It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Should Threaten to Resign if the Congress doesn’t do something this time

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Why can't you just tell me where the 40% number comes from?

What was the before, what was the after?



That is why we don't pay attention to those numbers any more. Its a waste of time.

Ok.... so we don't pay attention to the drops but on the raises?



Here - took about two minutes to find it. Look it up yourself next time. I am not wasting my time trying to educate you.


* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55]


Cited - "Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 6/19/15




posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Below is from an article article in Boston Magazine about a Harvard study done and discussion of crime and gun control


In the 46-page study, which can be read in its entirety here, Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don’t mean there is less crime. As an example, when looking at “intentional deaths,” or murder, on an international scope, the U.S. falls behind Russia, Estonia, and four other countries, ranking it seventh. More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison. “There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, [the latter] is, in fact, false and [the former] is substantially so,” the authors point out, based on their research.

Kates and Mauser clarify that they are not suggesting that gun control causes nations to have higher murder rates, rather, they “observed correlations that nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow guns.”


Source

Just thought it was interesting and would be relevant to the subject.


While the research published by Harvard may show a direct correlation between lower gun-related incidents and less stringent laws, and Boston, specifically, is experiencing an alleged gun crisis, overall, stricter rules on firearms in Massachusetts has seemingly led to fewer deaths, according to the latest data available, putting the state in the second to last slot for the lowest number of reported fatalities nationwide.


Since we are way past the point of eradicating the guns already in the US, it stands to reason that gun control is only going to effect the legal owners and any chance at their defense of an assailant.


More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison. “There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, [the latter] is, in fact, false and [the former] is substantially so,” the authors point out, based on their research.




edit on 1/10/15 by spirit_horse because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel
www.justfacts.com...



As you see, it went down after the ban along with murders, and the increase is based on this

Calculated with data from the footnote above. The averages were calculated by averaging the data from all years in which the ban was effective for at least 6 months of the year.

So can you really say it was the law that caused this or something else that started 5 years later when it spiked contributing to most of the increase.
www.nytimes.com...
Huh, guess it was nation wide, war on drugs?

See, crazy how I linked stuff and explained what I am saying huh?

edit on stThu, 01 Oct 2015 22:15:07 -0500America/Chicago1020150780 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Don't tell me what they've done, or haven't done, as the case may be. I see that as clearly as you do.

You've put the issue out there. What should Congress, in their infinite capacity for FUBAR'ing, do about school massacres. You've implied that there is a solution. Let's hear it.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Willtell

I agree, he should resign.

That way, he can at least do one good thing during his administration.


Dang skippy. That would be the first thing that he did that would be for the people and the US. Aso , It would be one of the first Constitutional acts he has done




posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: spirit_horse

lol, if I pointed out how effective Australia's gun laws have been at eliminating mass murders and lowering overall murder rates, you would come back at me saying there totally different cultures and can't be compared.

Yet, you have no problem using Estonia and Russia to try and prove stricter regulations wouldn't work in the states.

The hardcore anti-gun regulation advocates are incapable of even putting forward a consistent argument.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I believe this shooting happened in a gun free zone?
Gun free zones need to be armed for protection, you get where I'm going with this?

It would if been a deterant if the teachers where armed.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Lol, calm down.
All I was asking was for you to simply show the numbers, the ones that you say are manipulated.

I am not just going to take your statement as it went up 40% as fact, I want you to back it up. When did the 40% increase happen, how long did it last, was it sustained. I know you like to just take things as fact, I don't.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
IT IS YOUR JOB TO SHOW IT, NOT MINE. YOU MAKE THE CLAIM, BACK IT THE HELL UP NOT JUST REGURGITATE WHAT YOU READ ON SOME BLOG. See I can type in all caps too, does that make me more right now?!

You say we can't trust the drops because they are manipulated but the rise in numbers needs to be trusted.
So which is it? Is Chicago famous for fudging the numbers or not?
Funny that you trust them when they show one thing but not the other.....

No, I will not stop denying ignorance.


That is where you are wrong. I don't work for you.

When I doubt something someone says I go look for the proof myself. Unless I 100% know the answer already, I at least make a good faith effort to find out if they are correct or not. Then I deny the inaccuracy if I determine it to be so. You deny first, then demand proof your denial is unfounded. That is BS. Get off your lazy butt and go do your own research. I don't owe you a damn thing. You owe everyone on this, and every other thread the benefit of the doubt until YOU determine whether their information is suspect or not.

Oh, I didn't ask you to stop denying ignorance. I asked you to stop practicing it.
edit on 2-10-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vroomfondel
www.justfacts.com...



As you see, it went down after the ban along with murders, and the increase is based on this

Calculated with data from the footnote above. The averages were calculated by averaging the data from all years in which the ban was effective for at least 6 months of the year.

So can you really say it was the law that caused this or something else that started 5 years later when it spiked contributing to most of the increase.
www.nytimes.com...
Huh, guess it was nation wide, war on drugs?

See, crazy how I linked stuff and explained what I am saying huh?


I like how you select only the parts that support your view but left out the parts that deny it. To be accurate you have to look at the whole report. To do any less is intentionally being disingenuous. Crazy huh...

The first graph you showed [52] and its summary refer to the total murder rates and not just handguns and is not applicable. I was clearly referring to The HANDGUN Ban of 1982 and its affects on violent crime. But you knew that and ignored it.

This is the notation for your second graph [54]:
[54] Graph constructed with data from Amicus Brief No. 08-1521: McDonald v Chicago. By Maureen Martin and Nancy Lee Carlson. Heartland Institute. www.americanbar.org...

The statement for the second graph:
* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55]

And the cited reference for the second graph:
[55] Calculated with data from the footnote above. The averages were calculated by averaging the data from all years in which the ban was effective for at least 6 months of the year.

[56] "2005 Chicago Murder Analysis Report." Chicago Police Department. Table 6 (page 25), Table 7 (page 26), and Figure 13 (page 27). portal.chicagopolice.org...

If you isolate a single piece of information and ignore the cited references you can easily draw your own conclusion, especially if you don't know how to read a graph. When you consider all the information as it is presented, which is done for a reason, then it becomes clear what the report is saying.

I will congratulate you on actually doing something yourself for once. Now all you have to do is learn how to do it correctly. You cant cherry pick the parts you like and ignore the rest. That is not valid research and leads to false contrived conclusions.

Like I said before, if I doubt something someone has said, unless I absolutely know the answer for a fact, I will at least make a good faith effort and check it out for myself before denying what they are saying. You just deny at will then demand people expend the extra effort to convince you that you are wrong. And all you have to support your view of how it should work is a clip from some blog. Sorry, but I don't work for you. I believe people deserve the benefit of the doubt until I find reason to believe they are wrong. You just deny whatever you feel like denying and act like you won something if people fail to supply you with enough evidence to convince you otherwise. And you don't accept the evidence they do provide. You conveniently set yourself up as judge and jury when in reality you are neither. You may get away with that with other people but not with me.
edit on 2-10-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I have a salient question:

I assume the OP wants to ban guns. OK. In effect, our laws already ban illegal aliens and yet we have around 11 million of them here, give or take. If we are told that it is impractical to go and round them up and deport them because they simply cannot be found, then what makes the OP think it will be any easier to round up the 300 million or so legally owned firearms he plans to subsequently outlaw?

It's not as if the owners are going to voluntarily turn them in and in many cases, there will be no easy way to track them. See New York's attempts at forming a registry.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well, it probably doesn't make sense to you, because your clearly being overly dramatic. Obviously the US will 'never' pass laws that makes even half of the over 300 million guns illegal to own.

Even in Australia, where your not even allowed to own a firearm for the purpose of protection, we still have over 3 million guns, in a country of just 23 million. Canada has over 10 million guns, in a country of 35 million.

Obviously the US government would never take the right to own a gun for personal protection away from law abiding citizens. Its not what Obama is proposing, he clearly stated in his speech it was completely reasonable to own a gun for hunting, sport and protecting your family.

All Obama (and other gun regulation advocates) is proposing, is a universal licensing & registry system and to shut down private loophole sales. To make it 'harder' for criminals to obtain guns and basically impossible for the disturbed socially isolated people who usually carry out mass shootings to obtain a firearm.

Fact is, the sky wouldn't collapse and the world wouldn't end. Basically, every mentally stable responsible gun owner would be allowed to keep there gun(s).

But anyway... Its not really my problem to worry about, right? Wouldn't want to cause any US citizens to bust a blood vessel, from having a foreigner talk commonsense about gun control in the US.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join