Forums

[JimDandy75]

Then lets get you on the record.

Do you believe an individual has a right to keep and bear arms?

Do you believe an individual has the right to print and distribute hate speech? Advocating the return of slavery? Japanese Internment camps? Petitioning the government for the consolidation and reeducation of the LGBT community?

[-Alex]

Yes, to all of the above.

Do you?

[JimDandy75]

Yes.

Do you believe the government should spend tax revenue on initiatives that have been proven to have no appreciable affect on what they're trying to regulate?

[beenthereanddonethat]

Yes.

Do you believe the government should spend tax revenue on initiatives that have been proven to have no appreciable affect on what they're trying to regulate?

Really? Isn't that what is done on a daily basis right now? The congress putting stupid laws to a vote knowing all the while it will be vetoed by the president? (Abortion) They have wasted this nation's time, DAILY! Who are they? Look to yourself and the teaparty!!!
Gun Laws! Oh that just really gets the gut going doesn't it? Get a gun and rob a bank.....Own a bank and rob everyone.....right? I have three gun safes (FULL) what ever caliber you want. People like you do NOT own this discussion. There has been a discussion of arming this nation to take out the present administration. Really? Is that how this nation was meant to run? Get real! Close the gun show and internet sales and impose background checks! Tell me how that infringes on your precious 2nd ammendment!!!

[-Alex]

Do you believe the government should spend tax revenue on initiatives that have been proven to have no appreciable affect on what they're trying to regulate?

No. If there is a consistent body of evidence that has shown thoroughly that an initiative does not yield any appreciable result for it's stated goals, and money is being spent continually on that initiative, then that part of the budget and the initiative should be removed.

[mel bradford]

Very well spoken....lets eliminate about 80% of what the Federal government does....or think they can do....but by law have no business doing.

[JimDandy75]

No. If there is a consistent body of evidence that has shown thoroughly that an initiative does not yield any appreciable result for it's stated goals, and money is being spent continually on that initiative, then that part of the budget and the initiative should be removed.

Like an Assault Weapons Ban? I can show you a list of all 50 states, and DC, that shows restrictive and permissive gun laws have no effect on gun crime. I can give you a link to it if you want. Sorted so the lower homicide rates are the "top ten" most of them are permissive states. But #2 is a Red State. At the bottom, it turns into a half/half permissive/restrictive. 18 states are restrictive. 8 are in the top 26. 10 are in the bottom 26. I didn't actually count it up yet, but eyeballing it, the restrictive states look to be concentrated in the bottom of the middle.

There's a stronger correlation to geography than gun laws. There's a stronger correlation to population density than gun laws.

[-Alex]

Like an Assault Weapons Ban?

Like anything that is shown to have no effect.

I can show you a list of all 50 states, and DC, that shows restrictive and permissive gun laws have no effect on gun crime.

A list? I think you're going to need more than just a list to produce a consistent body of evidence to show it has no effect. Like a controlled study, or as close as we can get. But that is a place to start. And I would love to open up more research opportunities to that.

Sorted so the lower homicide rates are the "top ten" most of them are permissive states. But #2 is a Red State. At the bottom, it turns into a half/half permissive/restrictive.

So, it's a list that shows there isn't much correlation or unclear correlation between homicide rates and various gun laws.

There's a stronger correlation to geography than gun laws. There's a stronger correlation to population density than gun laws.

That's understandable!

Now, I would appreciate it if you would apologize, for purposefully putting words into my mouth, not saying it was your opinion, saying I am willing to throw out any Scotus decision, saying I disagree with your rights, and not showing an ounce of evidence of how the only conclusion to draw is that I must be anti-gun (and anti-vote) and can't be anything else.

[JimDandy75]

Now, I would appreciate it if you would apologize, for purposefully putting words into my mouth, not saying it was your opinion, saying I am willing to throw out any Scotus decision, saying I disagree with your rights, and not showing an ounce of evidence of how the only conclusion to draw is that I must be anti-gun (and anti-vote) and can't be anything else.

I think not. Especially as you're doing the same thing you're accusing me of with the inclusion of the anti-vote thing. And I still dispute I did put words in your mouth. Especially when a couple posts later you confirm at least some of my assertions.

A controlled study? Like the FBI's Uniform Crime Report? And the US Census report? The Uniform Crime Reports of the various states? You know these reports don't you? Where they take all the submitted data, and report trends and rates broken down by various significant factors like geography, victimology, and offender data?

[-Alex]

I think not. Especially as you're doing the same thing you're accusing me of with the inclusion of the anti-vote thing.

I thought that was obviously a rhetorical question, and meant sarcastically. I guess not that obvious.

And I still dispute I did put words in your mouth.

You did. You said many things about me and didn't say they were your opinion, you lied and said I am willing to throw out any Scotus decision, you lied and said I disagree with your rights, and not lied when saying I must be anti-gun.

Especially when a couple posts later you confirm at least some of my assertions.

Which assertions did I deny, then affirm?

A controlled study? Like the FBI's Uniform Crime Report? And the US Census report? The Uniform Crime Reports of the various states? You know these reports don't you? Where they take all the submitted data, and report trends and rates broken down by various significant factors like geography, victimology, and offender data?

No. A controlled study / experiment is when two groups that are as identical as possible, are subjected to different treatments (i.e. one getting medicine, one getting a placebo), then outcome are compared to try to isolate the effect of the medicine itself.