NBC's Bob Costas Goes On Gun Control Rant About NFL Player's Murder-Suicide

[nevafuse]

Here's a link to a transcript of what Bob Costas said last night after halftime during the Cowboys/eagles game.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/12/03/nbcs_bob_costas_goes_on_gun_control_rant_about_nfl_players_murder-suicide.html

I couldn't disagree more with his opinion.  Apparently only guns kill people, not the people pulling the trigger.  I even did some research to see if I could find a single article comparing homicide rates in gun control countries vs others.  All I could find were articles that showed gun-related homicides as if that statistic should solidify anyone on the fence about gun control.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that outlawing guns will decrease gun-related violence.  But what I do want to see is if outlawing guns increases violence with other weapons.  After all, someone willing to kill someone else with a gun probably has no problems using a knife instead.

[1713584111]

1713584111

[1713584111]

1713584111

[1713584111]

1713584111

[1713584111]

1713584111

[Axios]

It's harder to kill with a knife. Hurt a lot - yes. And US homicide rate is very high vs other developed countries with gun control.

Though its most likely due to US culture since other countries have more homogenized cultures, stats won't help you to prove anything. There is no correlation between crime & gun control.

[Charlie Prime]

There is no correlation between crime & gun control.

Incorrect.  In the United States research shows the more guns equals less crime, and vice versa.

[Axios]

Incorrect.  In the United States research shows the more guns equals less crime, and vice versa.

Nope. Because there is plenty of research to show otherwise.

NYC vs Buffalo, the largest city and the second largest city in NYS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

Let's forget that NYC density is one of the highest in the world.
NYC has draconian gun control, but still allows gun ownership at home.
Buffalo is a may issue city, in practice shall issue.

Buffalo has as twice crime as NYC.

There goes your statistics, the only correlation you may find is poorer areas have more crime. It's about society, not guns.

[myrkul]

Incorrect.  In the United States research shows the more guns equals less crime, and vice versa.

Nope. Because there is plenty of research to show otherwise.

NYC vs Buffalo, the largest city and the second largest city in NYS.

Because it is about the people, and not the guns, you need to compare the same places, before and after a change in gun laws, Like John Lott did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

[Axios]

Because it is about the people, and not the guns, you need to compare the same places, before and after a change in gun laws, Like John Lott did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

It's a book for people that want to believe, because cherry picks the data. We can play the statistics game if you want.

For an example NYC last week had no violent crime for a complete day. And the crime rate is down from the previous year.
The crime rate in DC went down too. Wow so gun control actually reduces crime. That was statistics says.

[Axios]

Let's take two states: New York, where gun laws didn't change much. May issue with NYC no issue
North Carolina that passed shall issue in 1995.

Violent crime rate in

Code:

      1995       2011     Reduction
NY   841.9     398.10        53%
NC   646.4     349.8         46%

The crime rate in NC was supposed to be reduced at much higher rate.... Looks like shall issue is increasing crime...

Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nccrimn.htm

[Charlie Prime]

We can play the statistics game if you want.

Then why would you want to play it?

[Axios]

Now lets do FL vs NY, FL passed shall issue in 1987

Code:

          1987           2011           Reduction
NY        1,008.1        398.1           61%
FL        1,024.4        515.3           50%
IL        796.2        429.3           47%

Still proves the complete opposite... But added IL and it's a lot more inline with FL than NY.

IL has no CC as far as I am know.

[nevafuse]

Isn't there a saying "if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them?"  I think I'd rather have protection than assume the guy breaking into my house/car is a law abiding citizen.

[Axios]

Isn't there a saying "if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them?"  I think I'd rather have protection than assume the guy breaking into my house/car is a law abiding citizen.

Not really. In UK guns crimes are MUCH less than in US, but assault with knives are much more common.

http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/us-and-uk-murder-rate-and-weapon-updated/

In the US – population 311.5 million (1) – there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009 (2), a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000 (3). Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm.

In the UK – population 56.1 million (4) – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12 (5), a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm (6).

[RodeoX]

How many guns there are has nothing to do with violence. I live in a house filled with guns and wouldn't hurt a fly. Prisons are filled with people who could never be trusted with a paper clip, as they would surely kill someone with it.

[Charlie Prime]

We can play the statistics game if you want.

Then why on earth would you want to play the game?

Just for the fun of fruitless silliness? 

[Axios]

We can play the statistics game if you want.

Then why on earth would you want to play the game?

Just for the fun of fruitless silliness? 

Oh poor little boy has nothing to add... GTFO.

[myrkul]

I think I'd rather have protection than assume the guy breaking into my house/car is a law abiding citizen.

This.

Because it is about the people, and not the guns, you need to compare the same places, before and after a change in gun laws, Like John Lott did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

It's a book for people that want to believe, because cherry picks the data.

Comparing before and after is not "cherry picking."

[Axios]

Comparing before and after is not "cherry picking."

Violent crime: before and after

Code:

      BEFORE       AFTER
      1995       2011     Reduction
NC   646.4     349.8         46%       Shall issue in 1995
AR   553.2     480.9         13%       Shall issue in 1995
OK   664.1     454.8         33%       Shall issue in 1995
NY   841.9     398.10        53%       May issue, with no issue in NYC
IL   996.1     429.3         57%       No issue
DC   2,661.4   1,202.1       55%       No issue

Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

The passage of "Shall issue" increased the crime rate compared to no/may issue states.

/end of discussion

[myrkul]

Comparing before and after is not "cherry picking."

Violent crime: before and after

Code:

      BEFORE       AFTER
      1995       2011     Reduction
NC   646.4     349.8         46%       Shall issue in 1995
AR   553.2     480.9         13%       Shall issue in 1995
OK   664.1     454.8         33%       Shall issue in 1995
NY   841.9     398.10        53%       May issue, with no issue in NYC
IL   996.1     429.3         57%       No issue
DC   2,661.4   1,202.1       55%       No issue

Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

The passage of "Shall issue" increased the crime rate compared to no/may issue states.

/end of discussion

But the selection of 6 states out of fifty is cherry picking. So, nice try. Also, just like a reduced increase in spending isn't a "cut," reduced decrease isn't an increase. So, maybe not a very nice try, after all.

[Axios]

But the selection of 6 states out of fifty is cherry picking. So, nice try. Also, just like a reduced increase in spending isn't a "cut," reduced decrease isn't an increase. So, maybe not a very nice try, after all.

Is it, so how is it different from Lott? It's like magically all states passed shall issue in 1995? He wouldn't be able to provide data for all 50 states, so his data IS cherry picked according to you.

/end of thread.

[myrkul]

It's like magically all states passed shall issue in 1995? He wouldn't be able to provide data for all 50 states, so his data IS cherry picked according to you.

Where did you get this information? He gives information on how to get the data he used on his website: http://www.johnlott.org/

/end of thread.

I keep responding, so obviously it isn't.

[Axios]

Where did you get this information? He gives information on how to get the data he used on his website: http://www.johnlott.org/

Simply because he can't provide such data. You're welcome to provide such data (copy from his website) and I'll poke huge holes through it.

[myrkul]

Where did you get this information? He gives information on how to get the data he used on his website: http://www.johnlott.org/

Simply because he can't provide such data. You're welcome to provide such data (copy from his website) and I'll poke huge holes through it.

Actually, I am not welcome to do so.
"When downloading the data from here you promise not to give this data to others. If they want to obtain the data, they may simply come to this web site and download it for themselves."
http://www.johnlott.org/cgi-bin/signup.cgi

Feel free.

[Axios]

Where did you get this information? He gives information on how to get the data he used on his website: http://www.johnlott.org/

Simply because he can't provide such data. You're welcome to provide such data (copy from his website) and I'll poke huge holes through it.

Actually, I am not welcome to do so.
"When downloading the data from here you promise not to give this data to others. If they want to obtain the data, they may simply come to this web site and download it for themselves."
http://www.johnlott.org/cgi-bin/signup.cgi

Feel free.

You're welcome to replicate his data yourself. That of course shows all fifty states side by side, if it isn't fifty states it was cherry picked (according to you).


I mean why would I trust a guy who created fake profiles to praise his own book on Amazon...


Um.

[myrkul]

Where did you get this information? He gives information on how to get the data he used on his website: http://www.johnlott.org/

Simply because he can't provide such data. You're welcome to provide such data (copy from his website) and I'll poke huge holes through it.

Actually, I am not welcome to do so.
"When downloading the data from here you promise not to give this data to others. If they want to obtain the data, they may simply come to this web site and download it for themselves."
http://www.johnlott.org/cgi-bin/signup.cgi

Feel free.

You're welcome to replicate his data yourself. That of course shows all fifty states side by side, if it isn't fifty states it was cherry picked (according to you).

So, what you're telling me is that you're not going to download the data yourself, and expect me to violate an agreement so that you don't have to sign up for a (free) account? That you're not only intellectually lazy, but just plain lazy?

If you want the data, it's waiting for you. Go get it. I did.

[Axios]

Show me the file that he did 50 states side by side. I don't think you ever opened the files due to multiple obvious reasons.

[myrkul]

Show me the file that he did 50 states side by side. I don't think you ever opened the files due to multiple obvious reasons.

/sigh.

I guess I shouldn't expect intellectual honesty from someone with a screen name based on a word for lying. Welcome to my ignore list, asshat.

[Axios]

Show me the file that he did 50 states side by side. I don't think you ever opened the files due to multiple obvious reasons.

/sigh.

I guess I shouldn't expect intellectual honesty from someone with a screen name based on a word for lying. Welcome to my ignore list, asshat.

No one can provide the data that fits your requirements. Not me, not Lott. I was asking for a name of the file and clearly you cant do that. I did check all files, Lott haven't provided such data because he can't. He picked the data how he wanted to pick.

And now that you resorted to personal attacks, what would I expect from a person with your screen name?

as I've said before, resorting to ad hominem attacks is the surest sign that you're losing a debate.

[augustocroppo]

Show me the file that he did 50 states side by side. I don't think you ever opened the files due to multiple obvious reasons.

/sigh.

I guess I shouldn't expect intellectual honesty from someone with a screen name based on a word for lying. Welcome to my ignore list, asshat.

No one can provide the data that fits your requirements. Not me, not Lott. I was asking for a name of the file and clearly you cant do that. I did check all files, Lott haven't provided such data because he can't. He picked the data how he wanted to pick.

And now that you resorted to personal attacks, what would I expect from a person with your screen name?

Mendacium, welcome to the Bitcointalk forum.

Myrkul is a deceiver and dishonest user. He is unable to held reasonable debates without to resort to logical fallacies, deceitful premises and willful ignorance. When a user like you ask for data to substantiate the discussion, he proceeds to post his delusional assumptions without to provide the required evidence.

Actually, I am not welcome to do so.

"When downloading the data from here you promise not to give this data to others. If they want to obtain the data, they may simply come to this web site and download it for themselves."
http://www.johnlott.org/cgi-bin/signup.cgi

Feel free.

Do not trust in the above statement. He is explicit ignoring your request and using a fake pretext to not admit that you are right. Myrkul do not care to copy owned data:

You can't own data, and copying isn't stealing.

Yes, I can own data.

No, you can't. Data isn't property.

[myrkul]

I agreed not to share the data. Given that the data is freely available to anyone who signs up, and that I did explicitly agree to not share it, I will not be sharing that data. Go get it yourself.

[hashman]

  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that outlawing guns will decrease gun-related violence. 

Do you really think it's that simple? 

Outlawing alcohol greatly increased the consumption of alcohol.  Since cocaine was prohibited the use has gone up by some thousands of percent per capita.  Take a look at what happened when Germany outlawed guns in the 1930s.  Switzerland has one of the highest per capita gun ownership rates (not outlawed) and a relatively low gun-related violence rate.  Some counterexamples worthy of consideration.   

Complex systems of millions of unpredictable primates make rocket science look like tiddly winks. 

[Lethn]

It amazes me that while guns are illegal in my country and people are so rabidly focused on them yet I can legally buy the ingredients for explosives, chemical weapons and armoured vehicles that could easily level a portion of a city or kill thousands more than just an AK47 with a full magazine. I'm sorry but I can't empathise with people like this anymore, gun control advocates are paranoid and stupid. If people really wanted to go around massacring others for no reason they would have already, the reality is though that it's only a bunch of suicidal crazies that usually do that kind of thing anymore.

[myrkul]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that outlawing guns will decrease gun-related violence.

Do you really think it's that simple? 

I had a manager at one of my previous jobs that had a favorite saying:

"Sometimes, it is rocket science."

And if we're discussing counterexamples, we can't ignore Kennesaw, Georgia, USA. A law was passed there that not only allowed for gun ownership, but required that all homeowners not prohibited by federal law or religious belief own at least one weapon.

The gun control argument says gun violence should go up, afterward, yes? Nope. In fact, crime overall has gone down by something like 50%.

[TECSHARE]

/end of thread.

Yo dawg, I noticed you like to end threads, so I added more post to this thread so you could end more.

[TheButterZone]

It's harder to kill with a knife. Hurt a lot - yes.

Unless you either have 0 knife skill or are up against a martial artist well-trained in knife defense/disarms.

[mufa23]

That feel when you see a thread that says "NBC" and think it means Nuclear Biological Chemical

[stochastic]

It's harder to kill with a knife. Hurt a lot - yes.

Unless you either have 0 knife skill or are up against a martial artist well-trained in knife defense/disarms.

Lol tell that to Inejiro Asanuma



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTWNRx-4aFM

[myrkul]

You know a Wakizashi is a shortsword, right? That's at least a foot of razor-sharp steel. Pretty easy to kill a surprised victim with one of those. Especially if you've practiced. No info on whether or not he had practiced, though.

[myrkul]

Just thought I'd share this...

http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/27/virginia-enjoys-rising-gun-ownership-and

(inb4 "That proves nothing.")

[Rudd-O]

A sociopath will kill you, gun or not. By punishing decent people who own guns, the decent people are made defenseless against the sociopaths.

[myrkul]

In our continuing "Reality pwns the gun-control activist" series...

[Axios]

In our continuing "Reality pwns the gun-control activist" series...

I am still waiting for an answer... So which file supposed to prove that book? I can download, give me the file name. Explain which columns / rows.

So far I hear "blah" "blah" "blah" "blah" "blah" "blah" "blah" "blah" "blah" "blah".

[Rudd-O]

In our continuing "Reality pwns the gun-control activist" series...

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/guns.jpg

Hahaha.  Brilliant response!

Government can't keep drugs out of the fucking cages they drag people into, how does anyone delude themselves into believing that government can't keep them out of "free" people's hands.

[myrkul]

Hahaha.  Brilliant response!

The discussion on the Google+ post I found it on is even better.