I'm not really happy with Rachel at this moment

[krispos42]

She's usually pretty in-depth with her stories, digging up facts and correlations that others don't and presenting it in a thoughtful and compelling manner.

But tonight she's presenting a lot of stuff without any attempt at all to understand or present the "cons" of the argument.

The laser-etched bullets, for example, she presented. She failed to even mention that a) it would drive ammunition costs through the roof and b) it would require ammunition registration with the state government. In addition, there is no way for the purchaser to verify the serial number of the bullets in the box match the label on the box. And, of course, the issue of hand-loading ammunition was not mentioned.

She's stated repeatedly that 11+ magazines were illegal during from 1994-2004 and very strongly implies they were unavailable for sale. She did not mention that a) several states (e.g., California, New York) currently have state magazine-capacity limits that mirror the now-expired Federal ban and b) existing 11+ magazines were grandfathered in and perfectly legal. If I was to watch only her segment on this, I would come to the conclusion that after September 13th, 1994, it was illegal for anybody anywhere to sell an 11+ magazine of any age to anyone who wasn't a cop.

Mayor Booker of Newark is spouting the "gun-show loophole" again and throwing in terrorists shopping there as a bonus. I'll give him credit for the "fire sale" information, though... if he's right, it should be addressed.

Neither Rachel or Booker mentioned that the US homicide rate is the lowest it's been in about 40 years, either, DESPITE the improvements in firearms technology. Our ammunition is better, expanding bullets are now virtually standard for handguns and rifles, and our guns on average hold many more rounds than 1970, where 6-round revolvers and 7-round autoloading pistols were the norm. Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines are far more common as well.

[hlthe2b]

1. Then why don't you assemble a briefing on your issues...

with whatever referencing you can provide and email her? I strongly suspect her crack staff would review it closely and she has a reputation for correcting errors.

[krispos42]

2. I'm sure her crack staff has been watching DU's Gungeon

And I just might email her a link to this post.


Regardless, a quick check of the relevant articles on Wikipedia would bring up all of the issues that I did, at least making the staff aware of the issues and, presumably, prompting more research.

This stuff isn't hard to find. It's much easier to find than, say, he excellent reporting on the C-Street scandal and the secret influence of The Family.

[hlthe2b]

5. The only " gun person" at MSNBC is undoubtedly Ed Schultz

so, she is dependent on outside advisers and given she is based in NYC, those advisers may well be reflecting the attitudes and perhaps biases of the big city mayors. Just sayin...

[X_Digger]

16. And Ed is a FUD

He demonstrated that tonight- he's a 'duck and deer' gun guy. (I think I explained that term in this or another thread in reply to you..)

[hlthe2b]

17. Probably so... he is a hunter.

[X_Digger]

19. And only 1 in 5 gun owners hunt.

I mean, it's better than someone who knows nothing about guns *cough* Lawrence O'Donnell *cough*, but still.

sheesh

[krispos42]

20. He's said that repeatedly on his radio show... he doesn't own any handguns n/t

[RSillsbee]

30. Rachel purports to be a gun person as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GqxBs3ttYo

[sharesunited]

3. I just caught you praising increased killing capacity as progress.

And I think I just caught you dumping a 19-victim mowdown in with a U.S. bulk homicide statistic.

You ought to be ashamed, but there's no way to shame you.

[hlthe2b]

6. I'm going to watch from the sidelines...

This is not my area, at all. ;) As you were.....

[krispos42]

7. So you'd rather have a higher homicide rate but no mass killings?

I'm a bit confused here. Or are you just upset that increased potential did not lead to increased actualization, thus denying you a political tool?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

31. Oh, snap! Nice one!

[shadowrider]

37. I'm confused too

According to this post, using a knife to kill 3 is "reduced lethality" compared to 10 dying with a gun and is therefore somehow better

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=355994&mesg_id=356002

[Atypical Liberal]

85. It certainly is.

I would say that if I buy a firearm for defensive purposes, the more ammunition it holds the better a job it will do. The fact that modern firearms generally are able to hold more rounds of ammunition than they did years ago makes them even better suited for self-defense.

Yes, it is a double-edged sword. It also makes them better suited for offensive purposes. As the father of 9-year-old Christina said, that is the price we pay for the freedom of having such weaponry available to all.

[SoCalNative]

4. Hmmm

"The laser-etched bullets, for example, she presented. She failed to even mention that a) it would drive ammunition costs through the roof and b) it would require ammunition registration with the state government."

Both sound like excellent ideas to me.

[hlthe2b]

8. Me too...

At least from my uninformed stance.

[Pancho Sanza]

9. Precisely the kinds of information that a fascist or dictator would give their left nuts for.

Yeah, baby.

[krispos42]

Exactly my point

You and Rachel have a vision and you'll latch on to anything to realize that helps you achieve that goal. Price of ammunition quintuples and the marked bullets catch a dozen murderers a year? Well, that's worth it because it makes guns less popular.


And when can I expect you to line up to register your CD-Rs and DVD-Rs? How about your printer?

[Pancho Sanza]

15. Exactly. Another example of "Do as I say, not as I do"

Breast-beating and pearl-clutching have come back with a vengeance.

[Atypical Liberal]

86. It sill just drive more people to reload.

I just took up reloading because of the cost of factory ammo.

.45 ACP is currently running at about $.46 a cartridge. If I reload, it costs me about $.08 a cartridge. I am casting my own bullets from recycled wheel weight lead, and of course I use old brass. All I have to buy is powder and primers.

[CreekDog]

10. The homicide rate may be lower than in years, but the states with guns

and loosest laws concerning them, have the highest rates of gun deaths in the nation.

the top 10 states in rate of gun ownership have about twice the amount of gun deaths per 100,000 than the bottom 10 states in rate of gun ownership.

the top 10 states with the least restrictive gun laws have about twice the amount of gun deaths per 100,000 than the 10 states with the most restrictive gun laws.

Rachel is doing a good job at explaining the overall problem and not buying into straw men arguments that gun laws must be perfect to be helpful or that generalizations can't be made because one state or the other is slightly different.

The practically Orwellian style of arguments used to defend outrageous levels of armament among Americans is almost as astounding as the levels of armament among Americans.

It's time for this to change.

[Hugabear]

12. +10000

Get ready for the gun crowd...

[Pancho Sanza]

13. Someone has been lying to you

and you are repeating them. Not good.

[CreekDog]

24. nope, i calculated them myself

the rate of gun ownership (% of households that have arms)
the rate of gun deaths per 100k
the only question i have is about what defines most/least permissive, but that doesn't affect the other stats anyway.

i'll post the details tomorrow.

my numbers are in line with Harvard's study so i'm not off base.

[krispos42]

26. An interesting study would be homicide rate per 100,000 guns.

State by state.

If you have the numbers you might get an interesting graph or something.

[CreekDog]

96. are you willing to support state-gathered statistics and registration of all firearms?

purchased and already owned?

because that would allow us to do such a count.

but if not, don't suggest that it be done while the NRA is opposing any measures that would allow us an accurate count and accounting of all guns within the USA.

[krispos42]

116. 3rd-party polling would do a better job than counting registered guns

after national registration was implemented. I doubt more than 30% of guns in the country would be registered. Canada is far from 100% and they've been pursuing it for many years now.

I was a Census enumerator this year; people are very candid when their answers are anonymous or confidential.

[CreekDog]

119. you are not answering directly whether or not you support mandatory registration/reporting

which is it? yes or no?

mandatory counting is one thing...but allowing it be anonymous seems to contradict mandatory registration.

why are gun rights people so unwilling to be plain and clear about what they will support and oppose? why must you speak like lawyers? are you not ashamed of your position?

[krispos42]

129. I thought your question was in regard to gathering accurate data for analysis

My answer (3rd party polling) was in light of that assumption.


To answer your direct question... no, I do not support mandatory registration of firearms.


At best, it would be spotty, expensive, and solve few if any crimes that would otherwise have gone unsolved.

Did you know that felons can't be prosecuted if they're caught with an unregistered gun in a place where they are suppose to be registered?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States


So the only people that are required to register guns that they own (in places were registration is required) are people that have not had their right removed... in other words, only the people least likely to use the guns in an illegal manner in the first place.

[CreekDog]

133. your opposition to mandatory registration suggests that you buy into conspiracy theories about guns

that it's an expensive program? you've supported plenty of programs that cost more here.

i think you just feel like your rights are being violated having to register your firearms.

heck, you all but stated an unfairness that if you register your guns and a felon ignores the requirement, that you're the only one being enforced upon.

but then you don't want registration anyway, so it's a figleaf.

[beevul]

134. Dunno if you realize it, but...

Dunno if you realize it, but registering guns at the federal level is against federal law.


See: the firearm owners protection act.

[krispos42]

135. It's expensive and doesn't do anything except put people in a government database.

I wasn't real thrilled when the Bushies did it, and I'm not real happy when Dems do it.

I would feel equally thrilled if I had to register my computer, cell phone, or printer.

[krispos42]

18. I would expect states with more guns to have more gun deaths.

I wouldn't expect too many snowmobile deaths in Florida.

If you have any information more current than this NIH report from 1987-1998, I'd be interested in hearing it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/table/t3/


What is interesting is that the "high gun" states also had significantly higher non-gun homicide rates. Of course, the six states that represent "high gun" states are also states that have lousy social services, lousy schools, lower overall education rates, and lower average wages compared to the four "low gun" states.

[CreekDog]

28. i thought the argument was that guns made us safer?

but you're saying more guns, more deaths?

so you're suggesting the number of stabbings in California or Hawaii makes up for the lesser rate of gun deaths?

[cleanhippie]

32. Please, show where anyone had made that argument.

Seriously, please point out where that argument has been made here.

[CreekDog]

97. in the post i was responding to, AND as luck would have it, re-iterated in the next post by them!

:rofl:

ask and ye shall receive!

[cleanhippie]

102. not seeing it. i am only seeing where you make tbat assertion.

[krispos42]

34. No, I'm suggesting that, things being equal, there is a per-capita argument to be made

If State X has 90 guns per 100 people and State Y has 70 guns per people, then maybe in State X the number of people per capita that dies from gunshot wounds would be higher.

Of course, this would include suicides and accidents and self-defense shootings and such as well as straight-out murder.

I'm not saying necessarily that the overall murder rate would be vastly different, only that the firearm-death rate should be different.



Allow me, though, to counter my own argument a little.


If we assume that most murders are done by career violent criminals (gang-affiliated or otherwise), and we assume that career violent criminals will be armed pretty uniformly across the nation, regardless of laws and the ownership tendicies of the regional population, then we can extrapolate than State Y's murder rate would not be much lower than State X, even though State Y's gun-ownership rate is 22% lower than State X.


Something to ponder, at least.

[CreekDog]

68. i'm not pondering an incorrect assertion by you

"assume that most murders are done by career violent criminals (gang-affiliated or otherwise)"

so instead of research, you made a bold statement in response to research on the basis of your own personal assumption?

wow. i'm not surprised your conclusions are problematic.

[krispos42]

104. Okay, I'lldo some work

According to the FBI's
Supplementary Homicide
Reports, each year
between 1993 and 2003,
from 5% to 7% of all
homicides and from 8%
to 10% of homicides
committed with a firearm
were gang related.


Percent gang related

All homicides/ Firearm homicides

2003 6.5 9.3
2002 6.9 9.9
2001 6.7 9.0
2000 5.4 7.8
1999 5.4 7.6
1998 4.9 7.1
1997 5.5 7.7
1996 5.6 7.6
1995 6.2 8.7
1994 5.7 7.7
1993 5.6% 7.5%

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vgm03.pdf



Shit, boss is back. Gotta go!

[X_Digger]

21. Correlation.. isn't the same as causation..

What else do these states have in common? Crappy educational systems, poor social safety nets, less state medicare / chip programs....

[CreekDog]

75. no causal link between gun deaths and guns?

uh huh.

[X_Digger]

81. So that's a no?

You don't have anything other than correlation?

Simplistic thinking tends to result in simplistic solutions to complex problems.

[CreekDog]

98. can you name a causal link in any sociological measurement?

i'll answer that if you can name just one.

[X_Digger]

105. Only in those that actually have multi-variate analysis, and are repeated in prospective studies..

A two variable link is utter tripe.

A good case-control study looks at more than two variables, and correlates (*gasp* that word again!) case to control closely. If there are significant differences in factors that might actually matter (in this case, such as economic situation, neighborhood crime level, previous drug use, education level, previous criminal conviction, etc) you either weight them accordingly, or find another control that matches your case.

Even then, case-control studies are only a first step. They're always retrospective in nature, and often can't be used to predict future trends. Prospective studies have to confirm the suspected link. To date, there has never been a prospective study linking the two. Obviously we can't do random trials, giving a gun to 50% of participants and seeing who gets dead, but a simple 'A and B seem to track together, so A causes B' statement is silly on its face.

"The percentage of criminals who smoke is higher than the general public! Smoking causes crime!"

[CreekDog]

120. you asked me for a causal link and yes, i'm willing to talk about that under one condition

that you provide me an example of a causal link using a sociological measurement that you accept.

if you cannot do so, then there's no point providing one to you, because you will not accept it anyway.

now answer it if you want me to answer your request, otherwise, don't send me down rabbit holes with dead ends.

[X_Digger]

121. Suicide research is replete with good examples of well defined correlation

Predictors of Suicide in the Old Elderly- M. Waern, E. Rubenowitz, K. Wilhelmson, International Journal of Experimental, Clinical, Behavioural, Regenerative, and Technological Gerontology, Vol. 49, No. 5, 2003

Living alone is a much larger risk factor for suicide in the older elderly than most other factors. They controlled for other factors, and re-selected a control to match a case when divergence from 8 different variables was statistically significant. The methodology includes correlating income level, race, age, sex, zip code, mental health, physical health, and 'life events' (changing homes, death of a family member, etc.)

Again, the same caveat applies to this retrospective study, namely that it indicates a strong correlation. I'm not aware if these authors performed a subsequent prospective study, checking to see over the next five years whether or not the predictions were in line with their findings.

No sociological study proves causality- that is not the goal of such research. Kind of a 'gotcha' question, isn't it?

eta: formatting

[CreekDog]

123. yes, your question to me was a "gotcha" question, thank you

you were asking me for a causal link when you say proving one is not possible. (your standard of proof, mind you)

so, no, i won't be playing this game with you after all. :hi:

[X_Digger]

126. No, you asking for proving causation..

I provided you a strong correlative study.. and I explained how one arrives at that result.

'A and B, therefore A causes B'? Ain't it.

[GreenStormCloud]

82. El Paso, TX (More guns than people) is safer than NYC, DC, or Chicago.

In 2010 El Paso had only TWO murders. City has a population of about 750,000. How does that fit in with your logic?

[CreekDog]

92. what was my original post?

i said 10 states with the most gun ownership and loosest gun laws have higher gun death rates than the 10 states with the least gun ownership and tightest gun laws. PERIOD.

-------------

so someone here says, "well what about New York City's rate". fine i gave it to him, he wanted to take me down some yellow brick road where, "oh, well if overall a statistic says one thing, then in a specific place it must be the same thing." BS

but i wanted to interrupt that by saying, "hey buddy, that hypothesis of yours --it's wrong" and "oh, and your statement about Phoenix --also wrong". not for me to make a grand conclusion but to say, "hey this guy that says my numbers are bogus, his evidence (which if true -which it was not) is bogus".

of course, what do you do? you say, well what about El Paso?

you know, we covered this already. try to keep up.

--BTW and if NYC's murder rate was higher than Mississippi's? so what? (it's not..) it doesn't change the death rates in the states nor does it change the gun ownership levels, nor does it change the looseness of the gun laws. you still have to deal with those numbers.

[beevul]

22. I'd love to see the data upon which you make these claims. N/T

[krispos42]

27. Might be this

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/table/t3/

[YllwFvr]

29. so by your thinking

NYC, Detroit, and Chicago all have little to no gun crime

[CreekDog]

76. i never argued little or no gun crime

i was very clear in what i argued, it's right here in this thread.

if you have to twist it into something i didn't say to win the argument, that says more about your confidence in your own argument than the quality of mine.

:hi:

[YllwFvr]

95. so you see it as

more guns=more crime?
Im seeing the opposite trend

[hack89]

35. How does Chicago, New York city and Washington DC fit into that "logic" ? nt

[CreekDog]

39. NY State murder rate: 4.0 per 100k MS murder: rate 6.4

gun ownership Mississippi: 54.3%
gun ownership New York (State): 18.1%

In 2008, New York City murder rate was 6.3 and Mississippi's was 8.0!
In 2009, New York City murder rate was 5.5 and Mississippi's was 6.4.

comparing more apples to apples: New York City 6.3 versus Jackson, MS 36.1.
New York City 5.5 versus Jackson, MS 21.4.

but no matter what i post it won't be enough to convince you that the overall likelihood of gun deaths is *on average* higher in high gun owning states and states with loose restrictions on guns.

[hack89]

44. Those cities have high murder rates with very strict gun control laws.

how is that possible? Isn't the idea of gun control to make cities safer?

[CreekDog]

45. which cities have high murder rates?

new york city's is lower than many states.

[hack89]

49. It is higher than Phoenix Arizona

how is that possible given Arizona's lax gun laws?

I notice you wisely chose to ignore the murder rates of Chicago and Washington DC.

[CreekDog]

51. you asked me about New York City

i'm not going to do research on every city for you.

you're just playing a game with me.

you keep moving the goal posts.

i'm not your monkey.

[hack89]

56. Lets step back and look at the big picture.

here is a link that shows the murder rates for numerous large US cities. I challenge you to show me how this supports the notion that lax gun laws equates to high murder rates. Notice, for example, all those Southern cities with murder rates lower that NYC?

Seattle, in a very gun friendly state, has an extremely low murder rate of 4.3. How is that possible?

Washington DC has a murder rate of 35 - how is that possible?

California has very strict gun laws - they don't seem to be working in Los Angles and San Francisco, do they?


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html

[CreekDog]

57. don't change the subject, follow up on the question you asked

:wtf:

[hack89]

60. I am right on subject

gun laws have no impact on violent crime. I just expanded my set of examples to prevent you from nit picking your way out of answering a question you clearly have no answer for.

[CreekDog]

61. You said something about Phoenix that I proved wrong --you are silent on that

well?

[hack89]

65. I was wrong about Phoenix - right about all the others.

stop nit picking.

[CreekDog]

99. San Francisco's murder rate puts it among the safer large cities in the US

San Jose's murder rate, at 3.5/100k, makes it safer than Seattle.

we could play this game all day, but we're only playing it because you refuse to accept the statewide data.

and i'm not arguing what's possible --you're doing that.

i'm arguing that the correlation exists --you keep denying it.

is it a perfect correlation? no. is it pretty strong? yes.

now keep spinning.

[hack89]

101. So San Francisco is as safe as Dallas?

I guess Texas and California have equally effective gun laws. Most murders occur in cities - simple fact you refuse to accept.

[CreekDog]

110. you're the only one saying gun laws are the only variable

i was never so silly as to say that...in fact my premise was that gun laws and gun ownership were important, but not the only (and not just one or the other) variables.

are there other variables? sure.

(the reason i compared states is because the data i have about gun ownership is by state and gun laws are generally by state. not to trick you. )

[CreekDog]

54. let me get this straight, you don't believe "on average" the rates are thus

because there may be exceptions when comparing city to city?

everyone watching sees the logical fallacy you are adhering to.

[hack89]

59. They prove the problem of gun laws and criminals

namely, that laws don't stop criminals from carrying out criminal acts. Gun laws don't stop criminals - that's the exception.

[CreekDog]

63. so you don't believe numbers because you have a philosophy

that stops you from believing a statistical average.

by the way, you said Phoenix's murder rate is lower than New York City's.

you won't respond to several corrections of that.

[hack89]

64. I was wrong about Phoenix - right about all the other cities. nt

[CreekDog]

67. way wrong by the way, but there you go, finally!

:rofl:

[hack89]

70. So Washington DC doesn't have a high murder rate? Really? nt

[CreekDog]

72. stop lying about me...win an argument on its merits

not by pretending i said something i didn't.

my argument was never based on DC's murder rate, it was based on 50 states, their gun ownership levels, their gun restrictiveness (or lack thereof) and looking at them altogether.

you cherry pick individual cities, which has mostly been unsuccessful saying that one city's data disproves my entire nationwide look.

which makes no sense --that one city can disprove 50 states worth of data, yet 50 states worth of data is somehow less important than one city.

it's clear that you believe the only way to make your arguments is to be intellectually dishonest --you don't have winning arguments otherwise.

whatever. :eyes:

[hack89]

80. Cities are where the murders are concentrated

because that is where the people, poverty, criminals and guns are concentrated. If 60, 70, 80 percent of a state's murders occur in cities then any attempt to minimize the cities is dishonest.

The honest thing to do is to look at urban crime rates - that cover the vast majority of violent crime and prevents comparisons between Watts and some corn field in Kansas. You will see that urban gun crimes does not reflect a state's gun laws in any way what so ever.

[hack89]

69. The statistical averages prove my point.

if a city has a high murder rate in a state with strict gun control laws then perhaps gun control laws are irrelevant to the issue of violent crime. How is it possible for a city like Washington DC with the strictest gun control laws in the country to have so much violent crime? Aren't gun control laws suppose to stop violent crime?

[CreekDog]

71. so the exception to the rule proves it wrong?

is that what you're saying?

[hack89]

103. No - where murders are concentrated proves the point.

The cities are not the exception given their concentration of people, crime and poverty.

[CreekDog]

93. variables

when you look at statistics, you try to control the variables to see how certain ones affect the result.

but perhaps i'll come back and do a city by city analysis.

which you'll dispute anyway you're arguing mostly from your gut instincts, which is why you've made so many errors in reciting crime rates (i.e. New York City's low crime rate, Phoenix's not low murder rate, etc.)

[X_Digger]

100. Check 2009's FBI UCR violent crime by city..

You can download the excel spreadsheet and roll your own numbers..

ie, for cities > 500,000 population, here are the top 10 for murder..

MARYLAND,Baltimore................36.88
MICHIGAN,Detroit..................33.78
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,Washington...31.43
PENNSYLVANIA,Philadelphia.........22.97
TENNESSEE,Memphis.................20.53
GEORGIA,Atlanta 533016............19.70
ILLINOIS,Chicago..................18.03
OHIO,Columbus.....................14.50
FLORIDA,Jacksonville..............14.27
INDIANA,Indianapolis..............14.10


for cities > 250,000, top 10 murder..

LOUISIANA,New Orleans............63.60
MISSOURI,St. Louis...............46.88
MARYLAND,Baltimore...............36.88
MICHIGAN,Detroit.................33.78
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,Washington..31.43
CALIFORNIA,Oakland...............28.64
MISSOURI,Kansas City.............25.47
NEW JERSEY,Newark................23.95
OHIO,Cleveland...................23.53
PENNSYLVANIA,Pittsburgh..........23.24


For cities > 100,000, top ten murder..

LOUISIANA,New Orleans.................63.60
MISSOURI,St. Louis....................46.88
MARYLAND,Baltimore....................36.88
MISSISSIPPI,Jackson...................36.05
ALABAMA,Birmingham....................35.92
MICHIGAN,Detroit......................33.78
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,Washington.......31.43
LOUISIANA,Baton Rouge.................29.53
CALIFORNIA,Oakland....................28.64
MICHIGAN,Flint........................28.20

[CreekDog]

55. Wrong: Phoenix AZ murder rate: 17.1 New York City murder rate: 5.5

FAR HIGHER in Phoenix.

[CreekDog]

62. I guess you don't like to admit you're wrong because you respond to my other posts

but not the one that clearly shows your post about Phoenix to be wrong.

perhaps that's the way it is when arguing with you.

[hack89]

66. For the third time - I was wrong about Phoenix

not stop nit picking and answer my questions about the other cities?

[CreekDog]

73. you don't like me referring to one city that you were wrong about?

but you keep cherry picking one city's (now DC) to discount 50 states worth of data and with multiple types of data?

if you want to know who's nitpicking, try the mirror.

[shadowrider]

38. Care to back your statement(s) with actual fact?

or is this a case of "I said it, believe it"?

[CreekDog]

41. yes i'm glad you asked:

Top 10 states in gun ownership: (average rate of gun ownership: 43% average gun death rate: 16.6)
Bottom 10 states in gun ownership: (average rate of gun ownership: 5.1 average gun death rate: 5.1)

and if you think they are all getting pushed out of windows in non-gun owning states, well, compare Mississippi to New York City (or State). the rate of murders in New York state is far lower than Mississippi, in fact, New York City's murder rate is lower than Mississippi's.

and here are the numbers I used...but again, i don't believe in a million years that any number i post will ever, ever lead you to say, "thank you, that's a good analysis." and your evidence for not doing so will be specious.

%OWN / GUN DEATHRATE
LA 44.1 19.9
MI 38.4 18.3
AK 57.8 17.6
AL 51.7 17.6
NV 33.8 16.2
AR 55.3 15.1
AZ 31.1 15
NM 34.8 15
TN 43.9 15
WV 55.4 14.8
MT 57.7 14.5
WY 59.7 14.5
KY 47.7 14.4
OK 42.9 13.4
SC 42.3 13.4
GA 40.3 13.1
MS 55.3 12.9
FL 24.5 12.5
ID 55.3 12.5
NC 41.3 12.3
MD 21.3 12.1
MN 41.7 10.9
PA 34.7 10.7
TX 35.9 10.7
VA 35.1 10.7
IN 39.1 10.6
KS 42.1 10.5
CO 34.7 10.4
OR 39.8 10.4
OH 32.4 9.6
UT 43.9 9.5
DE 25.5 9.2
CA 21.3 9
ND 50.7 8.9
WI 44.4 8.7
WA 33.1 8.5
VT 42 8.4
ME 40.5 8.1
IL 20.2 8
NE 38.6 8
MO 41.7 6.6
SD 56.6 6.5
NH 30 5.9
IA 42.8 5.3
NJ 12.3 5.2
NY 18 5.1
CT 16.7 4.3
MA 12.6 3.6
RI 12.8 3.5
HI 8.7 2.8

Least restrictive gun laws:
GUN DEATH RATE /RANK (least to most restrictive gun laws)
AZ 15 1
ID 12.5 2
VT 8.4 3
MI 18.3 4
KY 14.4 5
NM 15 6
AR 15.1 7
WY 14.5 8
ME 8.1 9
MT 14.5 10
AK 17.6 11
MO 12.9 12
GA 13.1 13
KS 10.5 14
ND 8.9 15
SD 6.5 16
OK 13.4 17
UT 9.5 18
NE 8 19
SC 13.4 20
IN 10.6 21
NV 16.2 22
LA 19.9 23
CO 10.4 24
WV 14.8 25
NH 5.9 26
AL 17.6 27
NC 12.3 28
OH 9.6 29
OR 10.4 30
TN 15 31
TX 10.7 32
DE 9.2 33
WI 8.7 34
VA 10.7 35
MN 6.6 36
WA 8.5 37
IA 5.3 38
MI 10.9 39
PA 10.7 40
FL 12.5 41
RI 3.5 42
NY 5.1 43
MD 12.1 44
IL 8 45
CT 4.3 46
HI 2.8 47
MA 3.6 48
NJ 5.2 49
CA 9 50

[shadowrider]

43. Again it's a case of "I said it, believe it". Care to site

actual documentation, links, websites etc. that back your claim?

[CreekDog]

46. you didn't even go through the data in my post (data you asked for)

you responded faster than you ever could have examined the post or the data.

you're just jerking my chain.

[shadowrider]

48. No sir. With all respect, I asked you to back your claim with something other than "I said it"

Nothing more, nothing less.

By your logic, I should believe everything negative I hear about Obama simply because someone said it (with no proof to back the claim).

I don't operate that way. I believe nothing until I can verify, through seperate means, something someone says.

[CreekDog]

50. how is your verification going to work?

i'll provide it after you explain how you will verify the veracity of the data?

[shadowrider]

52. Give me the link(s) and let me look at it. My calculations may be different

than yours. If so, we can discuss how we each arrived at our conclusions in a civil manner.

[CreekDog]

53. the data is in my other posts

you can go grab it.

i'm asking what your verification process will be to determine if the links are legitimate.

yes, i'm doubting the good faith of this effort, but if you explain yourself, i'm willing to reconsider.

[shadowrider]

58. Your other posts on this thread or a different one?

[CreekDog]

74. this one, here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=357498&mesg_id=357945

[shadowrider]

83. From what website did you get that info? Not doubting, just want to check it for myself n/t

[CreekDog]

94. why?

let me just say right here, right now, that if i do so, here's what you will do:

you will say that the source is bad. oh, you might try to calculate it yourself beforehand, but if the results show (as they will) that gun deaths are higher where gun ownership is higher, you will poo-poo the data source.

just so everyone knows. although i do plan to put out a reference to the source, i know what will follow when i do. and it doesn't matter if the source is me, Harvard, the FBI, your grandmother, if the numbers don't fit your philosophy, you will be all over them like a cheap suit.

[shadowrider]

108. ok, so we're back to square one

"You said it, I should believe it" with no source to verify whether or not what you say is correct.

[CreekDog]

111. it's a point i want to make

and i want to call attention to it to either prevent it, or to make obvious the tactic that is used in these arguments.

so now, if you do it, hopefully others will see it. if you don't --good on you.

[Atypical Liberal]

87. All I know is...

All I know is that the CDC did a study and the best they could say is there was no detectable benefit to gun control laws.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/oct/6/20031006-085844-8119r/

This was done back in 2000.

My understanding from the FBI UCR data is that firearm crime continues to decline, in spite of record sales of firearms and ammunition.

Where are you getting your data?

[CreekDog]

107. as you can see there was an error in the cutting and pasting:

this should clear it up...but slice the numbers both ways, as I did, you still get the same outcomes:

Top 10 states in gun ownership: (average rate of gun ownership: 56% average gun death rate: 13.5)

Bottom 10 states in gun ownership: (average rate of gun ownership: 5.1 17% average gun death rate: 6.6)

Top 10 states in gun deaths: (average rate of gun ownership: 45% average gun death rate: 13.5)

Bottom 10 states in gun deaths: (average rate of gun ownership: 25% average gun death rate: 4.9)

[X_Digger]

14. Why not post your concerns at maddowblog.msnbc.com?

I know I'm going to.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. She really discredtted herself tonight

Damn shame

[RamboLiberal]

25. +1000

[CreekDog]

77. she was right on the money and this thread shows that nobody has been able to disprove her assertion

:rofl:

[RamboLiberal]

79. Only if Rachel was taking wooden nickels

Most of her "facts" last night were myths and falsehoods and several DU'ers here have shown the truth.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. She has been shown wrong here and on a prior thread fairly convincingly

Its to the point that those who would have normally found her automatically credible now question her. That is a major hit.

[CreekDog]

91. same people that are questioning my numbers

and frequently, wrongly questioning.

and with specious reasoning --like if overall you are safer in states with restrictive gun laws and lower gun ownership, there are no instances where you will less safe in specific circumstances.

in other words, the argument used against my numbers was: if on average you are safer, then in every instance you must be safer or on average you are not.

so if that kind of reasoning is questioning Rachel --it don't matter.

[RamboLiberal]

115. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts

In several threads many of us have laid out that last night Rachel had several "facts" very very wrong!

Rachel has always said "facts matter" and "fact checks" but last night she blew that.

I always thought she did her homework but now I wonder if I have to fact check her on other issues.

I'll give you one. She discouraged people from looking for gun laws online because you cannot find the truth because of gun lover's rhetoric.

You may hate the NRA and distrust their political statements but on gun laws you can find the truth on their website.

Compendium of State Firearms Laws http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=74

Notes:


1. "Assault weapons" are prohibited in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. Massachusetts: It is unlawful to sell or transfer handguns not on the Firearms Roster. The City of Boston has a separate "assault weapons" law. Some local jurisdictions in Ohio also ban “assault weapons.” Hawaii prohibits “assault pistols.” California bans “assault weapons”, .50BMG caliber firearms, some .50 caliber ammunition and “unsafe handguns.” Illinois: Chicago, Evanston, Oak Park, Morton Grove, Winnetka, Wilmette, and Highland Park prohibit handguns; some cities prohibit other kinds of firearms. Maryland prohibits “assault pistols”; the sale or manufacture of any handgun manufactured after Jan. 1, 1985, that does not appear on the Handgun Roster; and the sale of any handgun manufactured after January 1, 2003 that is not equipped with an “integrated mechanical safety device.” Massachusetts: It is unlawful to sell, transfer or possess “any assault weapon or large capacity feeding device” that was not legally possessed on September 13, 1994 and the sale of handguns not on the Firearms Roster. The City of Boston has a separate “assault weapons” law. The District of Columbia bans "assault weapons," .50BMG caliber firearms and ammunition, "unsafe firearms," and "large capacity" (more than 10 rounds) ammunition feeding devices. Virginia prohibits "Street Sweeper" shotguns. (With respect to some of these laws and ordinances, individuals may retain prohibited firearms owned previously, with certain restrictions.) The sunset of the federal assault weapons ban does not affect the validity of state and local “assault weapons” bans.

2. National Instant Check System (NICS) exemption codes:
RTC-Carry Permit Holders Exempt From NICS
P-Holders of state licenses to possess or purchase or firearms ID cards exempt from NICS.

3. NICS exemption notes: Alaska: Permits marked “NICS Exempt”. Arkansas: Those issued on and after 4/1/99 qualify. Kentucky: Permits issued after 7/12/06 qualify. Michigan: Licenses to Purchase a Pistol and Concealed Pistol Licenses (CPL’s) issued on or after 11/22/05 qualify. Mississippi: Permits issued to security guards do not qualify. North Dakota: Those issued on or after 12/1/1999 qualify.

4. Maryland subjects purchases of “assault weapons” to a 7-day waiting period.

Etc.

Want Arizona's Laws: http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/AZSL.pdf One caveat they haven't changed yet that you can carry without a license, but they do warn always to check the law as they may have changed.

One second on google!

[stray cat]

33. I think 5000 per bullet would prevent random shootings? Ie Chris Rock's stand up

[lawodevolution]

36. I make my own bullets. Costs 10 cents each for 9mm. But good try.

[shadowrider]

40. Well, for the time being you make them

Watch them become illegal if the micro-stamping business gains serious traction.

[cleanhippie]

42. Sure, making something illegal (booze, drugs) has really helped put a stop to those activities.

[shadowrider]

47. Agreed. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean people will stop the behavior

but most law-abiding people would abide because they wouldn't want to face whatever penalties exist for the transgression.

I believe you and I agree.

[CreekDog]

78. do you put lead into the environment?

:shrug:

[Atypical Liberal]

88. Actually I take it out.

I make my bullets by recycling lead wheel weights from tire stores.

[CreekDog]

90. assuming you never fire a shot

:hi:

[Spoonman]

106. I wrote a masters thesis paper on the environmental impact of shooting

It would far exceed you knowledge of environmental chemistry, metallurgy, and bullet manufacturing, so I will summarize it:
In non-scientific terms, the long standing claim that shooting causes significant environmental damage is "horse shit".

[CreekDog]

112. oh and what makes you so sure i haven't read that study?

know me so well doncha?

anyway --you said you take lead out of the environment by using tire weights to make your ammo. i said, "only if you never fire a shot".

you chose to answer whether you cause damage to the environment (and your conclusion is questionable), you chose NOT to admit that in fact, you put lead into the environment when it's clear that you do.

since we're splitting hairs --which I admit, is fun at times. :D

[Spoonman]

118. Meds?

you said you take lead out of the environment by using tire weights to make your ammo. i said, "only if you never fire a shot".

I stated no such thing, you need to re-read the posts.

you chose to answer whether you cause damage to the environment (and your conclusion is questionable), you chose NOT to admit that in fact, you put lead into the environment when it's clear that you do.

Once again, try to read MY posts before you reply to me.

oh and what makes you so sure i haven't read that study?

Which study would that be?

[spin]

113. 99.9999 % of the rounds I have fired went into a berm or backstop ...

and the lead was reclaimed.

[CreekDog]

114. sounds pretty responsible

:hi:

[Tejas]

136. That is one

of the funniest vids of all time. I mean, if you can't laugh at yourself...... :)

[Atypical Liberal]

84. Is there a link?

Do you have a link to the video?

[krispos42]

117. I was typing while watching the rerun at midnight.

It will probably be posted in the Political Videos forum. If not, I believe MSNBC has streaming video.

You can video podcast via iTunes as well, but they only carry the most recent episode, which sucks.

[xchrom]

109. And I love her more.

I hope those state by star stats make it to her people.

[X_Digger]

122. Oh FFS..

Rachel's at it again.. the false dichotomoy of 'nukes'.

[Grabo]

124. I'm glad that Rachel

and Bill Maher have pointed out over the last couple of days that no law abiding citizen has ever stopped a crime with thier gun. It's all just a fantasy.

[X_Digger]

125. Can't tell if you're serious or not.. it actually has..

google 'New Life Church Shooting'

eta: and I'm assuming you're only talking about 'mass shooting' events. If it's regular crimes you're talking about, I can provide links from this very forum, if you wish.

[Grabo]

127. I was just being

sarcastic. It's sad when people throw facts out of the window when they don't fit in with thier political views and wishes.

[X_Digger]

128. Sorry, my sarcasometer is on the fritz.

We've actually had folks make some pretty audacious statements like that in the last couple of days, so one never knows.

[krispos42]

130. She's still stating that the shooter wouldn't have been able to buy the 31-round magazine.

If the AWB had still been in effect

:shrug:

Again, no mention of the used-magazine market, or the grandfathering of pre-1994 magazines.

[krispos42]

137. Okay, she mentioned in passing that used magazines were still legal to sell

While interviewing Rep. McCarthy from New York.

[PavePusher]

131. Good 'ol Rachel, knocking down every Strawman she sets up...

How does she do that?

[old mark]

132. I just got up to check the wood stove, and Rachel was doing it again tonight...

I turned her off after a minute or so, just as I would Pat Buchannan or some other fascist.

mark