The success of gun control
Strider
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html
"The gun-control movement is in trouble internationally. From Britain
to Australia to Canada, promises of lower crime rates from gun control
have turned into historic increases in crime.
While the normal knee-jerk solutions are to press for even more
controls, once guns are banned the explanation that the laws failed
simply because they didn't go far enough becomes almost humorous.
All these experiments were adopted under what gun -control advocates
would argue were ideal conditions. All three countries adopted laws
that applied to the entire country. Australia and Britain are
surrounded by water, and thus do not have the easy smuggling problem
that Canada claims to exist with regard to the U.S.
Take the United Kingdom: With new data showing violent crime soaring,
Britain's home secretary announced legislation this month that would
impose an outright ban on many toy guns.
Britain has already banned just about every type of weapon that a
criminal might want to use. Handguns were made illegal in 1997, and
nearly every other firearm (even BB guns) is now subject to a complex
regulatory regime.
Twice As Dangerous
The laws didn't do what was claimed. The government just reported that
gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from
1998-99 to 2002-03. The serious violent crime rate soared by 64%, and
overall violent crime by 118%. The violent crime rate in England and
Wales now stands at twice the rate of that in the U.S.
Understandably, the government wants to "do something," but it is hard
to believe that the new proposals will succeed where past efforts have
failed.
With the exception of the U.S., other English-speaking countries have
followed Britain's lead in limiting gun ownership. Like the British,
they have nothing to show for it.
Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 Port Arthur
gun -control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates
averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from
1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law went into effect.
Armed robbery rates increased 74%. Australia's violent crime rate is
also now double America's.
Canada hasn't gone anywhere near as far as Australia and England, but
even that country's limited restrictions have caused problems. Despite
a gun registration system that has cost 500 times more than promised
(the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. claims the overrun is 1,000 times
greater), the overall crime rate is more than half again higher than
in the U.S. and has risen as the American crime rate has fallen.
Meanwhile, violent crime in the U.S. has fallen much faster than in
Canada, and murders in Canada have gone up slightly, while falling in
the U.S.
The Canadian government recently admitted it could not identify a
single violent crime that had been solved through registration. Public
confidence in the government's ability to fight crime has also eroded,
with one recent survey showing only 17% of voters support the
registration program.
Guns do not tell the whole story: Gangs, police and prisons also play
a major role. Drug gangs can't simply call up the police when another
gang encroaches on their turf, so they end up establishing their own
armies and committing a great many murders. (Gang fights account for
about 60% of all murders in urban areas in the U.S.)
The U.S. has long had a sophisticated and violent gang subculture that
the nation's decentralized system of 16,500 police agencies had a
difficult time handling. England's more centralized 45-agency police
did a better job fighting gangs, but, over time, the gangs have become
more violent, sophisticated and apt at acquiring guns. This has led to
rising gun crime.
Police and prisons probably also account for some of the difference in
crime, though it doesn't explain why the difference has grown so
suddenly. The U.S. also has more police per capita than the U.K.,
particularly in its big cities:
New York and London are roughly the same size, but New York has about
40,000 police officers to London's 29,000.
Failed Schemes
The U.S. also locks up many more criminals: Nearly 500 out of 1
million Americans are serving time behind bars as compared to about
150 per 1 million in the other English-speaking countries. America,
quite simply, keeps more bad guys behind bars where they can't commit
crimes.
Repealing gun control laws might not solve the crime problems in the
U.K. and Australia overnight, but the exploding crime rates (including
gun crime) in countries that have banned all guns shows that we can
add gun control to the list of government planning efforts that do not
live up to their billing. Its failures have become too overwhelming to
ignore.
John Lott Jr, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
in Washington, is author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of
Chicago Press, 2000) and "The Bias Against Guns" (Regnery, 2003).
Follow-up: 3/27/04 A note on laser pointers in Australia
The range of banned weapons in Australia is truly amazing. Some things
such as all the various types of whips can generally be put down to
historical reasons, but others such as laser pointers are very
difficult to explain. Laser pointers in the US usually have power
outputs between 1mW to 5mW, while in Victoria, for instance, nothing
above 1mW is legal. Even up to the 5mW level, eye damage may only
occur "if viewed for a long time though an optical device (i.e.,
binoculars)." Laser pointers that are most commonly used in other
countries, that pose no real risk to people, are banned in Australia."
Strider
Myal
news:7nr5e0di8aaq08066...@4ax.com:
> Australia and Britain are
> surrounded by water, and thus do not have the easy smuggling problem
> that Canada claims to exist with regard to the U.S.
>
Australia may be surrounded by water , but has a huge coastline that is
not patroled by much .
There is regualr drops of drugs and guns from ships passing thru , made
by dinghy to the shore .
There was a load of boat people landed less than 5 kms from Darwin
recently , and were undetected until they actualy landed , disembarked
and asked the locals if this was AU .
A company in QLD was importing conatinerloads of 'scrap metal' , guns ,
second hand and dis asembled . They weredoing a roaring trade in 'scrap'
too .
Some how , the asian gangs seem to be quite capable of getting automatic
weaponry when they wanna have a dust up between gangs , and ita
availiable cheap after their wars too , if you know the right guy to ask
.
When there was a shortage of guns on the street , the thugs simply took
the guns off the cops and security gaurds who had them , and got way
better guns than was otherwise availiable .
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Strider <str...@usit.net> wrote in
>news:7nr5e0di8aaq08066...@4ax.com:
>
>> Australia and Britain are
>> surrounded by water, and thus do not have the easy smuggling problem
>> that Canada claims to exist with regard to the U.S.
>>
>
>Australia may be surrounded by water , but has a huge coastline that is
>not patroled by much .
OTOH, there's not much adjacent to most of it, and where something is,
it's mostly adjacent to nothing much.
--
[Liberty] is a modest and even humble creed, based on a low opinion of
men's wisdom and capacities and aware that, withing the range for which
we can plan, even the best society will not satisfy all our desires.
It is as remote from perfectionism as it is from the hurry and impatience
of the passionate reformer, whose indignation about particular evils
so often blinds him to the harm and injustice that the realization of
his plans is likely to produce. Ambition, impatience, and hurry are
often admirable in individuals; but they are pernicious if they guide
the power of coercion and if improvement depends on those who, when
authority is conferred on them, assume that in their authority lies
superior wisdom and thus the right to impose their beliefs on others.
I hope our generation may have learned that it has been perfectionism of
one kind or another that has often destroyed whatever degree of decency
societies have achieved. With more limited objectives, more patience,
and more humility, we may in fact advance further and faster than we have
done while under the guidance of "a proud and most presumptive confidence
in the transcendent wisdom of this age, and in its discernment."
- F.A. Hayek, "The Constitution of Liberty"
Myal
news:slrnce739k...@jdege.visi.com:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 03:57:05 GMT, Myal <dum...@hotmail.net> wrote:
>>Strider <str...@usit.net> wrote in
>>news:7nr5e0di8aaq08066...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Australia and Britain are
>>> surrounded by water, and thus do not have the easy smuggling problem
>>> that Canada claims to exist with regard to the U.S.
>>>
>>
>>Australia may be surrounded by water , but has a huge coastline that is
>>not patroled by much .
>
> OTOH, there's not much adjacent to most of it, and where something is,
> it's mostly adjacent to nothing much.
>
I camped on the beach along the west coast for a good while .
There is nothing much out there in the ocean but more ocean , and the
ships that cruise around thereon :)
Its not unusual for small boats to drop stuff off , and if you hang
around , a 4x4 will show up later on to pick it up .
The authorities know it happens , but the response time is measured in
days just to get people there .
There was a drop of heroin from a korean ship recently in Vic , the ship
had cruised the AU coast from the west , all along the south and in Vic
some observant bloke reported it as being suspicious and customs chased
after it because it shouldnt have been in AU waters at all
It made the news a while ago , because there was some Korean Govt
official on board , that meant all kinds of things like the Korean ( I
cant remember if it was N or S korea ) govt was behind the drug trade
somehow ...
Its very true , that besides the islands off the north QLD , there is not
a lot of stuff near us of significance , but modern shipping and the lack
of surveilance on the coast makes that alone not mean much .
Rex Tincher
<snip>
>There was a drop of heroin from a korean ship recently in Vic , the ship
>had cruised the AU coast from the west , all along the south and in Vic
>some observant bloke reported it as being suspicious and customs chased
>after it because it shouldnt have been in AU waters at all
>It made the news a while ago , because there was some Korean Govt
>official on board , that meant all kinds of things like the Korean ( I
>cant remember if it was N or S korea ) govt was behind the drug trade
>somehow ...
<snip>
Almost certainly *North* Korean. They are desperate for money, and
the North Korean government has been caught smuggling heroin before.
--
"Fear not him that killeth, but him that hath power to cast into hell."
- Dorothy L. Sayers in _Murder Must Advertise_, regarding drug dealers
like Ben Gelt, founder of the gun control group SAFE Students, who
was arrested as part of an opium-smuggling ring. Source: "Barnes-Gelt's
son charged in D.C. drug raid", Denver Post, 24 Feb 2002
Russ
>On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 03:57:05 GMT, Myal <dum...@hotmail.net> wrote:
>
>>Strider <str...@usit.net> wrote in
>>news:7nr5e0di8aaq08066...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Australia and Britain are
>>> surrounded by water, and thus do not have the easy smuggling problem
>>> that Canada claims to exist with regard to the U.S.
>>>
>>
>>Australia may be surrounded by water , but has a huge coastline that is
>>not patroled by much .
>>
>>There is regualr drops of drugs and guns from ships passing thru , made
>>by dinghy to the shore .
>>
>>There was a load of boat people landed less than 5 kms from Darwin
>>recently , and were undetected until they actualy landed , disembarked
>>and asked the locals if this was AU .
>
>I read in the paper (SF Chron) the other day about a load of boat
>people from Africa who recently crossed the Straight of Gibraltar to
>Spain. This is fairly common, but they usually land at night. This
>particular group landed during the day - on a nude beach. Much
>surprise on all sides. <G>
>Sue
Yep, I'll bet they thought the streets were paved with gold but when
they found the beach paved with naked people, they really didn't want
to go home!
Russ
Stormin Mormon
calling for more laws. Wasn't that the REAL objective?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
www.mormons.com
"Strider" <str...@usit.net> wrote in message
news:7nr5e0di8aaq08066...@4ax.com...
Strider
<cayoung61-#spamblock*-@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well, it has succeeded in terrorizing the sheeple into
>calling for more laws. Wasn't that the REAL objective?
I'm not sure, Chris. It seems to me that most of the gun grabbers are
often the Utopia types, and see the world is such idiotically simple
terms like "if we eliminate guns, everyone will be nice"or "if we
eliminate guns, nobody will get shot" type of crap. They cannot seem
to come close to recognizing, much less dealing with reality. I'm not
so sure that most are as malicious as they are stupid.
Strider
The Watcher
>Gun control, how to make crime easier and more succesful:
>
>http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html
I thought the success of gun control meant putting your rounds where you meant
them to go. ;)
The Watcher
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> It seems to me that most of the gun grabbers are
>> often the Utopia types, and see the world is such
>> idiotically simple terms like "if we eliminate guns,
>> everyone will be nice"or "if we eliminate guns, nobody will
>> get shot" type of crap.
>
>The reverse is also true. Gungoofs like you run around making
>idiotically simply statements like 'if we give everyone guns,
>everyone will be nice'
Got quotes? ;)
>
>Anyone who believes the crap that John Lott writes is a
>simpleminded utopian fool.
For example? Stuff like "Guns don't kill people?"
Rex Tincher
wrote:
<snip>
>For example? Stuff like "Guns don't kill people?"
People who support gun control kill people.
"You can't tell the kids to stop the violence with the mothers running
around like this."
--- Mary Ann Smith, after her son was shot by a Million Mom Marcher
More details at: http://www.tincher.to/mmm.htm
--
"Rowan, who had advocated strict handgun control, found himself
in the center of a gun controversy during the 1980s when he was
arrested and charged with using an unregistered weapon to wound
a teen-ager who intruded into his backyard."
-- "Columnist Carl Rowan dies at age 75", CNN, 23 September 2000
Rex Tincher
wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:50:26 GMT, Strider <str...@usit.net> wrote:
Hunter's Shooting Association - Advanced markmanship for hunters
http://www.huntershooter.com/
--
FAQ For First Time Handgun Buyers by Ken Grubb:
http://www.tincher.to/guntips.htm
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> It seems to me that most of the gun grabbers are
>> often the Utopia types, and see the world is such
>> idiotically simple terms like "if we eliminate guns,
>> everyone will be nice"or "if we eliminate guns, nobody will
>> get shot" type of crap.
>
>The reverse is also true. Gungoofs like you run around making
>idiotically simply statements like 'if we give everyone guns,
>everyone will be nice'
We "gun goofs" are quite realistic. We never expect everyone to behave
no matter what, as you in the leftwing tofu crowd appear to do. We do
note that in every country that bans firearms, it is the old and weak
that suffer the most at the hand of criminals, specifically aided by
YOU.
>
>Anyone who believes the crap that John Lott writes is a
>simpleminded utopian fool.
Lott is far from Utopian. Perhaps you should look up the definition of
the word and alleviate a small part of your ignorance before
displaying it to the world.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=utopian
"u·to·pi·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (y-tp-n)adj.
(1) often Utopian Of, relating to, describing or having the
characteristics of a Utopia: a Utopian island; Utopian novels.
(2) Excellent or ideal but impracticable; visionary: a utopian scheme
for equalizing wealth.
n. Proposing impracticably ideal schemes. "
This describes your schemes to disarm helpless people to make everyone
play nice perfectly.
Strider
n.
A zealous but impractical reformer of human society.
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 2 Jul 2004 14:30:12 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>> <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>>>
>>>> It seems to me that most of the gun grabbers are
>>>> often the Utopia types, and see the world is such
>>>> idiotically simple terms like "if we eliminate guns,
>>>> everyone will be nice"or "if we eliminate guns, nobody
>>>> will get shot" type of crap.
>>>
>>>The reverse is also true. Gungoofs like you run around
>>>making idiotically simple statements like 'if we give
>>>everyone guns, everyone will be nice'
>
>....
>
>> This describes your schemes to disarm helpless people to
>> make everyone play nice perfectly.
>
>Predictably, you come along and provide an example.
Predictably, you offer no justification for the deaths and injuries
you cause by providing criminals with unarmed prey.
Strider
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
***snip***
>>>....
>>>
>>>> This describes your schemes to disarm helpless people to
>>>> make everyone play nice perfectly.
>>>
>>>Predictably, you come along and provide an example.
>>
>> Predictably, you offer no justification for the deaths and
>> injuries you cause by providing criminals with unarmed
>> prey.
>
>And another...
I understand. It's hard for you to defend the indefensible.
Strider
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
***snip***
>
>"Gungoofs like you run around making idiotically simplistic
>statements"
Another simplistic statement from Nisarel, a simpleton.
Go ahead Nisarel, defend the indefensible. Tell me how you justify
disarming women and old people so that they make easy prey for the
breaking-and-entry crowd.
Strider
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 2 Jul 2004 20:16:53 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>
>> ***snip***
>>>
>>>"Gungoofs like you run around making idiotically simplistic
>>>statements"
>>
>> Another simplistic statement...
>
>Dude, you've provided one example after another.
>
>"your schemes to disarm helpless people to make everyone play
>nice perfectly."
>
>"you offer no justification for the deaths and injuries you
>cause by providing criminals with unarmed prey."
>
>It's hilarious watching you spew.
Quit sniveling, Nisel, and try explain yourself.
Strider
Offbreed
Forget having an intelligent conversation with Carl. He has heard every
rebuttal, and it just bounces. He used to hang out in talk politics
guns, and got stomped on a regular basis.
David Moffitt
"Carl Nisarel" <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns951AB59481...@130.133.1.4...
"Unarmed people make good corpses." Pol Pot
David Moffitt
> Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
> > often the Utopia types, and see the world is such
> > idiotically simple terms like "if we eliminate guns,
> > everyone will be nice"or "if we eliminate guns, nobody will
> > get shot" type of crap.
>
> everyone will be nice'
>
> Anyone who believes the crap that John Lott writes is a
> simpleminded utopian fool.
Subject: I learned a new word.... ...find ways to use it in conversation
Hoplophobia is an irrational and morbid fear of guns, a term coined by Jeff
Cooper, from Greek hoplites, weapon. Symptoms may include discomfort,
disorientation, rapid pulse, sweating, faintness and more, at the mere sight
or even thought of guns. Hoplophobes are common and should never be involved
in setting gun policies, though many are hard at work in the rights-denial
movement, and are arguably the greatest threat in the debate. Point out
hoplophobic behavior when you see it, it is dangerous, and sufferers deserve
pity. A hoplophobe (HOP-li-fobe) can often be cured by training, or by a day
at the range. - (www.gunlaws.com).
David Moffitt
"Rex Tincher" <ti...@dnaco.netREMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:pg0be098ttmls8iq1...@4ax.com...
"I stepped out of the bedroom on the second floor and shouted into the
darkness, 'I don't know who you are or what you want, but if you don't get
the hell out of here I'm going to blow your ass off. And if you don't
believe me, listen to this.'
"With that I rammed a shell into the chamber of a shotgun. There is no
mistaking that sound. Within seconds the intruders, or whatever they were,
had fled." -- Dan Rather in his 1977 book, The Camera Never Blinks.
David Moffitt
> Bjórrúnar skaltu Offbreed rista --
>
> > Forget having an intelligent conversation with
>
%%%% Who is John Lott and what did he do to you to hurt your feelings?
"Some said it was fur that took them west, and some said it was gold or
land; but in the last analysis it was the West that took them west...They
were men of violence all, strong men of strong emotion, men who lived with
strength and skill. Ulysses could have marched beside Jedediah Smith,
Crockett could have stormed the walls of Troy. Either would have been at
home among the crews of Drake, Hawkins, or Frobisher." --Louis L'Amour
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
***snip***
>Quit whining like a wuss and take your bitchslapping.
>
Good to see the behavior of a typical leftwing gun grabber on display.
Strider
Offbreed
Know what I get a laugh about?
If a "liberal" or one of the designated victim class makes a complaint,
he gets lots of support and the "conservative" that he is whining about
gets a lot of criticism for not being "sensitive", etc.
But, if a "conservative" makes a complaint, he gets told "Grow up".
Hidden message? "Conservatives" are able to grow up, "liberals" and
victims cannot.
What's it mean? "Liberals" and the victims are retards, unable to "Grow
up".
New subject:
Some of the kids in school are fighting back. Check:
<http://www.frontpagemag.com/Content/read.asp?ID=82>
and:
http://forum.protestwarrior.com/
heheheh, love it.
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 2 Jul 2004 21:50:59 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>
>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>>
>> ***snip***
>>
>>>Quit whining like a wuss and take your bitchslapping.
>>>
>>
>> Good to see the behavior of a typical
>
leftwing gun grabber.
>
>Dude, you've provided one example after another
of the inability of a tofu sucking liberal to defend the indefensible.
How many old people did you get killed tonight Nasarel.
Strider
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 2 Jul 2004 19:37:05 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>
>> ***snip***
>>>>>....
>>>>>
>>>>>> This describes your schemes to disarm helpless people
>>>>>> to make everyone play nice perfectly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Predictably, you come along and provide an example.
>>>>
>>>> Predictably, you offer no justification for the deaths
>>>> and injuries you cause by providing criminals with
>>>> unarmed prey.
>>>
>>>And another...
>>
>> I understand. It's hard for you to defend the indefensible.
>
>"Gungoofs like you run around making idiotically simplistic
>statements"
And yet another.
Gunner
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 2 Jul 2004 20:16:53 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>
>> ***snip***
>>>
>>>"Gungoofs like you run around making idiotically simplistic
>>>statements"
>>
>> Another simplistic statement...
>
>Dude, you've provided one example after another.
>
>"your schemes to disarm helpless people to make everyone play
>nice perfectly."
>
>"you offer no justification for the deaths and injuries you
>cause by providing criminals with unarmed prey."
>
>It's hilarious watching you spew.
And yet another.
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 2 Jul 2004 21:50:59 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>
>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>>
>> ***snip***
>>
>>>Quit whining like a wuss and take your bitchslapping.
>>>
>>
>> Good to see the behavior of a typical
>
>rightwing gungoon on display.
>
>Dude, you've provided one example after another.
>
>"your schemes to disarm helpless people to make everyone
>play nice perfectly."
>
>"you offer no justification for the deaths and injuries you
>cause by providing criminals with unarmed prey."
And yet another.
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Offbreed rista --
>
>> Forget having an intelligent conversation with
>
>people who support John Lott have far more braincells than Nisarel will ever aspire to.
Russ
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> It seems to me that most of the gun grabbers are
>> often the Utopia types, and see the world is such
>> idiotically simple terms like "if we eliminate guns,
>> everyone will be nice"or "if we eliminate guns, nobody will
>> get shot" type of crap.
>
>The reverse is also true. Gungoofs like you run around making
>idiotically simply statements like 'if we give everyone guns,
>everyone will be nice'
>
>Anyone who believes the crap that John Lott writes is a
>simpleminded utopian fool.
Except for that pesky little fact that what John Lott writes is
peer-reviewed. Unlike the crap that a simpleminded utopian fool like
you writes.
Russ
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Russ rista --
>
>> Except for that pesky little fact that what John Lott
>> writes is peer-reviewed.
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
>
>You're a laugh a minute.
>
>None of Lott's books guns were peer-reviewed.
>
>None of Lott's Op-eds are peer-reviewed.
>
>Lott's screwed himself and he'll never publish a peer-review
>article in a top tier journal again.
>
>That's why he's been relegated to writing op-eds.
"Tim Lambert has posted an email from the Stanford Law Review. On the
one hand, it makes clear that Lott didn't take his name off the
article because of the data-coding issue. On the other hand, it seems
that the data-coding issue still isn't resolved. There's an article
(subscription require) in the Chronicle of Higher Education on this.
Here's the most important bit:
In the years since Mr. Lott's first publication, at least six scholars
have published studies that tend to confirm his findings, while at
least four other studies have tended to cast doubt on his findings.
Mr. Donohue noted in an interview that Mr. Lott's research has
convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that
legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime. Even
Mr. Donohue's analysis, which is highly critical of Mr. Lott's, finds
only "modest pernicious effects," in his words.
Mr. Lott's 1997 paper on gun policy was, "to that point, the most
important piece of empirical research that has ever been done in the
social sciences," says Jeffrey S. Parker, a professor of law at George
Mason University. "I doubt that even Ayres and Donohue would dispute
that point."
Mr. Ayres and Mr. Donohue's critique of Mr. Lott's scholarship runs as
follows: The models used by Mr. Lott and his co-authors have not taken
sufficient account of the broad differences between states that permit
the concealed carrying of guns and those that do not.
In particular, Mr. Ayres and Mr. Donohue suggest that the spike in
murders associated with the crack-cocaine epidemic of the late 1980s
was concentrated in urban areas in states with restrictive gun laws,
while states that permitted people to carry concealed weapons in the
1980s tended to be relatively
rural and unaffected by drug violence. That imbalance, Mr. Ayres and
Mr. Donohue say, has given the right-to-carry states an artificial
boost in studies by Mr. Lott and his allies.
In their reply, Mr. Plassmann and Mr. Whitley argue that their
opponents' own data, when properly read, demonstrate immediate
state-level benefits from the legalization of concealed weapons. They
also present new county-level data for the period 1977-2000, which
they say further supports the more-guns, less-crime thesis, whether
one uses their opponents' preferred statistical techniques or their
own.
It is here, in this new 1977-2000 data set, that Mr. Ayres and Mr.
Donohue claim to have identified a serious set of coding errors. Mr.
Plassmann and Mr. Whitley failed to assign dummy variables (which
researchers use as place holders, to stand for meaningful variables
that they may have neglected to
identify) for the states of Alaska, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania
for certain years in their calculations.
Correcting those errors, Mr. Ayres and Mr. Donohue write, "completely
reverse[s]" the paper's conclusions and "restore[s] the conclusion
that concealed-carry laws were associated with increases in crime (or
no effect) for all crime categories." . . .
Mr. Lott replies that the alleged coding errors are irrelevant to the
larger debate. "Whether one believes the regressions in the Plassmann
and Whitley piece or not, just looking at Ayres and Donohue's own
results -- you can't look at the graphs that Plassmann and Whitley
have of Ayres and Donohue's results and not see a significant drop in
violent crime."
"The basic results are not fragile," Mr. Whitley writes in an e-mail
message. "Minor errors in coding would not undermine them (and an
entire literature)." Mr. Whitley says that he could not reply to the
charges in detail because he had not yet had time to carefully review
Mr. Ayres and Mr. Donohue's comments. Because the allegations appear
in a law review rather than a peer-reviewed academic journal, no
third-party scholars have reviewed the claim of coding errors.
Six tables that derive from the same allegedly miscoded data set
appear in Mr. Lott's new book, The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost
Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong (Regnery, 2003).
James Lindgren, a professor of law at Northwestern University, says,
"If Donohue and Ayres's account is as it appears -- and I'm not in a
position to judge that -- then Lott should withdraw the book for
revision."
Mr. Lindgren adds that he believes it extremely unlikely that any
coding errors were the result of a conscious intent to distort the
study's findings. He notes that Mr. Lott has not only shared his data
sets with other scholars, but has made them generally available to the
public on his Web site. "You tend not to do that if you've
intentionally miscoded your variables," he says."
Strider
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --
>
>> On 2 Jul 2004 23:18:49 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>> <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Offbreed rista --
>>>
>>>> Forget having an intelligent conversation with
>>>
>>>people who support John Lott have no braincells
>
>Careful, Mark. You're going to end up in the hospital again and
>depending on the State to pay for your treatments.
That will be a first. You on the other hand live on the dole, so it
may be something Ill ask you for advice on.
Gunner
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --
>
>> On 2 Jul 2004 20:16:53 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>....
>
>>>"Gungoofs like you run around making idiotically simplistic
>>>statements"
>>
>> And yet another.
>
>You are good at making idiot simplistic statements, Mark.
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 3 Jul 2004 03:45:49 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>> <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>>>
>>>> On 2 Jul 2004 21:50:59 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>>>
>>>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>>>>
>>>> ***snip***
>>>>
>>>>>Quit whining like a wuss and take your bitchslapping.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good to see the behavior of a typical
>>>
>>> rightwing gungoon on display.
>>>
>>>Dude, you've provided one example after another
>>
>> of the inability of a
>
>gungoon being able to think for himself.
>
>
And yet Another.
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Stealing material from Glenn Reynold's web site Strider cut-
>n-pasted --
>
>...
>
>> In the years since Mr. Lott's first publication, at least
>> six scholars have published studies that tend to confirm
>> his findings,
>
>All but one of those are published by Lott and his
>colleagues.
Cites?
>
>
>> while at least four other studies have tended
>> to cast doubt on his findings.
>
>More than a dozen have demonstrated that Lott's results are
>wrong.
Cites?
>
>
>
>> Mr. Donohue noted in an
>> interview that Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers
>> of at least one point: No scholars now claim that
>> legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in
>> crime. Even Mr. Donohue's analysis, which is highly
>> critical of Mr. Lott's, finds only "modest pernicious
>> effects," in his words.
>
>So what? It demonstrates that Lott's results are incorrect.
His opinion.
>
>
>> Mr. Lott's 1997 paper on gun policy was, "to that point,
>
>We are well past that point and numerous articles have
>demonstrated that Lott's work doesn't hold up.
Cites?
>
>
>> the most important piece of empirical research that has
>> ever been done in the social sciences,"
>
>That's simple baloney. There are far more important empirical
>research articles out there.
Cites?
>
>> says Jeffrey S.
>> Parker, a professor of law at George Mason University. "I
>> doubt that even Ayres and Donohue would dispute that
>> point."
>
>They would.
Cites?
>
>
>....
>
>> In their reply, Mr. Plassmann and Mr. Whitley argue that
>> their opponents' own data, when properly read, demonstrate
>> immediate state-level benefits from the legalization of
>> concealed weapons.
>
>(Lott), Plassmann & Whitley are wrong and provide no support
>for their opinion.
Cites?
>
>...
>
>> Correcting those errors, Mr. Ayres and Mr. Donohue write,
>> "completely reverse[s]" the paper's conclusions and
>> "restore[s] the conclusion that concealed-carry laws were
>> associated with increases in crime (or no effect) for all
>> crime categories." . . .
>>
>> Mr. Lott replies that the alleged coding errors are
>> irrelevant to the larger debate.
>
>Lott's reply is irrelevant. His results vanish when the
>coding errors are corrected.
Cites?
>
>When Lott finally realized that his results do disappear
>after correcting the coding errors, he changed his model to
>find a new one and he backdated doing it.
>
>That's the mark of a dishonest researcher.
Cites?
>
>...
>
>> "The basic results are not fragile,"
>
>They are quite fragile and depend upon a tightly specified
>and highly multicollinear model.
>
In you humble, biased (and incorrect) opinion.
Strider
Offbreed
>>Dude, you've provided one example after another.
>>
>>"your schemes to disarm helpless people to make everyone play
>>nice perfectly."
>>
>>"you offer no justification for the deaths and injuries you
>>cause by providing criminals with unarmed prey."
>>
>>It's hilarious watching you spew.
>
>
> And yet another.
He has a 'bot set up?
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 3 Jul 2004 17:41:29 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>> <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Stealing material from Glenn Reynold's web site Strider
>>> cut-n-pasted --
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>> In the years since Mr. Lott's first publication, at least
>>>> six scholars have published studies that tend to confirm
>>>> his findings,
>>>
>>>All but one of those are published by Lott and his
>>>colleagues.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2003/07#0728
>
>Where's yours?
I gave you mine. That's what you've been whining about.
Strider
>
>....
>>>> while at least four other studies have tended
>>>> to cast doubt on his findings.
>>>
>>>More than a dozen have demonstrated that Lott's results are
>>>wrong.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>See above.
>
>Where are yours?
>
>
>.
>>>> Mr. Donohue noted in an
>>>> interview that Mr. Lott's research has convinced his
>>>> peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that
>>>> legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in
>>>> crime. Even Mr. Donohue's analysis, which is highly
>>>> critical of Mr. Lott's, finds only "modest pernicious
>>>> effects," in his words.
>>>
>>>So what? It demonstrates that Lott's results are incorrect.
>>
>> His opinion.
>
>It is Reynolds opinion but Glenn hasn't displayed
>particularly honest behavior about his support of Lott.
>
>..
>
>>>> Mr. Lott's 1997 paper on gun policy was, "to that point,
>>>
>>>We are well past that point and numerous articles have
>>>demonstrated that Lott's work doesn't hold up.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>See above.
>
>
>>>> the most important piece of empirical research that has
>>>> ever been done in the social sciences,"
>>>
>>>That's simple baloney. There are far more important
>>>empirical research articles out there.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>You turned into a parrot?
>
>>>> says Jeffrey S.
>>>> Parker, a professor of law at George Mason University. "I
>>>> doubt that even Ayres and Donohue would dispute that
>>>> point."
>>>
>>>They would.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>All one has to do is read Donohue's articles.
>
>>>....
>>>
>>>> In their reply, Mr. Plassmann and Mr. Whitley argue that
>>>> their opponents' own data, when properly read,
>>>> demonstrate immediate state-level benefits from the
>>>> legalization of concealed weapons.
>>>
>>>(Lott), Plassmann & Whitley are wrong and provide no
>>>support for their opinion.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>You turned into a parrot?
>
>
>>>...
>>>
>>>> Correcting those errors, Mr. Ayres and Mr. Donohue write,
>>>> "completely reverse[s]" the paper's conclusions and
>>>> "restore[s] the conclusion that concealed-carry laws were
>>>> associated with increases in crime (or no effect) for all
>>>> crime categories." . . .
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Lott replies that the alleged coding errors are
>>>> irrelevant to the larger debate.
>>>
>>>Lott's reply is irrelevant. His results vanish when the
>>>coding errors are corrected.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>See above.
>
>>>When Lott finally realized that his results do disappear
>>>after correcting the coding errors, he changed his model to
>>>find a new one and he backdated doing it.
>>>
>>>That's the mark of a dishonest researcher.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>You turned into a parrot?
>
>
>>>...
>>>
>>>> "The basic results are not fragile,"
>>>
>>>They are quite fragile and depend upon a tightly specified
>>>and highly multicollinear model.
>>>
>> In you humble, biased (and incorrect) opinion.
>
>You don't even understand what I wrote.
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --
>
>>>Careful, Mark. You're going to end up in the hospital again
>>>and depending on the State to pay for your treatments.
>>
>> That will be a first.
>
>Did your buddies pay for your heart attack hospital bill?
>
>
>> You on the other hand live on the dole,
>
>Just what is your source for that fantasy, Mark?
And yet another.
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 3 Jul 2004 17:41:29 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>> <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Stealing material from Glenn Reynold's web site Strider
>>> cut-n-pasted --
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>> In the years since Mr. Lott's first publication, at least
>>>> six scholars have published studies that tend to confirm
>>>> his findings,
>>>
>>>All but one of those are published by Lott and his
>>>colleagues.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2003/07#0728
>
>Where's yours?
>
>....
>>>> while at least four other studies have tended
>>>> to cast doubt on his findings.
>>>
>>>More than a dozen have demonstrated that Lott's results are
>>>wrong.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>See above.
>
>Where are yours?
>
>
>.
>>>> Mr. Donohue noted in an
>>>> interview that Mr. Lott's research has convinced his
>>>> peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that
>>>> legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in
>>>> crime. Even Mr. Donohue's analysis, which is highly
>>>> critical of Mr. Lott's, finds only "modest pernicious
>>>> effects," in his words.
>>>
>>>So what? It demonstrates that Lott's results are incorrect.
>>
>> His opinion.
>
>It is Reynolds opinion but Glenn hasn't displayed
>particularly honest behavior about his support of Lott.
>
>..
>
>>>> Mr. Lott's 1997 paper on gun policy was, "to that point,
>>>
>>>We are well past that point and numerous articles have
>>>demonstrated that Lott's work doesn't hold up.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>See above.
>
>
>>>> the most important piece of empirical research that has
>>>> ever been done in the social sciences,"
>>>
>>>That's simple baloney. There are far more important
>>>empirical research articles out there.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>You turned into a parrot?
>
>>>> says Jeffrey S.
>>>> Parker, a professor of law at George Mason University. "I
>>>> doubt that even Ayres and Donohue would dispute that
>>>> point."
>>>
>>>They would.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>All one has to do is read Donohue's articles.
>
>>>....
>>>
>>>> In their reply, Mr. Plassmann and Mr. Whitley argue that
>>>> their opponents' own data, when properly read,
>>>> demonstrate immediate state-level benefits from the
>>>> legalization of concealed weapons.
>>>
>>>(Lott), Plassmann & Whitley are wrong and provide no
>>>support for their opinion.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>You turned into a parrot?
>
>
>>>...
>>>
>>>> Correcting those errors, Mr. Ayres and Mr. Donohue write,
>>>> "completely reverse[s]" the paper's conclusions and
>>>> "restore[s] the conclusion that concealed-carry laws were
>>>> associated with increases in crime (or no effect) for all
>>>> crime categories." . . .
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Lott replies that the alleged coding errors are
>>>> irrelevant to the larger debate.
>>>
>>>Lott's reply is irrelevant. His results vanish when the
>>>coding errors are corrected.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>See above.
>
>>>When Lott finally realized that his results do disappear
>>>after correcting the coding errors, he changed his model to
>>>find a new one and he backdated doing it.
>>>
>>>That's the mark of a dishonest researcher.
>>
>> Cites?
>
>You turned into a parrot?
>
>
>>>...
>>>
>>>> "The basic results are not fragile,"
>>>
>>>They are quite fragile and depend upon a tightly specified
>>>and highly multicollinear model.
>>>
>> In you humble, biased (and incorrect) opinion.
>
>You don't even understand what I wrote.
And yet Still another.
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Offbreed rista --
>
>> He has a 'bot set up?
>
>It appears that Mark and Strider have.
Still yet another.
David Moffitt
"Carl Nisarel" <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns951C82BCEC...@130.133.1.4...
> Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
> > <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>Stealing material from Glenn Reynold's web site Strider
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> >>> In the years since Mr. Lott's first publication, at least
> >>> six scholars have published studies that tend to confirm
> >>> his findings,
> >>
> >>All but one of those are published by Lott and his
> >>colleagues.
> >
> > Cites?
>
>
> Where's yours?
%%%% Here is my example of gun control. A man broke into my home while my
wife was alone. She dropped him in the doorway with a 357 magnum.
GUN CONTROL:
The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her
panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how
her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
>
> ....
> >>> while at least four other studies have tended
> >>> to cast doubt on his findings.
> >>
> >>More than a dozen have demonstrated that Lott's results are
> >>wrong.
> >
> > Cites?
>
> See above.
>
> Where are yours?
>
>
> .
> >>> Mr. Donohue noted in an
> >>> interview that Mr. Lott's research has convinced his
> >>> peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that
> >>> legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in
> >>> crime. Even Mr. Donohue's analysis, which is highly
> >>> critical of Mr. Lott's, finds only "modest pernicious
> >>> effects," in his words.
> >>
> >>So what? It demonstrates that Lott's results are incorrect.
> >
> > His opinion.
>
> It is Reynolds opinion but Glenn hasn't displayed
> particularly honest behavior about his support of Lott.
>
> ..
>
> >>> Mr. Lott's 1997 paper on gun policy was, "to that point,
> >>
> >>We are well past that point and numerous articles have
> >>demonstrated that Lott's work doesn't hold up.
> >
> > Cites?
>
> See above.
>
>
> >>> the most important piece of empirical research that has
> >>> ever been done in the social sciences,"
> >>
> >>That's simple baloney. There are far more important
> >>empirical research articles out there.
> >
> > Cites?
>
> You turned into a parrot?
>
> >>> says Jeffrey S.
> >>> Parker, a professor of law at George Mason University. "I
> >>> doubt that even Ayres and Donohue would dispute that
> >>> point."
> >>
> >>They would.
> >
> > Cites?
>
> All one has to do is read Donohue's articles.
>
> >>....
> >>
> >>> In their reply, Mr. Plassmann and Mr. Whitley argue that
> >>> their opponents' own data, when properly read,
> >>> demonstrate immediate state-level benefits from the
> >>> legalization of concealed weapons.
> >>
> >>(Lott), Plassmann & Whitley are wrong and provide no
> >>support for their opinion.
> >
> > Cites?
>
> You turned into a parrot?
>
>
> >>...
> >>
> >>> Correcting those errors, Mr. Ayres and Mr. Donohue write,
> >>> "completely reverse[s]" the paper's conclusions and
> >>> "restore[s] the conclusion that concealed-carry laws were
> >>> associated with increases in crime (or no effect) for all
> >>> crime categories." . . .
> >>>
> >>> Mr. Lott replies that the alleged coding errors are
> >>> irrelevant to the larger debate.
> >>
> >>Lott's reply is irrelevant. His results vanish when the
> >>coding errors are corrected.
> >
> > Cites?
>
> See above.
>
> >>When Lott finally realized that his results do disappear
> >>after correcting the coding errors, he changed his model to
> >>find a new one and he backdated doing it.
> >>
> >>That's the mark of a dishonest researcher.
> >
> > Cites?
>
> You turned into a parrot?
>
>
> >>...
> >>
> >>> "The basic results are not fragile,"
> >>
> >>They are quite fragile and depend upon a tightly specified
> >>and highly multicollinear model.
> >>
> > In you humble, biased (and incorrect) opinion.
>
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --
>
>> On 4 Jul 2004 16:51:22 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>
>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Offbreed rista --
>>>
>>>> He has a 'bot set up?
>>>
>>>It appears that Mark and Strider have.
>>
>> Still yet another.
>
>There it is.
>
>Survivalists like you don't have a chance without guns since
>you lack the brains to use anything beyond brute force.
The mindless 'droid, Nasarel, is attempting to communicate!
It's trying to become human.
Nope, false alarm.
Strider
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 4 Jul 2004 16:51:06 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>
>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>>>
>>>> On 3 Jul 2004 17:41:29 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>>>
>>>>>Stealing material from Glenn Reynold's web site Strider
>>>>> cut-n-pasted --
>>>>>
>>>>>...
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the years since Mr. Lott's first publication, at
>>>>>> least six scholars have published studies that tend to
>>>>>> confirm his findings,
>>>>>
>>>>>All but one of those are published by Lott and his
>>>>>colleagues.
>>>>
>>>> Cites?
>>>
>>>cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2003/07#0728
>>>
>>>Where's yours?
>>
>> I gave you mine.
>
>No, you didn't.
>
>You mindlessly cut-n-pasted an article that Glenn Reynolds
>stole from a magazine.
>
>You aren't even knowledgable enough to know that what you
>copied was full of errors.
>
>...
So, you deny that violent crime has spiraled up since Britain banned
guns?
Try again, leftwing 'droid.
Strider
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 4 Jul 2004 16:51:06 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>
>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>>>
>>>> On 3 Jul 2004 17:41:29 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>>>
>>>>>Stealing material from Glenn Reynold's web site Strider
>>>>> cut-n-pasted --
>>>>>
>>>>>...
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the years since Mr. Lott's first publication, at
>>>>>> least six scholars have published studies that tend to
>>>>>> confirm his findings,
>>>>>
>>>>>All but one of those are published by Lott and his
>>>>>colleagues.
>>>>
>>>> Cites?
>>>
>>>cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2003/07#0728
>>>
>>>Where's yours?
>>
>> I gave you mine.
>
>No, you didn't.
>
>You mindlessly cut-n-pasted an article that Glenn Reynolds
>stole from a magazine.
>
>You aren't even knowledgable enough to know that what you
>copied was full of errors.
>
>...
And yet another....
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --
>
>> On 4 Jul 2004 16:51:22 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>
>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Offbreed rista --
>>>
>>>> He has a 'bot set up?
>>>
>>>It appears that Mark and Strider have.
>>
>> Still yet another.
>
>There it is.
>
>Survivalists like you don't have a chance without guns since
>you lack the brains to use anything beyond brute force.
And yet more of the same.
Stormin Mormon
But, you are very possibly correct.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
www.mormons.com
"Strider" <str...@usit.net> wrote in message
news:f5i9e01c882r55p5k...@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 21:31:02 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61-#spamblock*-@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well, it has succeeded in terrorizing the sheeple into
>calling for more laws. Wasn't that the REAL objective?
I'm not sure, Chris. It seems to me that most of the gun
grabbers are
often the Utopia types, and see the world is such
idiotically simple
terms like "if we eliminate guns, everyone will be nice"or
"if we
eliminate guns, nobody will get shot" type of crap. They
cannot seem
to come close to recognizing, much less dealing with
reality. I'm not
so sure that most are as malicious as they are stupid.
Strider
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 5 Jul 2004 02:40:11 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>
>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --
>>>
>>>> On 4 Jul 2004 16:51:22 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>>>
>>>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Offbreed rista --
>>>>>
>>>>>> He has a 'bot set up?
>>>>>
>>>>>It appears that Mark and Strider have.
>>>>
>>>> Still yet another.
>>>
>>>There it is.
>>>
>>>Survivalists like you don't have a chance without guns
>>>since you lack the brains to use anything beyond brute
>>>force.
>>
>> The mindless 'droid, Nasarel, is attempting to communicate!
>
>Poor Strider. You simply lack the ability to comprehend
>anything beyond simple minded slogans.
>
>
>....
I'm trying to communicate with a simple minded sub human.
Strider
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> So, you deny that violent crime has spiraled up since
>> Britain banned guns?
>
>That's an interesting goalpost move.
>
>BTW, violent crime hasn't "spiraled up" in the UK.
Wrong again, leftwing 'droid:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1446260.stm
http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/pdf_files/key2000i/app4.pdf
Strider
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 5 Jul 2004 13:52:27 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>
>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>>>
>>>> So, you deny that violent crime has spiraled up since
>>>> Britain banned guns?
>>>
>>>That's an interesting goalpost move.
>>>
>>>BTW, violent crime hasn't "spiraled up" in the UK.
>>
>> Wrong again,
>
>Yes, you are wrong again.
Nope.
>
>You are unaware that the 'increase' you point to was caused
>entirely by a change in methodology in how crimes were
>counted.
How many lies do you chose to tell in one thread, Nasarel?
From the BBC site:
"Violent crime in England and Wales is continuing to rise, while
detection rates by police officers are falling.
Home Office figures unveiled on Thursday showed violent crimes
increased by 4.3% in the 12 months ending in March, but 31 of the 43
police forces solved fewer cases.
There are no quick wins on crime - it is a long term investment
David Blunkett
However overall recorded crime has fallen by 2.5% to 5.2 million, with
non-violent crimes like burglaries and car thefts decreasing.
The Home Office says that despite rising crime figures, the rate of
the rise is slowing.
But a number of police chiefs have blamed a change in government crime
policies for the "soaring" statistics, saying the public would be
"unnerved" by the latest findings.
In the report violent crimes showed a large jump for a second year:
Violence against the person up 3.4% to 601,000 offences
Wounding up 18% to 3,200
Racially-aggravated harassment up 15.8% to 12,500
Robbery up 13% to 95,154. "
>
>Using a consistent methodology, the BCS shows a continued
>decrease in violent crime in the UK.
>
Cite?
Strider
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>>>>>BTW, violent crime hasn't "spiraled up" in the UK.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong again,
>>>
>>>Yes, you are wrong again.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Yep.
>
>>>You are unaware that the 'increase' you point to was caused
>>>entirely by a change in methodology in how crimes were
>>>counted.
>>
>> How many lies do you chose to tell in one thread, Nasarel?
>
>I've made no false assertions.
>
>According to the 2003 British Crime Survey "violence has
>fallen by 19 per cent since 1999 and by 24 per cent since
>1997, both statistically significant, due to reductions in
>domestic and acquaintance violence rather than stranger
>assaults."
>
>"In the police statistics, violent crime was one of the crime
>types most affected by the new crime recording standard."
>
>It seems you are either ignorant of the changes in the police
>crime reporting standard, aren't smart enough to understand
>it, or simply dishonest by not noting it.
>
>
Again you lie, Nasarel.
According to the Brit Home Office:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb0604.pdf
The level of violence reported to police rose by 13% in Oct. - Dec
2003 Alone. - See page 3
Strider
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> So, you deny that violent crime has spiraled up since
>> Britain banned guns?
>
>That's an interesting goalpost move.
>
>BTW, violent crime hasn't "spiraled up" in the UK.
Still another.....
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 5 Jul 2004 13:52:27 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>
>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>>>
>>>> So, you deny that violent crime has spiraled up since
>>>> Britain banned guns?
>>>
>>>That's an interesting goalpost move.
>>>
>>>BTW, violent crime hasn't "spiraled up" in the UK.
>>
>> Wrong again,
>
>Yes, you are wrong again.
>
>You are unaware that the 'increase' you point to was caused
>entirely by a change in methodology in how crimes were
>counted.
>
>Using a consistent methodology, the BCS shows a continued
>decrease in violent crime in the UK.
>
Yet another...
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 5 Jul 2004 02:40:11 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>
>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --
>>>
>>>> On 4 Jul 2004 16:51:22 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>>>
>>>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Offbreed rista --
>>>>>
>>>>>> He has a 'bot set up?
>>>>>
>>>>>It appears that Mark and Strider have.
>>>>
>>>> Still yet another.
>>>
>>>There it is.
>>>
>>>Survivalists like you don't have a chance without guns
>>>since you lack the brains to use anything beyond brute
>>>force.
>>
>> The mindless 'droid, Nasarel, is attempting to communicate!
>
>Poor Strider. You simply lack the ability to comprehend
>anything beyond simple minded slogans.
>
>
>....
And yet another.
Maxim
> "Carl Nisarel" <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns951C82BCEC...@130.133.1.4...
> > Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
> > >>> six scholars have published studies that tend to confirm
> > >>> his findings,
> > >>
> > >>All but one of those are published by Lott and his
> > >>colleagues.
> > >
> > > Cites?
> >
> > cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2003/07#0728
> >
> > Where's yours?
>
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> The level of violence reported to police rose by 13% in
>> Oct. - Dec 2003 Alone. - See page 3
>
>From the UK police statistics
>
>“There is a discontinuity in the police recorded trend for
>violence in 1998 when new offence categories were added to
>police recorded violence, notably common assault, and new crime
>counting rules were introduced. The numbers of recorded violent
>crimes before and after this change should not be compared, as
>they are not on the same basis.”
So, if you can't win the game, change the rules?
Strider
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Maxim rista --
>
>> http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html
>
>John Lott's back, posting as his son.
>
>BTW, John, your list is incomplete and you have a strong habit
>of lying by omission.
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>That 'rule change' is the one that created the statistic
>you've been touting, dimwit.
>
>Violent crime in the UK has been declining.
>
Nope. You lie again, Nasarel. I've already posted cites. Yours say
the same thing.
Were you born stupid or is this the result of hard work on your part?
Strider
David Moffitt
> Bjórrúnar skaltu Maxim rista --
>
> > http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html
>
> John Lott's back, posting as his son.
>
> BTW, John, your list is incomplete and you have a strong habit
> of lying by omission.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin A system of licensing and registration is the perfect
device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.
William S. Burroughs After a shooting spree, they always want to take the
guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to
live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the
military.
Gunner
Id have to say..sheer natural talent.
Gunner
"The entire population of Great Britain has been declared insane by
their government. It is believed that should any one of them come in
possession of a firearm, he will immediately start to foam at the
mouth and begin kiling children at the nearest school. The proof of
their insanity is that they actually believe this."
-- someone in misc.survivalism
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> On 6 Jul 2004 19:10:57 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>> <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>>>
>>>> On 6 Jul 2004 13:21:37 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>>>> <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>>>>>
>>>>>> The level of violence reported to police rose by 13% in
>>>>>> Oct. - Dec 2003 Alone. - See page 3
>>>>>
>>>>>From the UK police statistics
>>>>>
>>>>>“There is a discontinuity in the police recorded trend
>>>>>for violence in 1998 when new offence categories were
>>>>>added to police recorded violence, notably common
>>>>>assault, and new crime counting rules were introduced.
>>>>>The numbers of recorded violent crimes before and after
>>>>>this change should not be compared, as they are not on
>>>>>the same basis.”
>>>>
>>>> So, if you can't win the game, change the rules?
>>>
>>>That 'rule change' is the one that created the statistic
>>>you've been touting, dimwit.
>>>
>>>Violent crime in the UK has been declining.
>>>
>> Nope.
>
>Yep.
>
>You're just too butt-stupid to understand what is posted
>above.
>
>The numbers you posted all are related to the warning posted
>above.
>
>"The numbers of recorded violent crimes before and after this
>change should not be compared, as they are not on the same
>basis.”
>
>But, since you're just too butt-stupid, you don't even
>realize that you are making a comparison that "should not" be
>done, according to the organisation that produced the
>statistics.
You are so stupid that I'll bet you flunked special-ed.
Strider
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --
>
>> Id have to say..sheer natural talent.
>
>Both you and Strider do seem to have that talent for sheer
>stupidity.
You are so stupid you tripped over a cordless phone.
Strider
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --
>
>> Id have to say..sheer natural talent.
>
>Both you and Strider do seem to have that talent for sheer
>stupidity.
And yet another.
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
***snip***
Insults from Nasarel who is a few fries short of a happy meal.
Strider
Strider
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Strider rista --
>
>> ***snip***
>
>Poor, Strider, you just can't handle it.
>
>From the UK police statistics
>
>“There is a discontinuity in the police recorded trend
>for violence in 1998 when new offence categories were
>added to police recorded violence, notably common
>assault, and new crime counting rules were introduced.
>The numbers of recorded violent crimes before and after
>this change should not be compared, as they are not on
>the same basis.”
You lie again Nasarel.
Go ahead, try to justify disarming law abiding people, making them
easy prey for criminals, by calling it a reporting error. The victims
don't believe you or any of your other liberal pinheads.
"Twice As Dangerous
The laws didn't do what was claimed. The government just reported that
gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from
1998-99 to 2002-03. The serious violent crime rate soared by 64%, and
overall violent crime by 118%. The violent crime rate in England and
Wales now stands at twice the rate of that in the U.S.
Understandably, the government wants to "do something," but it is hard
to believe that the new proposals will succeed where past efforts have
failed.
With the exception of the U.S., other English-speaking countries have
followed Britain's lead in limiting gun ownership. Like the British,
they have nothing to show for it.
Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 Port Arthur
gun -control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates
averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from
1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law went into effect.
Armed robbery rates increased 74%. Australia's violent crime rate is
also now double America's."
Strider
Gunner
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --
>
>> And yet another
>
>mess by Mark.
>
>BAD PUPPY!
>
>
And yet another
gunner