No. My observation of something that actually happened is not standing opposed to your fabricated strawman.
What cities that were formerly under Republican control are now better off now that democrats have taken over? Detroit? Chicago? Baltimore? New Orleans? Maybe ask yourself if there's any data supporting what you are saying before hitting the 'post reply' button......food for thought.
Liberal ideas on self-defense (and everything else) can be wacky. A few years ago, they advised women to pee on their rapists instead of carrying a gun. It would be fun to dissect a liberal brain on a body donated to science.
Committed Christians are much less likely to divorce. Not all failings, but quite a few. Why don't you go down about midnight to the corner of Stony Island and 103rd St. on the South Side of Chicago and tell me how that's working out?
It is not more guns, but more trained in self defense. A small woman can't be expected to overpower her enormous male criminals. But her rather small gun can sure handle him. We have a study on this. More Guns less crime.
I never took any interest in the partisan politics of Australia. To all Republicans. Who among you have taken a partisan interest in the politics of Australia? I would love to find out more. To @Bowerbird I want to try to one more time learn why you are so rabid about partisan politics here in this country?
A gun in the hands of an honest person would mean that person would have a better chance of not being a crime victim. As part of the left, you do fight for and defend victims and their rights, don’t you?
Then why are countries like Australia and the UK not dotted with the corpses of victims of crime? https://www.newsweek.com/nras-more-guns-less-crime-theory-debunked-new-stanford-analysis-630173
That contains no elements of logic at all. It contains no rebuttal. What was deleted was partisan dribble framed as opinion. But my return is not by me, but by a Ph.D who wanted the truth so he could teach his own family Now let him speak about the book. ***************** 5.0 out of 5 starsMost comprehensive crime study ever conducted--devastating to gun control advocates May 12, 2013 Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase First, some background about me: I am a Ph.D.-holder and tenured professor whose immersion in the insular politics of academia had led me to harbor many negative perceptions about firearms. Though I was never staunchly "anti-gun," I was not a gun owner, did not understand the appeal of firearms, and generally believed that gun control legislation was only common sense. That changed four years ago when I (finally) decided to look into the data on guns, crime, and public safety for myself. I am a trained researcher, but I conducted my research for personal not professional reasons. My wife was pregnant and I wanted hard facts--not talking point from the political parties--so I could make an informed decision about what to teach my children about firearms, and whether it would be prudent or dangerous to have one in our house. I was drawn into that research almost immediately by the sheer force of my own disbelief. I discovered fact after fact that starkly disproved the claims and "facts" so many teachers and colleagues had expressed about firearms and their relationship to violence, and which, during my long trip through academia, had led me to believe stricter gun control was just plain common sense. For two years, I read thousands of pages of information, starting with raw data from the FBI and CDC so that I would be better able to assess the claims I subsequently read in books, peer-reviewed journals, news publications, blogs, and so forth. In the course of that research, I came across numerous references to John Lott's studies, but so many of them suggested there were "fatal flaws" in his methodology (and questions about his motives) that I never bothered to read him. I simply assumed based on the sheer number of such comments that his work was indeed more propaganda than serious study. Nonetheless, I turned up enough information over the course of two years to completely change my view about guns. I now believe wholeheartedly in the right to carry, the wisdom of the 2nd Amendment, the particularly important benefits of concealed carry for women, and the notion that more firearms in law-abiding hands does make society demonstrably safer. Now that I have finally read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" (3rd edition, 2010), I am ashamed that I did not consult it earlier instead of accepting at face value the facile criticisms of his work. Lott's research and claims are astonishingly thorough--meticulously explained and documented. At every turn, he (accurately and clearly) explains the challenges, assumptions, and variables that inform his findings. Often, just to cover his bases, he runs the data with, and then without, certain questionable variables (arrest rates, county sizes, etc.). Again and again, he shows that with only slight variations in the magnitude of the results, more concealed carry permits equals less violent crime (murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robberies involving direct contact with the victim, such as muggings). He also observes that those permits may contribute to a smaller "substitution effect" that displaces criminal activity into less-confrontational forms, such as property theft. On all counts, this constitutes powerful evidence that the likely presence of a defensive firearm has a statistically significant deterrence effect on criminal behavior. More concealed carry permits lead to a net decline in assaults and deaths, and a net decline in the financial costs to society. Moreover, these benefits apply to all citizens--not just those who are armed--and they increase over time, as the number of carry permits rises. They also have the greatest positive impact on African Americans and women. Why should you take Lott's study seriously? Because it is the most comprehensive study of crime--let alone firearms--ever conducted. In retrospect, I am stunned that any commentator has dared to fault the quality of his data. If anything can be said for Lott, it is that he is meticulous in recognizing and accounting for the variables at stake. Indeed, like a responsible analyst testing a hypothesis with appropriate rigor, he tends to control in ways that actually minimize (i.e., underestimate, and perhaps even artificially suppress) the benefits of non-discretionary ("shall issue") concealed carry laws. His is the only gun control study I've seen that takes all counties into consideration (not some selective sample) and then meticulously controls for population density, arrest rates, rising/falling trends in crime prior to the passing of the carry laws, demographic factors, the number of permits issued, and so forth. Although his expansive, county-level approach is clearly the most precise way to analyze the impact of carry laws, he also consistently re-runs the regressions using state-level (aggregate) data to show that, while the precise results vary, the trends remain the same: more guns, less crime. Indeed, the scope and depth of his study is so far beyond any other peer-reviewed study of guns I've ever encountered that any blanket dismissal either of his findings or his methodology is manifestly disingenuous. Of course, given the amount of criticism his work has received, Lott is (rightly) concerned to defend his integrity as a scholar. His seventh chapter thus quotes a series of 23 direct criticisms by other academics--each of which he capably rebuts. Whenever possible, Lott first politely plays devil's advocate: re-running his regressions in the alternative manner some critics have suggested, only to show that the results consistently yield the same conclusion: more guns, less crime. He also exposes some critics' blatant ignorance of certain statistical categories (such as what it means for victims to "know" their shooters) and then lays bare salient points or critical factors those critics ignore. One devastating effect of these clear, well-reasoned rebuttals is to expose the patently un-scientific anti-gun bias that drives most critical "concerns" about Lott's study. Yet Lott never dispenses with civility or stoops to base political jabs. A few times, he briefly speculates on the kinds of credible concerns that could be raised about his work--politely leaving it for the reader to note, in unflattering contrast, that the criticisms that have actually been leveled at him fall very short of that standard. Ever the responsible scholar, he chiefly defends his integrity by clarifying his robust methodology and letting the data speak for itself. I can't say enough about the importance of this book. Do not trust the claim that Lott's work has been "discredited", "fatally flawed," or "funded by the gun lobby." Lott explicitly refutes those attacks in this book, and I have verified to my own satisfaction that those are indeed false claims designed to deflect attention away from his compelling pro-gun findings. Read this book for yourself. It matches the findings of my own personal two-year study into these issues, though I might have saved myself a lot of time and work by consulting Lott's book sooner. He explains the variables and various analytical concepts very clearly (the substitution effect, the endogeneity problem, the perils of looking only at raw measures instead of slopes/trends over time, etc.). This diligent effort to empower (non-expert) readers by allowing them to understand what is at stake in the measures before delving into the data is one clear sign that his intention is to inform readers truthfully, not manipulate their political views. His habit of checking, re-checking, and checking his regressions again--verifying how the results change as certain variables are included or excluded--is another good sign. And yet another is the modest and precise way he reports his results: never engaging in bombastic or exaggerated claims, but always frankly acknowledging the limits of what can be reasonably concluded from the data. By the end of the book, you will understand many of the flawed assumptions and misunderstandings which underlie the oft-cited "evidence" that stricter gun control enhances public safety. If you're anti-gun and Lott's book does not give you pause and force you to reconsider the potential benefits of an armed society, you either did not read the book with an open mind, or you do not know how to distinguish a precisely-reasoned argument from a merely political one. Well done Mr. Lott. I cannot fathom the amount of energy and intellectual rigor you must have invested in this massive project, but I am grateful to you for this impressive and substantial contribution to knowledge. 650 people found this helpful Helpful https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-...iewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0226493660#R36HNGRH5B5B3E
In America, take a look at the demographic who are committing the most crimes, the cities where it happens and who runs them.
Brave indeed. All praise to these heros. The notion that they were somehow enabled to stop these shootings because they were unarmed is absurd. They overcame odds that were against them. Had they been armed, the odds would've only been less against them.
A very important thing. I am not positive about the country represented by @Bowerbird. But she appears to act as a plain American vanilla Democrat. Perhaps where she lives, she did not grow up with an entire body of people whining they were slaves ancestors. Did Australia make their blacks into slaves? She did not refute my post. I refuted her post with intensely accurate professional reviews of the facts. The fact finder I used arrived thinking he would agree with the people wanting to get rid of guns. He owned none and expected to join the fight against guns. But what did he find? He on his own refuted the anti gunners. He evaded the Lott research for years thinking it was nonsense. When he arrived at his pro gun position, only then did he study the Lott study aka More Guns, less crime He now more than defends the Lott study, he actively promotes the study. Some speak of other lands. We are not other lands. We are the receptor of other lands. We have had exellent others come here and take up being outstanding citizens. But we do not contain just outstanding citizens. We once screened out the people known as not desirable. We once had no problem keeping them out. We now have such control by Democrats that we have millions here who are actually full blown criminals. We are the home of criminals. We must have laws and arms more in tune to keep away criminals than say Japan has. Asians as a group are much more easy to control. Even Russians were easy to control. Part of Germany was easy to control by the Soviets yet the tool of the Soviets was not just fear and intimidation, it was guns. So guns used correctly do provide good defense against crime. But of course the criminals also have guns. A woman raped by a man with his gun easily ends up dead. The trained and armed woman can reverse that quickly. Police are trained. But why Democrats do not want our citizens to have that privilege bothers me. They fight the NRA all the time. And the NRA trains people to evade crime. To defend themselves against guns. Democrats as of now have never came up with a system or law that takes only the criminals guns. They want to disarm everybody. Except for the criminals. Criminals are criminals due to not being willing to obey laws. Last thing for now. We have an enormous population in prison of criminals. And criminals come in classes. Most of the dangerous criminals are democrats. Those of course who really are political. Republicans in jail primarily got there not even owning a gun. The armed criminals are Democrats.
Because Australia is a insignificant and boring place! I'll bet their favorite pass time is peeking thru curtains at their neighbors so they have something to talk about during din-din
To @Bowerbird I want to try to one more time learn why you are so rabid about partisan politics here in this country?
Perhaps like the Males in South America who enjoy sex with donkeys, Australians do it with Kangaroos?
Funny how little coverage that received, did not fit the "right wing terror" narrative. Nothing to see here folks, like moslems killing Christians in foreign countries.
Hoplophobes, coined by Jeff Cooper. People with an irrational fear of weapons. The type who think guns have their own will.
That they were unarmed and acted showed bravery, a characteristic that seems to be missing in the US these days. Another person with a gun, and it would have been two cowards shooting at each other. Ooh, don't want to get too close to the bad guy. Better to stand back, way back and shoot a gun.
