dagblog - Comments for "Perhaps It's the Candidate"

So when presented with facts,

rmrd0000 — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:24:40 +0000

So when presented with facts, you reply with your opinion

Your reply sounds

Peter — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:10:26 +0000

In reply to The nature of science is that

Your reply sounds philosophical and wise but is just old fashioned sandbagging and modern relativism . Bloomberg and other gun control nuts have a huge investment in the false paradigm that more gun control equals less gun violence so they must pay someone to produce cleverly written propaganda that seems to support their invalid claims. Some people are easily led to accept these illusions of enhanced safety through State intervention and infringement of basic rights of citizens who are not and never will be criminals.

With all this political investment, taxpayer costs and public hype they can't admit they were wrong and their gun control schemes have failed to make people safer while other social, demographic or even environmental factors seem to be the reasons for the dramatic decline of gun and other violence.

I don't think people such as Bloomberg are stupid enough to actually believe their own propaganda so they and their minions have an agenda that has nothing to do with reducing crime or making life for the rubes safer.

It may also be inaccurate to claim that the huge increase in the number of guns in the last 30 years caused violent crime to drop dramatically in the US but it is accurate to claim that more guns does not equal more crime.

Sanders comes up with all

ocean-kat — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:23:15 +0000

In reply to He answered that question in

Sanders comes up with all sorts of rationalizations to attempt to explain away his pandering to the gun nuts in his state. He has to pander, all politicians do, to get elected. It wouldn't bother me so much if he didn't spend so much time criticizing others and making like he's so pure. You support him so you want to believe but anyone who's looked at the issue of gun control knows he's bullshitting.

His basic argument is that states should led in legislating gun control. "In my view, decisions about gun control should be made as close to home as possible — at the state level." That's not a solution. That's the biggest problem.

The problem Chicago faces with illegal guns on the streets is the guns bought legally in Indiana and transported to Chicago. No state or city can deal with the problem of gun violence when surrounding states have lax or no gun control. So California's gun laws are subverted as guns flow in from Arizona and Nevada. Legally purchased guns in Virginia are smuggled to NY and NC.

The only way to limit guns and gun violence is by national standards and Sanders knows this. He knows he's spinning bullshit tales to rationalize his pandering to the gun nuts in Vermont. I accept a certain amount of pandering because it's necessary to get elected in a deeply divided nation with so many under educated and misinformed voters. I just wish he'd stop with his holier than thou routine.

The nature of science is that

rmrd0000 — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 05:11:24 +0000

In reply to Your second link is

The nature of science is that one study is not the final answer on a given question. In most circumstances, one waits for confirmatory studies. Your study from 2000, by definition could not include the Missouri study noting an increase in homicides after the state repealed background checks. The Missouri study was published in 2007. The John's Hopkins School of Public Health study was published in 2015. The Hopkins study looked at the impact of background checks in Connecticut. Background checks were associated with a decline in gun homicides. Retread the dates of the data in my linked article.

There is a study in JAMA Internal Medicine from a Harvard epidemiologist published in 2013 that found decreased gun fatalities when gun laws like background checks were high.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

Science does not rest on one study. There is a classic tome "Studying a Study and Testing a Test" that helps avoid pitfalls like citing one study as being definite. It stresses concepts rather than heavy statistical methodology.

Note: I'm assuming that you did not provide a link, but were referring to the Ludwig et. al. study in JAMA from 2000

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192946

Edit to add:

I just read your post regarding the JAMA article. I hadn't read that post before my response to you here. As I thought, you were referring to the 2000 Ludwig article. Science moves on. Other investigators have produced data focusing on specific states with different approaches to background checks. The state analysis is a technique that removes variables that may be missed in a national study like the one done by Ludwig.

Yes, that is the point.

LisB — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 03:01:34 +0000

In reply to It's a good poem, Lis, as

Yes, that is the point. Thanks.

"Gun control nut" is an

jollyroger — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:44:36 +0000

In reply to Your second link is

"Gun control nut" is an oxymoron... Gun RIGHTS nut, on the other hand...

It's a good poem, Lis, as

barefooted — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:42:27 +0000

In reply to Wow. 1600+ reads? For a

It's a good poem, Lis, as yours usually are. I'm glad you put it up.

Your comment likely spurred those that have followed as much as anything ... but that's the point of blogging!

Your second link is

Peter — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:39:48 +0000

In reply to Sanders needn't worry about

Your second link is associated with a Gun Control nut named Bloomberg and uses some facts and some speculation/conflation sans causation to promote a false narrative, the JAMA printed study i referenced in another post contradicts these false conclusions.

They did acknowledge that the fall in gun homicide rates began before Brady and years before Brady was really in effect with the national background check system in 1998.

Wow. 1600+ reads? For a

LisB — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:34:20 +0000

In reply to Perhaps It's the Candidate

Wow. 1600+ reads? For a five-minutes-in-the-making poem? I'm flattered, I think.

I should've posted it in the Creative Corner, but the discussions that took place after the fact were political, so I guess it's okay to keep it where it is. Yes?

Sanders needn't worry about

rmrd0000 — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 01:52:55 +0000

In reply to He answered that question in

Sanders needn't worry about gun retailers. The parents of a woman slaughtered by James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado lost a lawsuit against the gun retailers.There is a Colorado state law that requires plaintiffs who lose a lawsuit against gun retailers to pay court costs. That requirement to pay court costs only goes one-way, in favor of gun retailers. The retailers are OK.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/22/maddow-aurora-shooting_n_742141...

The Brady Bill was associated with a decrease in gun homicides

http://smartgunlaws.org/effectiveness-brady-actbackground-checks/