How's That Working For Ya Venezuelans?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-24-2017, 05:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How do I undermine myself by making that claim?  It's blatantly true.  Gun owners are not truthful about the number and type of guns they own to people they do not trust.  This would obviously include a guy on the phone taking a "survey".  There are many reasons for this, chief among them being they don't want their home to be a target for burglary.

Yup...

"Excuse me sir, I am a totally unaccredited stranger on the phone who will gladly assure you that I am legit. Knowing that I likely have your address because I am calling your phone number, approximately how many thousands of dollars worth of easily portable things do you keep inside of your gun cabinet or safe?"

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 03:47 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: "Oh hey, you guys had to win court decisions after court decision and constantly resisted Obama's endless attempts to make more and more strict gun laws. Why did you pretend Obama wanted to take your guns when you still have them?" 

Let us see who is really pretending here.

Please list every law President Obama proposed that would have kept anyone from having a gun who should be entitled to own one (not a crazy person or convicted violent felon).

I'll wait.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-24-2017, 05:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Let us see who is really pretending here.

Please list every law President Obama proposed that would have kept anyone from having a gun who should be entitled to own one (not a crazy person or convicted violent felon).

I'll wait.

There are none, I'll freely admit.  However, this is due to their not being the votes to achieve this, not because Obama didn't want to expand gun control laws.  Obama himself would admit that. 

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 03:47 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I will gladly answer your questions when you point out where I said "if citizens have their guns, there will be no violence". I simply said it sure would be nice to be able to defend yourself against the violence and/or feed yourself with hunting while you're slowly starving to death.

I don't understand.

Why did you post a story about gun confiscation and violence if you feel there is no connection between the two?

Are you willing to take a position that is worth debating?  Or are you just going to beone of those guys who like to makes comments but never wants to stand behind them?

Do you feel there would have been less violence in Venezuela if everyone had a gun?  Or do you think it does not make any difference.  and if it doesn't make any difference than why did you post this article?

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There are none, I'll freely admit.  However, this is due to their not being the votes to achieve this, not because Obama didn't want to expand gun control laws.  Obama himself would admit that. 

But "gun control laws" do not mean "take everyones guns".

Requiring background checks will not take any guns away from any law abiding citizens.  Neither will requiring the registration of all guns.

This is what the fear mongerw do.  They oppose reasonable gun control laws by using the lie "They are trying to take away all of our guns!"

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-24-2017, 05:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't understand.

Why did you post a story about gun confiscation and violence if you feel there is no connection between the two?

Are you willing to take a position that is worth debating?  Or are you just going to beone of those guys who like to makes comments but never wants to stand behind them?

Do you feel there would have been less violence in Venezuela if everyone had a gun?  Or do you think it does not make any difference.  and if it doesn't make any difference than why did you post this article?

I think you understand plenty well, it's just that you're Fred, so therefor you must "not understand" while making ridiculous claims about peoples posts that had nothing to do with the original message. It's kind of your bread and butter on the boards.

This thread has to do with gun confiscation happening, and then just a couple years later someone is trying to become the dictator of Venezuela by trying to steal the power of the legislative branch away, and trying to bribe the military into being his lackeys.

[fredtoast]

(04-23-2017, 03:44 PM)pSociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, so please feel free to cite statistics that prove me wrong.

(04-23-2017, 11:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't buy the numbers in that study at all.

Yeah, feel free to post any statistics you want.  It won't make any difference because I ignore anything that proves m,e wrong.

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 06:01 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I think you understand plenty well, it's just that you're Fred, so therefor you must "not understand" while making ridiculous claims about peoples posts that had nothing to do with the original message. It's kind of your bread and butter on the boards.

This thread has to do with gun confiscation happening, and then just a couple years later someone is trying to become the dictator of Venezuela by trying to steal the power of the legislative branch away, and trying to bribe the military into being his lackeys.

I still don't see your point.

I am claiming that the civil unrest in Venevuela has zero to do with any gun laws.  And to support my position I can point to lots of countries with very strict gun laws that are not suffering from an epidemic of violence.  But then again, I can see the real problems instead of trying to project them onto some silly gun control argument that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

You are trying to make a connection where none exists.  The problems in Venezuela would not have been any different right now if there had been some different gun laws.

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 05:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yup...

"Excuse me sir, I am a totally unaccredited stranger on the phone who will gladly assure you that I am legit. Knowing that I likely have your address because I am calling your phone number, approximately how many thousands of dollars worth of easily portable things do you keep inside of your gun cabinet or safe?"

Yup.  All gunowners know that they have to keep their gun ownership a big secret so that they will be safe.  That is why we see these all over the place.










So inorder to protect yourself from crime you need to own a gun, put a sign in your yard advertising the fact that you have a gun, but at the same time keep the fact that you own a gun a big secret so no o0ne will breakl into your house.

Is that how it works?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-24-2017, 05:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But "gun control laws" do not mean "take everyones guns".

They don't necessarily mean that, no.  Nor is today's "reasonable" gun control measure that last one that will be sought.

Quote:Requiring background checks will not take any guns away from any law abiding citizens.  Neither will requiring the registration of all guns.

Not right away.  As I've pointed out frequently, one need look no further than CA to see how "reasonable" gun control consistently creeps towards banning more and more firearms and accessories.

Quote:This is what the fear mongerw do.  They oppose reasonable gun control laws by using the lie "They are trying to take away all of our guns!"

I oppose taking away the rights of any citizen without a very good reason backed up by data.  Look up the CA handgun registry.  Look up the new legislation passed in CA regarding semi-automatic rifles.  Look up Proposition 63.  You denying the end game doesn't change the end game.  Point blank, gun owners don't trust gun control legislation and recent actions have shown they shouldn't.

(04-24-2017, 06:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote:

Yeah, feel free to post any statistics you want.  It won't make any difference because I ignore anything that proves m,e wrong.

It doesn't "prove" anything.  I've already pointed out my issues with this very flawed study.  Disagree if you like, but I've given my reasons.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-24-2017, 06:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yup.  All gunowners know that they have to keep their gun ownership a big secret so that they will be safe.  That is why we see these all over the place.










So inorder to protect yourself from crime you need to own a gun, put a sign in your yard advertising the fact that you have a gun, but at the same time keep the fact that you own a gun a big secret so no o0ne will breakl into your house.

Is that how it works?

Please recall my argument on concealed carry vs. open carry and why the former makes sense and the latter is stupid.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-24-2017, 05:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Let us see who is really pretending here.

Please list every law President Obama proposed that would have kept anyone from having a gun who should be entitled to own one (not a crazy person or convicted violent felon).

I'll wait.

Pretty sure that Federal gun law prohibits all felons from gun ownership.  No need to add a modifier like "violent".

(04-24-2017, 05:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But "gun control laws" do not mean "take everyones guns".

Requiring background checks will not take any guns away from any law abiding citizens.  Neither will requiring the registration of all guns.

This is what the fear mongerw do.  They oppose reasonable gun control laws by using the lie "They are trying to take away all of our guns!"

Pretty sure that background checks are already in place.  How about proper enforcement of the laws already on the books?  Example?  The young fellow that shot the black folk in SC was shown to be mentally unstable.  Had they enforced the existing law, he would have never been allowed to purchase a gun. If anything, with the uptick in domestic terror attacks in recent years, perhaps the law should be expanded to include all immigrants and foreign Nationals, until they are fully vetted and demonstrate a lifestyle of peaceful enjoyment? 

As for second part of bolded, perhaps handguns, as they are so often used in "violent crimes".  Forcing otherwise law abiding folk to submit their hunting/farming tools to undue tracking is an intrusion of their rights to privacy and anonymity as private citizens, IMO. 

[xxlt]

(04-24-2017, 10:43 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Damn it, I was going to link it to global warming or the imminent threat, ultimately realized, of a black man in the White House. But no, this is it. Internet Explorer is the cause. Indisputable.

[xxlt]

(04-24-2017, 02:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Just to focus you a little bit here.  No one was disputing gun ownership was up and that crime is down. What is disputed is any causal relation between gun owner ship and lower crime.

You want to "stick to provable facts" and claim gun ownership is up.
But then you yourself undermine ownership stats by claiming gun owners do not report honestly.

By he way, flawed research is at least research. It is something, and may be corrected.  You talk about "outliers" while offering story about a single incident in Iowa. Then you state  "The basic point is that the higher the sample size the more reliable the data."  So what is unreliable about "sample size" based upon crime data of entire states and nations?  It appears you plucked a rule out of the air and claimed it applied to my sources, without explaining how.

Then after raising the issue of sample size, you inform me I am talking to a man who "deals with criminal behavior for a living" by way of dismissing the correlation I made between a drop in alcohol use and a drop in crime.  I guess sample size and "outliers" are no longer a problem when talking about your experience?  

Were I writing an article for a law review or a political science text on guns and crime, I could not refute a statistical correlation between alcohol use and violent crime by citing your claim that "it,s not so much"--even if I add a footnote explaining that "SSF is a cop who deals with criminals every day and this is his impression."  Yet you appear to believe yourself a perfectly reliable source whose impressions trump statistical data complied in multiple sites by professional researchers.

Further, if after offering your impressions, you blow off reasonable, supported arguments with answers like "your data sucks,"  "throw a dart," and "shut your pie hole," while calling your opponent "desperate" you are really undermining any claim to know what you are talking about.  Your argument reduces to "I just know" plus ad hominem.

So?!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-24-2017, 08:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Pretty sure that Federal gun law prohibits all felons from gun ownership.  No need to add a modifier like "violent".



Pretty sure that background checks are already in place.  How about proper enforcement of the laws already on the books?  Example?  The young fellow that shot the black folk in SC was shown to be mentally unstable.  Had they enforced the existing law, he would have never been allowed to purchase a gun. If anything, with the uptick in domestic terror attacks in recent years, perhaps the law should be expanded to include all immigrants and foreign Nationals, until they are fully vetted and demonstrate a lifestyle of peaceful enjoyment? 

As for second part of bolded, perhaps handguns, as they are so often used in "violent crimes".  Forcing otherwise law abiding folk to submit their hunting/farming tools to undue tracking is an intrusion of their rights to privacy and anonymity as private citizens, IMO. 

I pointed out in another thread how a newspaper published the names and addresses of gun permit owners.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/

Yeah, there's nothing to worry about from a list of gun owners.  Watch the crickets.

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 07:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please recall my argument on concealed carry vs. open carry and why the former makes sense and the latter is stupid.

What does concealed carry have to do with putting a sign in your front yard.

You claim gunowners are afraid to let anyone know they own a gun because it would make them a target for crime.  I post examples of signs gunowners put on their property to advertise the fact that they own a gun.

What does any of that have to do with concealed carry.

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 08:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Pretty sure that background checks are already in place.  How about proper enforcement of the laws already on the books?  Example?  The young fellow that shot the black folk in SC was shown to be mentally unstable.  Had they enforced the existing law, he would have never been allowed to purchase a gun.

No.  You are 100%$ wrong.  Anyone can buy a gun from a private party in South Carolina with no background check at all, even a mentally ill convicted violent felon.

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 11:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I pointed out in another thread how a newspaper published the names and addresses of gun permit owners.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/

Yeah, there's nothing to worry about from a list of gun owners.  Watch the crickets.

I can't hear the crickets over the crying of a bunch of gunowners over NOTHING happening.

But this is a perfect example of how the people brainwashed by the NRA think.  They take the fact that nothing happened as proof that something is going to happen.  How many gunowners have had terrible things happen to them because they put up a sign letting everyone know they own a gun?  That has been going on for a whille, so what is the worst that has happened so far?

Again I ask, if it is so terrible for anyone to know you own a gun why do so many gunowners buy signs to post so that EVERYONE KNOWS THEY OWN A GUN?

[Dill]

(04-23-2017, 11:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't buy the numbers in that study at all.  Gun owners aren't going to be up front with poll takers anymore, likely never again.

Same point, I don't think people are even remotely honest with survey takers in this regard.  feel free to disagree, but also realize that Trump is president after every poll showed otherwise. (I'd point out that I predicted otherwise, for months)

Or perhaps your data sucks ass?

Haha, please.  You're talking to a man who deals with criminal behavior for a living.  Alcohol has a large effect on crimes like battery, and DV.  Burglary, robbery, etc. not so much.

I see you're unfamiliar with statistics, despite your claims otherwise.  Allow me to explain.  My father's family is from a comparatively underpopulated section of Iowa.  When he was a kid a woman killed her six children by throwing them in a well.  According to your amazing statistics the per capita murder rate for that area was immense!  It was also a bullshit statistic.  Research outliers and their effect on statistics.  The basic point is that the higher the sample size the more reliable the data.  But you knew that, being a student of statistics and all.

Let's go back to your Iowa story for a moment.

You have indeed "disputed" the gun ownership stats I offered claiming that gun owners are not honest with surveyors.  Apparently you are so confident about this you have not demonstrated that you have looked into how the statistics in my sources were compiled.  A little patience would have enabled you to see that different researchers working on different projects for different institutions have compiled and shared and cross-referenced gun ownership stats for decades, controlling for "no response" answers and using means other than surveys to arrive at the current trend of proportionally fewer households owning guns and more gun owners owning more guns.  There is no special reason to distrust the stats showing a downward trend in the percentage of households owning guns.

You trust gun ownership statistics when you think they support what you want to believe--more people own guns. Then they are "provable facts." And you stop there.  But when they don't support what you want to believe they "suck."  Or do you have an alternative set of gun ownership stats based upon truthful gun owners? 

Your Iowa story is the basis of a claim that the gun ownership stats are based upon a small sample size.  Nothing in any of my sources supports this claim.  you tell a story about outlier distortion. Claim it affects the stats offered. But do not show this at all. You do not identify any sample size. You do not at all discuss how the sources compiled their data.  I have pointed out that a sample size of STATE and NATIONAL statistics is involved in producing gun ownership stats. I add now (since I have to) that these do not only rely on "surveys." They also correlate, for example, the rate of gun deaths with the rate of ownership. These factor in, among other things, ALL GUN DEATHS in states and the nation, not to mention data like gun registration and gun purchases in some states.  Those who die by guns do not get to lie to statisticians.  

There is a larger, national dimension to your beef with the facts in this case. Scientifically compiled statistical knowledge is disputed by our president and his supporters on an almost weekly basis (his win often cited as a supposed failure of statistical science). And it is disputed on the basis of their instinct or gut feeling or what they just "know."  In line with this trend, you, when confronted with an array of statistical data you claim "sucks," substitute methodological critique and any data of your own with your private experience. 

National trends in crime and gun ownership are suddenly to be decided by whether your opponent knows police work better than you.  

You are hardly the first person in this forum confront uncomfortable statistics with no more than your own hunch and deal of bravado.  The Trump role model is aptly followed by others.

But you could probably save us all some time and ink if, instead of challenging people to post stats you'll blow off without examining, you just made clear that personal experience will your ultimate criterion whatever anyone else puts up.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-25-2017, 12:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What does concealed carry have to do with putting a sign in your front yard.

Thick as pancake batter at times.

Quote:You claim gunowners are afraid to let anyone know they own a gun because it would make them a target for crime.  I post examples of signs gunowners put on their property to advertise the fact that they own a gun.

No, I didn't.  Your habit of deliberate misstatement of the points of others incessantly annoying.  I said almost no gun owner is going to be honest about what, and how many, guns they own to a dude on the phone.  Far more gun owners do not have such signs on their property for the same reason.  Or is your inane assertion that the majority of gun owners display such signs?

Quote:What does any of that have to do with concealed carry.

Again, thick.  The point of concealed carry is that it does not broadcast the fact that you are armed.  Not knowing if a potential victim is armed or not makes a criminal less likely to victimize them.  Broadcasting the fact that you are carrying a gun simply makes you a great candidate to be robbed of your firearm.  The same holds true with your home.  This is not a complicated point.

(04-25-2017, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I can't hear the crickets over the crying of a bunch of gunowners over NOTHING happening.

How do you know nothing happened as a result of this list being published?  Are you defending such publication?

Quote:But this is a perfect example of how the people brainwashed by the NRA think.

Typical tactic on your part, anyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed by the NRA, the Fox "echo chamber", right wing talking heads, etc.  You're pathetically predictable.  It saddens me that your two sock puppets eat up everything you shovel out. 

Quote:They take the fact that nothing happened as proof that something is going to happen.  How many gunowners have had terrible things happen to them because they put up a sign letting everyone know they own a gun?  That has been going on for a whille, so what is the worst that has happened so far?

Who knows?  Are you saying you have definitive evidence to prove your point or are you pulling statements out of your posterior?

Quote:Again I ask, if it is so terrible for anyone to know you own a gun why do so many gunowners buy signs to post so that EVERYONE KNOWS THEY OWN A GUN?

Calm down Captain CapsLock.  I don't know a single gun owner that does, and I know hundreds.  Do you have numbers on how many gun owners have such signs on their lawn?  If so, please enlighten us brainwashed denizens of the echo chamber.