fayfreethinker 
Member since Apr 20, 2011


Not here to play patty cake.

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Stats

Currently

Thinking

Updated on July 30, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Recent Comments

Re: “In defense of Planned Parenthood and abortion rights

Along the same lines:
"Our Sex Crazed Congress."
"TO appreciate the dumbing down of American politics, consider this: Conservative Republicans, indignant about abortion, are trying to destroy a government program that helps prevent 345,000 abortions a year.
Inevitably in politics there are good ideas and bad ideas. But occasionally there are also moronic ideas — such as the House Republican proposal to kill America’s main family planning program, Title X.
The upshot would be more pregnancies, more abortions, more AIDS, more sexually transmitted infections and more women dying of cervical and breast cancer. Ending the program would impoverish young mothers and impede the formation of stable two-parent families that conservatives rightly argue help overcome poverty.
It’s baffling that House Republicans are trying to eliminate a 45-year-old bipartisan initiative that is one of the country’s anti-poverty successes — and also perhaps America’s most successful anti-abortion initiative."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/opinion/…

12 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by fayfreethinker on 08/05/2015 at 2:26 PM

Re: “Mike Huckabee is running for president

Got half way through this before realizing it wasn't an Onion article making fun of republicans.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by fayfreethinker on 05/05/2015 at 7:44 PM

Re: “Arkansans candidate backs sensible gun measures

ST: "Not a matter[r] of comparing gun crimes, but crime in general.">>

We have worse crime in general, and far worse gun crime than any of our peer nations, as I have shown with standard reference to the National Academy of Science, and the Centers for Disease Control, etc.

ST: "Your notion that less guns equals less crimes is not backed up by the stats.">>

You need to argue with something better than mere assertion. John Lott's material falls apart under peer review. That means it's garbage. Already covered.

ST: "Your assertion that rape is not s crime that can be reported in Canada sure comes as surprise to the rape victims in Canada.">>

I am sorry that you don't understand that different nations define the criminal acts of "rape" and "sexual assault" differently causing you confusion when making comparisons between countries. If you want to make comparisons between countries, you have to define words consistently rather than inconsistently as you have here.

ST: "In this saturation of guns where there are 6.2 million CCW permits being earned, the crime rate is DROPPING">>

Crime rates go up, and down, always have. This happens independently of guns (obviously). We consistently have higher violent crime rates (with few exceptions), and far higher gun death, gun crime, suicide, etc, than any comparable peer nation, by far. Already covered.

ST: "the basic numbers are hard to refute,...">>

Indeed they are, and all of the numbers are against you.

ST: "Lack of guns does NOT a less violent create,">>

Easy access to guns via a lack of sensible gun control has created the situation I have already outlined and established with standard peer reviewed science. If you want to address the data directly, you will have to get into the details and address my points directly. You can't do this because the evidence goes against you.

Don't bring a Popsicle stick to a gun fight.

D.
--------------
Here are the number of total firearm deaths in Britain, per year, from the gov:

Homicide from all firearms, per year, England & Wales:
1999/00... 62
2000/01... 73
2001/02... 97
2002/03... 81
2003/04... 68
2004/05... 78
2005/06... 50
2006/07... 59
2007/08... 53

Government PDF here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/ho…
Or these nice folks have it up: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.ht…

Here's a neat trick. The UK population is about 60 million, so the US is about five times larger. If you average the numbers above you get: 345. So, this number should give us a per capita comparison with one year of US gun homicide.

UK = 345
US = 12,352 (in 2004)

Notice that these numbers are adjusted for population. There is no reason why they should be different at all. Can Steve observe that they are different? I hope so. The US number is *35 TIMES* larger than five of Britain’s years combined. This makes the UK number a rounding error.

Apparently gun control is not working very well for those Brits. We have 35 times the per capita gun murder per year that they do, but apparently, they just need more guns. Then perhaps they could enjoy the death and destruction we do from our lax gun laws.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by fayfreethinker on 02/11/2012 at 11:14 PM

Re: “Arkansans candidate backs sensible gun measures

STEVE: "You have to CLICK on the link, fayfee, then it will work.">>

Now it works. The only vague reference is:

"compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations."

This article is crap and that reference is far too vague to mean anything. This is embarrassing tabloid garbage. More importantly, several of their claims are false and I will be glad to walk you through this should you be interested in defending it's claims with actual reference.

Britain does presently have high crime with their economic problems, but the notion that this could be improved with more guns in the mix is absurd. You don't want to compare their gun problems to ours on any level. We've tried the "more guns" experiment here in the US and we live with the results everyday, as I have shown with proper scientific analysis.

D.
--------------
The number of kids killed by guns (1995):

0 children in Japan
19 in Great Britain
57 in Germany

5,285 in the United States

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by fayfreethinker on 02/10/2012 at 10:44 AM

Re: “Arkansans candidate backs sensible gun measures

STEVE: "If Hemengway's hypothesis held any water in his book, our death rate should be rising,">>

No, that doesn't follow. A saturation point is reached and we are already awash in guns and reap the extraordinary death and destruction that follows from the lax control of so many guns. Particularly handguns.

STEVE: "John Lott destroyed Hemengway's sloppy re-working">>

He's done nothing of the sort. His errors are will understood, debunked, coding errors. Begin your education here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott.php#c…

My favorite roast of Lott's whoppers is perhaps this: "Myths of Murder and Multiple Regression"
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofm…

And that's the tip of the iceberg with Lott. Scientists don't take John Lott's material seriously (or should we call him "Mary Rosh?"), but he has sold a lot of books to gullible NRA types that suck at math and lap it up.

STEVE: "The state level study is crap.">>

I'll need more than your say so, and it isn't going to overcome the fact that:

"...the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, and Alabama. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000.
By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death." http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/24/…

ST: "The cities with the strictest gun controls have the highest rates of violence, not just murder,">>

Those cities having those problems *attempt* to have strict gun control but it is made entirely null and void by the fact that anyone can go across a state line to a gun show and buy what they want, or on the internet, and get what they want. You ducked this fact. Gee, why is it that gun control manages to work so well in 22 of our peer countries but shucks, we just can't manage to make it work here?

STEVE: "They are rising, in spite of all measures of control.">>

Because it can't be done at the state level.

STEVE: "letting good people kill the bad guys, crime rates have dropped.">>

Again you conflate crime rates with guns. Crime rates are like the stock market, they go up and down and often independently of guns. This lets hacks like John Lott play statistical games that fool those who don't know better. What we do know is that consistently more guns = equals far greater rates of gun death and destruction, and when the US is compared with dozens of peer countries on crime in general, and anything to do with gun crimes, we are off the charts worse. Crimes are always worse when guns are involved.

STEVE: "look at page 138 or there abouts to see the Canadian rape stats.">>

a) Canada doesn't have the category of "rape" in its criminal code so you are comparing apples to oranges
b) What does rape have to do with guns?

Canada has far lower violent crime rates and their gun problems are a fraction of ours, as I have shown. And note:

"In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low." http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

Less guns, less gun death. Who could have guessed that?

STEVE: "Pretty hard to improperly read those numbers.">>

But you managed to do it anyway, because you didn't refer to a consistent definition of "rape."

The UN stats referred to here have a rape incidence of
1.5 per 100k in Canada,
vs.
28.6 per 100k in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisti…

But I don't believe those numbers either.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by fayfreethinker on 02/10/2012 at 10:32 AM

Re: “Arkansans candidate backs sensible gun measures

Steve, still peddling whoppers.

STEVE: "I sourced materials that were not poisoned by ideology.">>

You cited a link to a British tabloid that didn't work and a UN study you didn't understand.

STEVE: "worldwide, all gun laws have done is ensure that the weak remain helpless to the brute.">>

The most prestigious scientific organization in the country, the US National Academy of Science, says you are all wet. The US has the:

"...highest rate of homicide or firearm-related homicide,... among industrialized democracies. Homicide rates in the United States are two to four times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it... homicide or firearm-related homicide... rates in the United States are in the upper quartile in each case."
--National Academy of Sciences, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=…

As the CDC found, the "rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined."
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/0…

More guns, more death and destruction, by far. You can't spin your way out of horrendous numbers like that.

STEVE: "Even in Europe and our relatively gun-free neighbor to the north, Canada have high crime rates.">>

Another NRA myth. Canada has lots of guns. Out of 178 nations they come in 13th for gun ownership:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count…

What they don't have is lots of hand guns. The gun ridden US has far more homicide and 11 times (!) the handgun homicide of Canada. Regarding crime in Canada, again, you don't know what you are talking about. See statistics Canada: "Crime comparisons between Canada and the United States"

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/0…

STEVE: "Linking a seriously disputed source like Brady is laughable, at best.">>

This is the genetic fallacy, truth is independent of its source. Avoid logical fallacies when making your points. Use the NRA if you wish, you will quickly find out how well it holds up to examination. Don't get your hopes up.

Brady's claims are well referenced and they don't make claims that can't be backed up by standard, reputable, peer reviewed science. You don't like them because the science doesn't support what you want to believe.

D.
--------------
Gun availability and state homicide rates, 2001-2003

"Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003.

Major findings: States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide."

Publication: "State-level Homicide Victimization Rates in the U.S. in Relation to Survey Measures of Household Firearm Ownership, 2001-2003." Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc…

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by fayfreethinker on 02/09/2012 at 9:38 PM

Re: “Arkansans candidate backs sensible gun measures

ST: "You seem to be under the delusion that fewer guns would make for less crime.">>

Even better, I provided you a reference to 16 scientific studies backing up my claim.

ST: "You use the firearms death as your only measure for success/failure.">>

No I don't. You can shake and bake the US numbers however you wish and the US still suffers an inordinate amount of unnecessary death and destruction due to ridiculously lax gun control. Again:

"U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher"

"Among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States"
--Richardson, Erin G., and David Hemenway, “Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Fatality: Comparing the United States With Other High-Income Countries, 2003,” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, published online ahead of print, June 2010

ST: "My point is, more guns, less CRIME.">>

Yes, I know your NRA talking point well, and it is false, as I've already shown. John Lott's book is used as a textbook example of fallacious use of statistics.

"Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".
--Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology - University of Ottawa. http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.ht…

ST: "that you may decrease deaths, but you will also increase other crimes.">>

Wrong. The US has more guns and typically more crime. And specifically gun crime, which is the matter in question, is through the roof, as I have shown.

ST: "here is the problem with a nation that has extremely strict gun control. [broken Daily Mail link]">>

I don't get my science information from the British equivalent of a coffee table tabloid like the National Enquirer. Their job is to sell copies with snazzy headlines, not get the science straight, which they consistently do not.

"In the United States, a quarter of commercial robberies are committed with guns.[38] Robberies committed with guns are three times as likely to result in fatalities
compared with robberies where other weapons were used,[38][39][40] with similar patterns in cases of family violence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_gun_violen…

ST: "making guns unavailabe does not make people nice.">>

Obviously, but it does drastically decrease gun death and destruction. Let's ask the National Academy of Science:

"Review of these data indicate that while the United States does not have the highest rate of homicide or firearm-related homicide, it does have the highest rates for these among industrialized democracies. Homicide rates in the United States are two to four times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. Higher rates are found in developing countries and those with political instability. The same is true for firearm-related homicides, but the differences are even greater. The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States is more like that of Argentina, Mexico, and Northern Ireland than England or Canada. While certainly not the highest homicide or firearm-related homicide rate in the world, these rates in the United States are in the upper quartile in each case." --National Academy of Sciences, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=…

And that's putting sugar on it.

ST: "You will notice that there are countries with higher murder rates than the US, countries where firearms are not as prevelant.">>

You keep conflating crime, with gun crime. We don't perform well on either statistic when compared to our peer countries, but we are off the charts in the categories of gun death and destruction. There is a reason for that: extremely lax to non-existent gun control. We have far more guns, and we have far more murder:

"The US homicide rate,... is still among the highest in the industrialized world... In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, roughly three times as high as Canada (1.9) and six times as high as Germany (0.9)... Most industrialized countries had homicide rates below the 2.5 mark." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_…

ST: "You didn't need guns to murder a million or so in Rwanda.">>

That you would have to stoop to compare the US with Rwanda rather than comparable countries shows how desperate your position is.

ST: "You want to live in a country without guns and violence, Asia is IT,">>

As I've shown, any one of 36 comparable peer nations do far better than the US by having far lower rates of death and destruction caused by guns. It's not even close.

ST: "Rape rate in the Canada are 3 times what they are in the US, that was a surprise.">>

You are confused. "The word "rape" is not used in the Canadian Criminal Code." It's broadly defined as "sexual assault" and thus involves much more then the traditional definition of "rape." Rape stats vary greatly by society depending on how many report and vary even greater by how it is defined. Canada has better crime statistics by nearly any measure and in nearly every category. And their gun problems are a fraction of ours. Our handgun murder rate is 11.2 times greater than that of Canada. That's ridiculous.

ST: "Our crime rates, including murder, have gone down,">>

They are still considerably higher than our peer countries. But again, you attempt to change the subject.

ST: "The Swiss, though, have little trouble with gun crimes,">>

Right, because they have very strict gun control. Begin your education here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_…

ST: "TOP cities with MURDER rates were the ones where the strictest gun controls were enforced.">>

Nonsense. Any state level attempt at gun control is nullified by the ability to drive across state lines and buy unlimited amounts of guns, no checks, no receipt, no record, cash and carry. This makes a farce of gun control laws. Note:

"Undercover stings at gun shows in Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada documented that:

--63 percent of private sellers sold guns to purchasers who stated they probably could not pass a background check;
--94 percent of licensed dealers completed sales to people who appeared to be criminals or straw purchasers (City of New York, 2009, p. 6, 7)
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/b…

ST: "As the world crime rate climbs, ours, the States, are going down,">>

Our rate is higher. You don't know what you are talking about.

D.
---------------
“…the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries.”
--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths among children in 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46 :101 –105
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/0…

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by fayfreethinker on 02/08/2012 at 8:41 PM

All Comments »


 

© 2015 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation