Jump to content

Gun Control - Tell Me Where I'm Wrong


Recommended Posts

Well, I was wasting the morning surfing the web when I ran across a poster. It said that the U.S ranked third in the world for murder but if you removed Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C. and New Orleans then we were fourth from the bottom. Then it said that all four cities were controlled by Democrats and that they all had the toughest gun control laws in the U.S. I recognized it as sophistry since it began by speaking of murder (which can be accomplished in any number of ways) and ended up talking about guns.

For a pro gun guy like me it was funny anyway but I decided to do a little fact checking. The first thing I found was that while there are tons of opinions about gun deaths on both sides of the issue statistics are surprisingly hard to find. I disregarded any obviously left or right slanted sources and this is what I came up with. All the cities named on the poster are indeed heavily Democratic and have been forever. But I couldn't conclude that New Orleans or St. Louis might be described as having "the toughest gun control laws" so the poster was wrong in that respect. And the U.S. is actually #10 in overall homicides. But I was interested and continued checking and I found this;

1. The U.S. only ranks #14 in firearm related deaths (including murder) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate and the countries with higher rates all have vastly smaller populations.
2. Of the fifty cities cities with the highest murder rates in the world (including gun deaths) four U.S. cities were included. These were #21 New Orleans, #30 Detroit, #43 St. Louis and #48 Baltimore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate Chicago and D.C didn't make the cut.

3. The four cities listed in '2.' are heavily Democratic and have been forever.

So I'm gonna make a few statements and ask a few questions.

The states in which the cities named in '2.' are located are split down the middle by red and blue but the cities are all Democratically controlled. If the Democratic/Progressive/Liberal stance on the second amendment is correct then why aren't all the listed states red?

Presumably all four cities are governed at the local levels by the above mentioned Democratic/Progressive/Liberal beliefs. Then why did they make the list? Of the top ten gun violence states in the U.S. six are blue. Why aren't they all red?

According to the most non-idealogical source I could find http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/ all top ten cities with the highest rates of gun-related homicides were Democratically controlled (my research not theirs). Same question. If the Democratic/Progressive/Liberal stance on guns is so correct how do you explain this?

My premise is this. Any area that is under Democratic/Progressive/Liberal control will have it's legislators seek to restrict gun rights and access. In part they will succeed. What I discovered proves that they are wrong-headed and emotion rather than logic driven. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, I was wasting the morning surfing the web when I ran across a poster. It said that the U.S ranked third in the world for murder but if you removed Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C. and New Orleans then we were fourth from the bottom. Then it said that all four cities were controlled by Democrats and that they all had the toughest gun control laws in the U.S. I recognized it as sophistry since it began by speaking of murder (which can be accomplished in any number of ways) and ended up talking about guns.

For a pro gun guy like me it was funny anyway but I decided to do a little fact checking. The first thing I found was that while there are tons of opinions about gun deaths on both sides of the issue statistics are surprisingly hard to find. I disregarded any obviously left or right slanted sources and this is what I came up with. All the cities named on the poster are indeed heavily Democratic and have been forever. But I couldn't conclude that New Orleans or St. Louis might be described as having "the toughest gun control laws" so the poster was wrong in that respect. And the U.S. is actually #10 in overall homicides. But I was interested and continued checking and I found this;

1. The U.S. only ranks #14 in firearm related deaths (including murder) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate and the countries with higher rates all have vastly smaller populations.

2. Of the fifty cities cities with the highest murder rates in the world (including gun deaths) four U.S. cities were included. These were #21 New Orleans, #30 Detroit, #43 St. Louis and #48 Baltimore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate Chicago and D.C didn't make the cut.

3. The four cities listed in '2.' are heavily Democratic and have been forever.

So I'm gonna make a few statements and ask a few questions.

The states in which the cities named in '2.' are located are split down the middle by red and blue but the cities are all Democratically controlled. If the Democratic/Progressive/Liberal stance on the second amendment is correct then why aren't all the listed states red?

Presumably all four cities are governed at the local levels by the above mentioned Democratic/Progressive/Liberal beliefs. Then why did they make the list? Of the top ten gun violence states in the U.S. six are blue. Why aren't they all red?

According to the most non-idealogical source I could find http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/ all top ten cities with the highest rates of gun-related homicides were Democratically controlled (my research not theirs). Same question. If the Democratic/Progressive/Liberal stance on guns is so correct how do you explain this?

My premise is this. Any area that is under Democratic/Progressive/Liberal control will have it's legislators seek to restrict gun rights and access. In part they will succeed. What I discovered proves that they are wrong-headed and emotion rather than logic driven. What do you think?

1. If one wishes to compare the United States to foreign countries, then pick a state with equivent size and population, not all 50/57 states and territories of the USA.

 

This is like comparing one urban area against all rural communities around it. Capitol of compromised ideals and satelite ideas making a wheel of spiked radii of what if scenarios orchestrating chaos to save one's ideal means of leading confusion?

 

Out populated in separate environments isn't equal representation of the same lifestyle. Social dependency upon each other exists in urban settings while in rural self reliance is manditory. The two work completely different so how do rules and laws give each their separate values within a common currcy of trade?

 

Society invented a need for adminstrative interpretation to get paid no matter what society does. Inner hum trianculating life within an inner rim of verbal agreements to deny all and pay attention to portions of real controlled separately.

 

Divide and conquer ancestry starts in this separation of heart, mind, body, and spirit of each ancestor specifically added to this atmosphere living as social identities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You basically have proven an old adage: When guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns. This is especially true in a country like the United States where basic human rights are allowed to be allowed or denied at the stroke of a pen at various levels of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I was wasting the morning surfing the web when I ran across a poster. It said that the U.S ranked third in the world for murder but if you removed Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C. and New Orleans then we were fourth from the bottom. Then it said that all four cities were controlled by Democrats and that they all had the toughest gun control laws in the U.S. I recognized it as sophistry since it began by speaking of murder (which can be accomplished in any number of ways) and ended up talking about guns.

For a pro gun guy like me it was funny anyway but I decided to do a little fact checking. The first thing I found was that while there are tons of opinions about gun deaths on both sides of the issue statistics are surprisingly hard to find. I disregarded any obviously left or right slanted sources and this is what I came up with. All the cities named on the poster are indeed heavily Democratic and have been forever. But I couldn't conclude that New Orleans or St. Louis might be described as having "the toughest gun control laws" so the poster was wrong in that respect. And the U.S. is actually #10 in overall homicides. But I was interested and continued checking and I found this;

1. The U.S. only ranks #14 in firearm related deaths (including murder) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate and the countries with higher rates all have vastly smaller populations.

2. Of the fifty cities cities with the highest murder rates in the world (including gun deaths) four U.S. cities were included. These were #21 New Orleans, #30 Detroit, #43 St. Louis and #48 Baltimore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate Chicago and D.C didn't make the cut.

3. The four cities listed in '2.' are heavily Democratic and have been forever.

So I'm gonna make a few statements and ask a few questions.

The states in which the cities named in '2.' are located are split down the middle by red and blue but the cities are all Democratically controlled. If the Democratic/Progressive/Liberal stance on the second amendment is correct then why aren't all the listed states red?

Presumably all four cities are governed at the local levels by the above mentioned Democratic/Progressive/Liberal beliefs. Then why did they make the list? Of the top ten gun violence states in the U.S. six are blue. Why aren't they all red?

According to the most non-idealogical source I could find http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/ all top ten cities with the highest rates of gun-related homicides were Democratically controlled (my research not theirs). Same question. If the Democratic/Progressive/Liberal stance on guns is so correct how do you explain this?

My premise is this. Any area that is under Democratic/Progressive/Liberal control will have it's legislators seek to restrict gun rights and access. In part they will succeed. What I discovered proves that they are wrong-headed and emotion rather than logic driven. What do you think?

 

If a jurisdiction has tough controls on possession of a thing, but surrounding jurisdictions do not, then the jurisdiction with tough controls have no controls regardless of what's on their books. When I was a kid, Virginia said you had to be 21 to drink, so we piled into a car, drove across Key Bridge into DC, and right at the end of the bridge was a place called Dixie Liquor. Whoever was 18 got out of the car and got us all our beer. What conclusion would you draw? That "Virginia's 21 drinking age doesn't work?" No, it worked. You had to be 21 to buy it in that state. But Washington DC's 18 year old requirement to buy it made Virginia's law moot, didn't it.

 

If NYC has super tough gun laws but Connecticut, which is next door, doesn't, you just go into Connecticut and buy your guns.

 

The only way gun laws have any chance of actually working is they must be uniform, the same in every jurisdiction.

 

WV has strict fireworks laws, so my brother-in-law goes to PA and buys the same rockets they shoot over the Washington Monument; the most you can get in WV are cone fountains. So PA makes WV's law moot. Only when every state and city restrict a thing will you have laws that work.

 

Re "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is not as true as people think. I read a fascinating find: regarding laws restricting an action, it has been discovered that making something just a bit harder to do has the same effect as if it is made a lot harder to do. The way that applies to gun purchases is that if you make them just a little harder, you'll stop a great deal of them; making it just a little harder to get them has the same effect of making them very hard to get. It certainly won't stop all gun crime; no law stops all infractions as intended, but stopping, say, 20% or 42% of gun deaths is superior to throwing up out hands and saying no gun laws work. I'm sure WV's fireworks laws make a lot of residents of that state figure it's too much of a pain to go to PA to get fireworks even though some, like my brother-in-law, are undeterred. He'd be deterred if NO state allowed them, because then he'd have to find a black market source. Right now he can stop at roadside stands or stores in PA and get all he wants.

 

NYC police discovered some 20 years ago that a large percentage of illegal gun trafficking in that city came from guns purchased in bulk in Virginia. So Virginia passed a one-gun-a-month law. According to the Right, that should have had no effect on illegal purchases. But it did. NYC cops reported seizing a great deal fewer weapons on NYC streets after Va passed that law. So you'd think everyone would be happy, huh? Well the Va legislature is trying to repeal the law. So I don't put much credence in Republicans saying they are concerned about gun crime. A provable, workable law was passed that took a lot of illegal firearms off the streets of a major US city, and Republicans want to destroy the solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You basically have proven an old adage: When guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns. This is especially true in a country like the United States where basic human rights are allowed to be allowed or denied at the stroke of a pen at various levels of government.

You're right LagerHead but you didn't complete the sentence. "basic human rights are allowed to be allowed or denied at the stroke of a pen" but why is that? You certainly can't blame a fox for being a fox. Instead blame the people who set the fox to watching the henhouse. That would be us, the voters. Any ruling class will set it's own interests over the interests of those they rule. We have the power to remove those who oppress us but it just doesn't happen. Look at the 2012 election results. 50 years in Congress? Show me anything in the writings of the founding fathers where they coveted such a thing. Generation after generation of wealthy families who do nothing but seek and hold political power? The founders of our republic certainly conceived of that but they feared it having experienced it personally. Obama, Reid, Pelosi and their ilk are not the problem, they are symptoms. What truly frightens me is that the symptoms are growing worse and I fear the patient may die. I have watched our liberties disappearing over the last few decades and the pace is accelerating. Unless the Low Information Voters wake up soon we may find ourselves beyond the tipping point. My problem is that for the life of me I can't figure out what I can do about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If one wishes to compare the United States to foreign countries, then pick a state with equivent size and population, not all 50/57 states and territories of the USA.

 

This is like comparing one urban area against all rural communities around it. Capitol of compromised ideals and satelite ideas making a wheel of spiked radii of what if scenarios orchestrating chaos to save one's ideal means of leading confusion?

 

Out populated in separate environments isn't equal representation of the same lifestyle. Social dependency upon each other exists in urban settings while in rural self reliance is manditory. The two work completely different so how do rules and laws give each their separate values within a common currcy of trade?

 

Society invented a need for adminstrative interpretation to get paid no matter what society does. Inner hub triangulating life within an outer rim of verbal agreements to deny all and pay attention to portions of real controlled separately.

 

Divide and conquer ancestry starts in this separation of heart, mind, body, and spirit of each ancestor specifically added to this atmosphere living as social identities.

Had to repair my mispelling and add one thing, Being incomplete isn't completely wrong. theory and theology only project the idea now isn't eternity and the common mistake eternally made by every social justification character matters, is an educated error in judgement of the real moment handed down through ancestry repeating the same ideological mistakes protecting theory and theology compiled so far setting the standards to how denial gets administered publically..

 

thinking time will change anything let alone everything here now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re LisaB; You make excellent points. I grew up in NYC and I didn't have to go over any bridges, I had fake ID when I was sixteen. But I wasn't thinking so much about specific laws when I wrote what I did. I was more focused on the Democratic/Progressive/Liberal position that gun violence is so much more a problem in this country than anywhere else. It plainly isn't especially when you consider our population and that there is approximately one gun for every citizen in this country.

My aim when I pointed out the political demographics of those cities was to show that if the Democratic/Progressive/Liberal agenda was correct one would expect to see precisely the opposite results but that wasn't the case. Remember I did my own research and avoided any obviously slanted sources. How would you interperet what I found?

As far as going someplace else to illegally obtain what you desire again you make a valid point. But if that were the only criteria why are all the most violent cities Democratically controlled? If gun possession is the standard why aren't the cities that aren't surrounded or controlled by jurisdictions with stringent gun controls the most violent?

I'm a gun owner and I'm not against gun laws. Quite the opposite in fact. I support background checks. Check me all you want. I believe that people who don't secure their firearms should be prosecuted. I would support a federal law that imposes a mandatory ten year sentence to be served consecutively for anyone who uses a firearm in the commision of a crime. The solution to gun crimes is effective laws not more laws when the existing ones don't work. What I oppose are gun laws designed to circumvent the constitution.

The problem is that Democratic/Progressive/Liberal supporters don't want to deal with gun laws per se. Their stated agenda is to remove guns from the hands of citizens. Read Diane Feinstein's so-called Assault Weapon (a specious term) Ban. Explain to me how it would specifically save lives. I resist any attempt to whittle away any of my constitutional rights. Enough of that is going on right now. Democratic/Progressive/Liberal proponents take the long view. Read any of the popular advocates like Alinsky and the like to see if I'm correct in that assertion. I resist their efforts to impose their will on me. If they are so sure that they have the moral high ground and represent the will of the people let them have the political guts to amend the constitution instead of trying end runs. If they succeeded I would disagree but I would comply.

Tell me where I'm wrong ma'am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If a jurisdiction has tough controls on possession of a thing, but surrounding jurisdictions do not, then the jurisdiction with tough controls have no controls regardless of what's on their books. When I was a kid, Virginia said you had to be 21 to drink, so we piled into a car, drove across Key Bridge into DC, and right at the end of the bridge was a place called Dixie Liquor. Whoever was 18 got out of the car and got us all our beer. What conclusion would you draw? That "Virginia's 21 drinking age doesn't work?" No, it worked. You had to be 21 to buy it in that state. But Washington DC's 18 year old requirement to buy it made Virginia's law moot, didn't it.

 

If NYC has super tough gun laws but Connecticut, which is next door, doesn't, you just go into Connecticut and buy your guns.

 

The only way gun laws have any chance of actually working is they must be uniform, the same in every jurisdiction.

 

WV has strict fireworks laws, so my brother-in-law goes to PA and buys the same rockets they shoot over the Washington Monument; the most you can get in WV are cone fountains. So PA makes WV's law moot. Only when every state and city restrict a thing will you have laws that work.

 

Re "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is not as true as people think. I read a fascinating find: regarding laws restricting an action, it has been discovered that making something just a bit harder to do has the same effect as if it is made a lot harder to do. The way that applies to gun purchases is that if you make them just a little harder, you'll stop a great deal of them; making it just a little harder to get them has the same effect of making them very hard to get. It certainly won't stop all gun crime; no law stops all infractions as intended, but stopping, say, 20% or 42% of gun deaths is superior to throwing up out hands and saying no gun laws work. I'm sure WV's fireworks laws make a lot of residents of that state figure it's too much of a pain to go to PA to get fireworks even though some, like my brother-in-law, are undeterred. He'd be deterred if NO state allowed them, because then he'd have to find a black market source. Right now he can stop at roadside stands or stores in PA and get all he wants.

 

NYC police discovered some 20 years ago that a large percentage of illegal gun trafficking in that city came from guns purchased in bulk in Virginia. So Virginia passed a one-gun-a-month law. According to the Right, that should have had no effect on illegal purchases. But it did. NYC cops reported seizing a great deal fewer weapons on NYC streets after Va passed that law. So you'd think everyone would be happy, huh? Well the Va legislature is trying to repeal the law. So I don't put much credence in Republicans saying they are concerned about gun crime. A provable, workable law was passed that took a lot of illegal firearms off the streets of a major US city, and Republicans want to destroy the solution.

your argument still doesn't refute the fact that there are a higher percentage of gun related murders in liberal democrat controlled

"gun regulated" areas than there are in the surrounding areas with more lax gun restrictions. you're basically making a case against gun control

laws yourself, whether you like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weelll ... I read Lewstherin's post above and a few things occurred to me. The first was what would posess a person to post such a link? Yikes. Then what jumped out at me was that I didn't get the sense at all that LisaB was trying to refute anything. An argument can't "refute" a fact. The only way to refute a fact is to deny that it's a fact at all and she didn't do that. She stated her opinion which differs somewhat from mine and on that basis we can have a conversation.

The second thing was the writer's assertion that it's a "fact that there are a higher percentage of gun related murders in liberal democrat controlled "gun regulated" areas than there are in the surrounding areas with more lax gun restrictions." While I would love for such a blanket statement to be true I don't care enough about the subject to do more research on the matter than I did. You would have to compare all "liberal democrat controlled "gun regulated" areas" against all, I suppose, conservative Republican controlled "gun regulated" areas to offer that statement as fact and be prepared to supply data to back you up. Frankly I don't even know how you would go about that. I only looked at the statistics for the highest ranking cities and countries to see if my own assumptions were correct and then used what I found to support my opinion in an effort to spark debate.

Finally I'd like to address one more point that I wanted to address before but lost track of because I keep running from my PC to other tasks and back. I think it's important. LisaB wrote "The only way gun laws have any chance of actually working is they must be uniform, the same in every jurisdiction." I couldn't disagree more strongly because I see a situation where that condition applies yet the result is the exact opposite of what she suggests. I'm talking about immigration. Here's a case where the law is the same in every jurisdiction since it's Federal. Indeed the current administration has used it's own personal Justice Department (I'm prepared to defend that gibe if needs be) to ensure that a single vision pertains. Yet is anyone going to argue that a uniform application of those laws has resulted in a lessening of them being broken? I believe that the immigration example clearly illustrates that what is needed to prevent lunatics and miscreants from committing murder with guns is the fortitude to address the real issues rather than a pursuit of thinly veiled social and political agendas by either party. I regard both the Republican and Democratic representatives in Washington with equal disgust.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lisa, using your logic how to you think the state laws on legalized pot will work out? What about speed limits? They are not uniform in every jurisdiction, not even uniform from street to street, highway to highway. Few laws are uniform in every jurisdiction but they still work if ENFORCED. That is the problem with most of the laws passed. Politicians pass laws that are unenforcable but sound good to the voters.

 

 

The only way gun laws have any chance of actually working is they must be uniform, the same in every jurisdiction.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Wallace was a Democrat. LOL!

 

He was a conservative. Are Democrats conservative today? Are Republicans liberal today? No. Because both parties gradually switched positions due to a host of causes. Can anyone name a Democrat alive today, just one, who would reinstate racial segregation? No. But there are Republicans, even on this forum, who have defended black slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He was a conservative. Are Democrats conservative today? Are Republicans liberal today? No. Because both parties gradually switched positions due to a host of causes. Can anyone name a Democrat alive today, just one, who would reinstate racial segregation? No. But there are Republicans, even on this forum, who have defended black slavery.

No he wasn't. That line is tried everytime. Was he as liberal as liberals today? No but he was not a conservative. You can run from the racist history of the Democratic party but you can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As far as going someplace else to illegally obtain what you desire again you make a valid point. But if that were the only criteria why are all the most violent cities Democratically controlled? If gun possession is the standard why aren't the cities that aren't surrounded or controlled by jurisdictions with stringent gun controls the most violent?

 

-- I would say the poorest cities vote Democratic because they know Republicans will do nothing more than try to take what little they already have.

They aren't violent because they vote Democratic, they're violent because they have no opportunity.

 

What I oppose are gun laws designed to circumvent the constitution.

 

-- The problem with that is that no two people will agree on what's constitutional and what isn't. :)

 

The problem is that Democratic/Progressive/Liberal supporters don't want to deal with gun laws per se. Their stated agenda is to remove guns from the hands of citizens.

 

-- Confiscation's not my agenda, it's not anyone I know's agenda. I have heard no Democratic candidate for office state that as his / her agenda. Writers with lots of visibility call for it, sure, but how many people is that, really? This is a gun culture. I can't imagine that ever changing. I can't imagine any legislator getting elected on a "confiscation" platform. I flatly believe it's impossible. I own guns. I am absolutely unafraid of any attempt at confiscation.

 

 

Read Diane Feinstein's so-called Assault Weapon (a specious term) Ban. Explain to me how it would specifically save lives.

 

-- Diane Feinstein is one person, and she does not represent the majority of thought in this country.

 

I resist any attempt to whittle away any of my constitutional rights.

 

-- Join the club!

 

Enough of that is going on right now.

 

-- How, specifically? I am not asking this so I can disagree, I seek only to demonstrate that it's hard to get people to agree on what the Constitution says.

 

Democratic/Progressive/Liberal proponents take the long view. Read any of the popular advocates like Alinsky and the like to see if I'm correct in that assertion. I resist their efforts to impose their will on me. If they are so sure that they have the moral high ground and represent the will of the people let them have the political guts to amend the constitution instead of trying end runs. If they succeeded I would disagree but I would comply.

 

-- And Republicans don't have long views? How about evangelical Christians who want to take over the nation, rescind its laws, and set up a theocracy? I'm sure they outnumber those of Alinsky's persuasion. But I'm not worried about them, because all these people, left or right, are far outside the mainstream and under our system have no way to gain power by force. There are plenty enough thinking people who would never support them, and when even moderates form third parties to try to do it that way, they fail because the voters believe a vote for a third party takes away a vote from their main party of choice, that it helps the party they don't like.

 

Sorry about the quote function; it's not working for me for some reason.

No he wasn't. That line is tried everytime. Was he as liberal as liberals today? No but he was not a conservative. You can run from the racist history of the Democratic party but you can't.

 

Then what was he, a liberal? Liberals were trying to register blacks to vote while Wallace and the Klan and half the cops in the South were trying to stop them.

 

If you mean to say the parties didn't switch sides, I don't know what to make of you. It's like saying the sky is green or water isn't wet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Then what was he, a liberal? Liberals were trying to register blacks to vote while Wallace and the Klan and half the cops in the South were trying to stop them.

 

If you mean to say the parties didn't switch sides, I don't know what to make of you. It's like saying the sky is green or water isn't wet.

You are talking about liberal and conservative in the classical sense. Where liberalism is open to change and conservatism in't. That doesn't apply to this. Today liberals those who believe in a stronger roll in goverment. Conservatives are those who believe in a smaller roll in goverment. The parties in this area did not switch. Leftist took over the Democratic party and pushed it far left. This started under Wilson grew greatly under TR and kept growing. Your revision of history doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are talking about liberal and conservative in the classical sense. Where liberalism is open to change and conservatism in't. That doesn't apply to this. Today liberals those who believe in a stronger roll in goverment. Conservatives are those who believe in a smaller roll in goverment. The parties in this area did not switch. Leftist took over the Democratic party and pushed it far left. This started under Wilson grew greatly under TR and kept growing. Your revision of history doesn't work.

 

No, I am asking it in the meat-and-potatoes, everyday-American sense. In that sense, they switched. Don't believe me, go ask a historian. Never mind, I'll do it for you:

 

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/reversal2.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weelll ... I read Lewstherin's post above and a few things occurred to me. The first was what would posess a person to post such a link? Yikes. Then what jumped out at me was that I didn't get the sense at all that LisaB was trying to refute anything. An argument can't "refute" a fact. The only way to refute a fact is to deny that it's a fact at all and she didn't do that. She stated her opinion which differs somewhat from mine and on that basis we can have a conversation.

The second thing was the writer's assertion that it's a "fact that there are a higher percentage of gun related murders in liberal democrat controlled "gun regulated" areas than there are in the surrounding areas with more lax gun restrictions." While I would love for such a blanket statement to be true I don't care enough about the subject to do more research on the matter than I did. You would have to compare all "liberal democrat controlled "gun regulated" areas" against all, I suppose, conservative Republican controlled "gun regulated" areas to offer that statement as fact and be prepared to supply data to back you up. Frankly I don't even know how you would go about that. I only looked at the statistics for the highest ranking cities and countries to see if my own assumptions were correct and then used what I found to support my opinion in an effort to spark debate.

Finally I'd like to address one more point that I wanted to address before but lost track of because I keep running from my PC to other tasks and back. I think it's important. LisaB wrote "The only way gun laws have any chance of actually working is they must be uniform, the same in every jurisdiction." I couldn't disagree more strongly because I see a situation where that condition applies yet the result is the exact opposite of what she suggests. I'm talking about immigration. Here's a case where the law is the same in every jurisdiction since it's Federal. Indeed the current administration has used it's own personal Justice Department (I'm prepared to defend that gibe if needs be) to ensure that a single vision pertains. Yet is anyone going to argue that a uniform application of those laws has resulted in a lessening of them being broken? I believe that the immigration example clearly illustrates that what is needed to prevent lunatics and miscreants from committing murder with guns is the fortitude to address the real issues rather than a pursuit of thinly veiled social and political agendas by either party. I regard both the Republican and Democratic representatives in Washington with equal disgust.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

 

Hey. I think these two subjects are too far apart to be comparable, like applying the same stimuli to dogs and cats. They behave too differently. I will go back to my statement about Va's one-gun-a-month law definitely cutting back the number of guns found on NYC streets. The NYC police knew where they were coming from and told Va about it. Va cut back the number of guns that could be legally purchased at in a given time and the result was a reduction of the number of guns on the streets of New York. Since the NYC police were quite clear about the source of the weapons and about their reduction after the passage of the Va law I have no reason to doubt it. It was a clear case of a law regarding guns doing what it was designed to do. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the OP ...

 

Half of all murders are committed by blacks.

 

Ninety-Five (plus) percent of blacks are Democrats.

 

Perhaps that is the reason why Democrat controlled cities have the highest gun related murder rates?

 

Kindly describe any causality you've deduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lisa you tell him how Jim Crowe laws in the sixties are to blame for the staggering accounts of black on black murder in this country.

 

 

Don't forget to tell him 93% of African Americans are descended from slaves ...

 

Sure. People have long memories, and not just their own but those of their ancestors. How else do we explain the fact that people are still fighting the Civil War, which ended 140-something years ago? If we tell black people "it's all in the past so you have no right to complain," then we must tell the Southern boys who are still fighting the War of Northern Agression that they were not alive when it was a shooting war and so have no right to complain about its outcome now.

 

But that's not how we're wired. Cultures hate other cultures for hundreds of years, sometimes thousands. It's fueled by feeling, the strongest tool there is. That's why advertising, especially political advertising, appeals 100% to feeling, because doing it that way is how you get results.

 

I'm frankly surprised that the numbers of blacks who loathe white people aren't greater than they are.

 

I have a question for you: which riles you up more, hearing about a black attacking a white person or a white attacking a black person? I don't have to hear the answer. Anyone who asks himself that question finds out instantly a few things about himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...