Yahoo/AP: NY seals 1st state gun laws since Newtown massacre

[AsburySkinsFan]

And you keep ignoring the fact that crime, including those committed with firearms, continues to go down.

Minimally.
If I quoted to you the fact that abortion numbers continue to go down I am guessing you'd respond similarly.
1052 gun related deaths just since Sandy Hook.....and some how we're supposed to think this is acceptable.

[Bang]

And you keep ignoring the fact that crime, including those committed with firearms, continues to go down.

Entirely true. This is why i feel the answer to the relatively small but socially huge problem of psychos getting guns or criminals having guns is in tightening the registration process and being able to police existing laws.

~Bang

[Popeman38]

Minimally.
If I quoted to you the fact that abortion numbers continue to go down I am guessing you'd respond similarly.
1052 gun related deaths just since Sandy Hook.....and some how we're supposed to think this is acceptable.

Where do you get that number?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Where do you get that number?

1068 now.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._shooting.html
this will get dismissed via an ad hominem regarding the source.

[twa]

Where do you get that number?

probably same place he got that abortion numbers were down(which they ain't)

[Popeman38]

1068 now.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._shooting.html
this will get dismissed via an ad hominem regarding the source.

You are seriously going to source a number that is tallied using Twitter? Who verifies that number?

[AsburySkinsFan]

probably same place he got that abortion numbers were down(which they ain't)

More misinformation.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio..._United_States

---------- Post added January-20th-2013 at 05:28 PM ----------

You are seriously going to source a number that is tallied using Twitter? Who verifies that number?

My job is not to do your homework for you.
You got a better source? Let's see how many.

[twa]

More misinformation.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio..._United_States[COLOR="Gold"].

I'm not the one misinformed and using old data that ends when it started to increase again

[Popeman38]

My job is not to do your homework for you.

That is bull****. You post an unverified number as proof of something and then try to push off responsibility or verifying onto me? Let me catch you flogging someone for sourcing FoxNews or Worldnetdaily. Cause everyone knows Slate has a lean. And it ain't to the right.

[Jumbo]

Gun ownership is increasing. More people own guns than ever before in our history. Yet crime involving guns is on a continuing downward slope, as are murders overall and with firearms. Homicide involving firearm (including justifiable) is down 15% over the last 4 years according to the FBI. Without massive reform of gun control and despite the expiration of the AWB. When the debate over the expiration of said ban was being held, it was stated that violent crime and murder would increase. That hasn't happened. Why do we all of a sudden need to massively overhaul laws that regulate firearms when all statistics indicate crimes related to firearms are on a steady decline?

Popeman, here are some other points to consider on this framing that I see from time to time in argument. I suggest that because it suits your (and others') views, you (and others) decide the relationship between the stats (while not questioning their usefulness at all for the same likely reasons) is either causal, one to another (more guns lowers crime), or proof of a negative (proliferation/access/type of guns have no relation to incidence of gun related crimes).

LE agencies largely (understatement) attribute such seeming "improvement" in various "crime stats" (beyond the typical random swings in all such statistical matters) to advances in data accumulation and transmission, and improvements in training and delivery of enforcement services even within troubling budget cutbacks, all as preventative and deterrent measures that impact these figures, when they even claim specific reasons for perceived reduction at all.

The closet "second place" explanations in the mix (not surprisingly) is methodology of how statistics are presented for political or funding-gathering/presetting purposes, and a number of other relevant sociological matters that vary in effect over time, that all play a role in such statistics (i.e. sometimes, and perhaps counter-intuitively to some folks, bad economic conditions run concurrent with lower crimes of violent categories while other categories show increases--like theft, armed robbery, b&e etc which is not counterintuitive).

No one I have ever been around (of many) or read in any related area has attributed any of of the statistical changes you note to "more private citizens having more guns" (nor that human nature has suddenly changed in any statistically meaningful degree).

All of that even meets basic common sense/logical demands when simply thinking on the matter,without any in-depth exposure to it. I submit it's all just also reasonably deduced.

I also will repeat again, that as most people I read of, or know, who are around a great deal of LEO, the majority from the front ranks to every level of leadership consider the proliferation/access/type of civilian armament more a very real part of the problem, not a part of any solution to violent crime. That's just a widely-held opinion among that population. That is also not meant to be conflated with extremist "anti-gun" positions.

[Popeman38]

Popeman, here are some other points to consider on this framing that I see from time to time in argument. I suggest that because it suits your (and others') views, you (and others) decide the relationship between the stats (while not questioning their usefulness at all for the same likely reasons) is either causal, one to another (more guns lowers crime), or proof of a negative (proliferation/access/type of guns have no relation to incidence of gun related crimes).

LE agencies largely (understatement) attribute such seeming "improvement" in various "crime stats" (beyond the typical random swings in all such statistical matters) to advances in data accumulation and transmission, and improvements in training and delivery of enforcement services even within troubling budget cutbacks, all as preventative and deterrent measures that impact these figures, when they even claim specific reasons for perceived reduction at all.

The closet "second place" explanations in the mix (not surprisingly) is methodology of how statistics are presented for political or funding-gathering/presetting purposes, and a number of other relevant sociological matters that vary in effect over time, that all play a role in such statistics (i.e. sometimes, and perhaps counter-intuitively to some folks, bad economic conditions run concurrent with lower crimes of violent categories while other categories show increases--like theft, armed robbery, b&e etc which is not counterintuitive).

No one I have ever been around (of many) or read in any related area has attributed any of of the statistical changes you note to "more private citizens having more guns" (nor that human nature has suddenly changed in any statistically meaningful degree).

All of that even meets basic common sense/logical demands when simply thinking on the matter,without any in-depth exposure to it. I submit it's all just also reasonably deduced.

I also will repeat again, that as most people I read of, or know, who are around a great deal of LEO, the majority from the front ranks to every level of leadership consider the proliferation/access/type of civilian armament more a very real part of the problem, not a part of any solution to violent crime. That's just a widely-held opinion among that population. That is also not meant to be conflated with extremist "anti-gun" positions.

I never stated more guns equals less crimes. I am simply pointing out that as our society moves forward, crime is decreasing. And that as such, massive overhaul of gun control is not necessary.

[Jumbo]

I never stated more guns equals less crimes. I am simply pointing out that as our society moves forward, crime is decreasing. And that as such, massive overhaul of gun control is not necessary.

Well, as long as you obviously spent some real time considering all the matters I addressed there before such a prompt and summary (among other descriptors) dismissal.

"Discussion" on this site so often so interesting. <grin smiley>

[Mad Mike]

1068 now.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._shooting.html
this will get dismissed via an ad hominem regarding the source.

How about dismissed for content?

The sight allows you to click on an icon to see the name of the person killed and a link to the source news story of the info.

A murderer killed himself...
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...age-apartments

A guy who killed his wife apparently with an ice pick, killed himself with a gun...
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...de-4154759.php

A guy who tried to kill his wife kills himself...
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/...6321356641679/

Self defense - Woman Kills Ex-Boyfriend Who Invades Her Home
http://www.cbs7kosa.com/news/details.asp?ID=40287

The police killed someone in a standoff - no other explanation given
http://www.kcbd.com/story/20419324/p...a-turns-deadly

Police: Grandpa killed teen's attacker
http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/india...teens-attacker

Now I'm not going to say that there aren't a whole bunch of deaths that fit the point of your argument there. But in all honesty these types of deaths were found on at least 50% of the links I clicked on. Others, were examples of murders by the type of people least likely to obey gun laws and none that I clicked on included assault weapons (although there may be some).

Bottom line: A site that makes no distinction between justifiable use of a firearm for self defense or by police and murders/accidental deaths is NOT a reliable source.

[Larry]

But in all honesty these types of deaths were found on at least 50% of the links I clicked on.

Just pointing out that, in your attempt to tell us to ignore facts, because of somebody's agenda, you here declare that "at least 50%" of the data you looked at, fit a certain pattern, and you chose to post a sample where 100% of them fit.

(You then followed up with the Standard Talking Point as to why the data that didn't fit your agenda should be ignored, too.)

Bottom line: A site that makes no distinction between justifiable use of a firearm for self defense or by police and murders/accidental deaths is NOT a reliable source.

You then conclude by announcing that we should ignore the web site that posts all of the data (instead of the poster who cherry picks it.)

[Mad Mike]

Just pointing out that, in your attempt to tell us to ignore facts, because of somebody's agenda, you here declare that "at least 50%" of the data you looked at, fit a certain pattern, and you chose to post a sample where 100% of them fit.

(You then followed up with the Standard Talking Point as to why the data that didn't fit your agenda should be ignored, too.)

You then conclude by announcing that we should ignore the web site that posts all of the data (instead of the poster who cherry picks it.)

Just pointing out that you are lying when you say I'm telling anyone to ignore facts.

And your entire post is focused on me rather than the fact that the data is flawed no matter how you paint it.