 2nd amendment defenders did not make which does not reflect well on them. The 2nd amendment works!! Armed people can, under many circumstances, fight back against the government and win. This is especially true when the government does not control the means of communication.

      There is a rumour that the feds were trying to shut down local cell towers. That would be stupid. And I expect that this simply means that the ranchers will soon have access to a few dateline phones if they do not already.

      Especially now, in our conflict with Russia, the last thing that the US would want to do would be to hand them a propaganda coup by shooting some of its own citizens.

      Again. Bottom line. Thief or not. An armed citizenry is, over time, a better system than a disarmed citizenry.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        “Weather or not Bundy is a thief is a red herring relevant to 2nd amendment arguments.”

        Meaning if guns are involved whatever crime is being committed can be ignored because … guns…

      • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

        The reporters with level heads pointed out quite aptly that if one is TWEETING “they’re shutting down the cell towers”, clearly they’re not, or you have a remarkable piece of technology in your hands. ;)

        And Mark again misses the point that “when guns are involved whatever crime is being committed” is NOT being committed, because they don’t want to start a fucking shooting war.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “And Mark again misses the point that “when guns are involved whatever crime is being committed” is NOT being committed, because they don’t want to start a fucking shooting war.”

          Makes no sense.

          Theft is not ok.

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.