Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by thedude60, Apr 23, 2014.
there has been a study:
So, which came first? The chicken, or the egg**?
**(And no... I am not interested in debating this question with you going forward... I know that's what you like to do)
I looked at the study. Did they consider illegal firearm ownership? Also is it possible that higher gun related homicides and higher crime rates are not the same? I am actually asking, not being a donkey.
No, it didn't, and it even says as much...
I would like to see a similar study what specifically excludes guns that are illegally used. I suspect the numbers would be vastly different.
I haven't read the full study but it doesn't appear to include legal/illegal ownership or other crimes. It's strictly gun ownership and gun related homicides.
gun laws or no gun laws, lack of opportunity for low income folks, is the main problem in both of these cities
that being said, there are some common sense restrictions and loopholes that could be closed
Being fair, this isn't about these two cities though. It is about a gunphobe ranting about the carry law in Georgia and how deadly it will be. These two cities are just examples that might suggest tight gun laws do not in fact curb gun violence.
So, you advocate free Obama-guns for all? Interesting... One would have to wonder, however, how many of the Obama-gun recipients could qualify for gun ownership. The laws specifically prohibit felons (former or current) from legally possessing a firearm. Of course, with Holder, his pen and telephone, Obama could change this requirement.
I think the takeaway is that gun laws (strict or loose) don't in an of themselves tell you much about the city's predisposition to murder.
Along those same lines, I think the takeaway can also be that gun laws (strict or loose) don't in and of themselves tell you much about the cities predisposition to opera music either...
GIGO, you know?
I blame Atlanta's Republican mayor.
Good point, because a lot of people have made that claim.
Oh wait, no, they made the claim I referenced.
No, but several continue to insist that these statistics actually mean something... So do mine... They're equally instructive.
I really didn't think I would have to explain that one to such a nuanced person as yourself... Go figure.
you are the one who brought up Chicago.
otherwise, i have no desire to be around more guns. as the study shows, more guns = more homicides.
at least they took out the parts about allowing them on college campuses and stadium.
I haven't read this thread at all, but I am currently sitting in the back of a van driving very fast through Georgia to a wedding. Thanks for the advice.
Mean something? Absolutely. But they don't mean what many people assert they do. Hence my point. Yours didn't apply.
Classic Dave Logic™, though. Thanks for giving me a dose, it's been a while.
Yes Chicago had 500 compared to Atlanta's 83 in 2012....
Wish I could say the same... Your nuance permeates this place. It's a difficult job, to be sure, calling you on your so obvious double standards. It's a full time job for anyone, were they so inclined.
Atlanta's population is 440,000, Chicago's is 2.715 million...
This gets back to the point I posted upthread. Statistically, a town of 1,000 with one murder every two years is a much, much more dangerous city (any generic citizen would be over twice as likely to be murdered in any given year) than Chicago. Raw numbers are absolutely meaningless when comparing cities of really disparate sizes.
I'm still not sure if you understand what the word "nuance" means or why you would ever think applying nuance (detail, specificity) would be a bad thing. It's sort of amazing.