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.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »




Updated on July 30, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Recent Comments

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.

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.

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


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:


My favorite roast of Lott's whoppers is perhaps this: "Myths of Murder and Multiple Regression"

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,
28.6 per 100k in the US.


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."

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:

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"


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.

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.

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)

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.

“…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

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

Re: “Arkansans candidate backs sensible gun measures

Steve: "the gun death comparisons is not a complete and honest report.">>

Really. Now why wouldn't a consideration of gun death be an "honest report" of gun death. Where is your "honest report" of gun death? Did you forget to bring it?

Steve: "Better yet, how about crime?">>

Of course you would love to change the subject. Who couldn't see that coming?

ST: "as far as gun deaths, how are they broken down?">>

Let's see. People killed by guns, as specified at the references I provided. Your position cannot be salvaged, but do give it a try. It's been a while since given a gun nut a good roast. Let me help you out:

"In 2005, 30,694 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 12,352 were murdered; 17,002 killed themselves; 789 were accidents; 330 died by police intervention, and in 221, the intent was unknown."
--WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control, 2005 data, http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrat… (hereafter Injury Mortality Reports).

ST: "The numbers from the CDC were skewed...">>

I'll need a bit more than your mere assertion. Support claim with evidence.

ST: "to also ignore how many time guns have been used to kill a bad guy,">>

You are confused. Different question, different study. But if you wish to put forward your Defensive Gun Uses canards, proceed. I've seen them all before.

ST: "If you choose to dig a little deeper into the facts, you will find crime rates about comparable.">>

Wrong but irrelevant. We are talking are about guns, not crime rates. If you wish to deny that the US experiences an inordinate amount of death and destruction due to our extraordinary gun habit, then you will need to deal with data such as:

Gun rate Death.

Country Gun Death Rate per 100,000

Japan 0.07
Singapore 0.24
Taiwan 0.27
Kuwait 0.37
England/ Wales 0.4
Scotland 0.49
Netherlands 0.55
Spain 0.74
Ireland 1.24
Germany 1.44
Italy 2.27
Sweden 2.27
Denmark 2.48
Israel 2.56
New Zealand 2.67
Australia 2.94
Belgium 3.32
Canada 3.95
Norway 4.23
Austria 4.48
Northern Ireland 4.72
France 5.48
Switzerland 6.2
Finland 6.65
USA 13.47

Source: W. Cukier, Firearms Regulation: Canada in the International
Context, Chronic Diseases in Canada, April, 1998 (statistics updated
to January 2001)

ST: "It's that whole thing that no matter where you go, you can find violent crimes,..."

When guns are involved, specifically handguns, more people die:

"In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified.[34] Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a gun.[35] The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.[36]"

ST: "Japan and Britain about the same as the states,">>

Wrong. Not even close. You don't know what you are talking about.

ST: "break in crimes FAR higher than in countries where a resident has a means of defending themselves.">>

Even if that were true, and it mostly isn't, is that worth the extraordinarily higher gun death and destruction the US experiences? Hardly.

ST: "The CDC also ignores data from other European countries,">>

Nonsense. The two studies I referenced included 36 peer nations and much of Europe. Read for comprehension.

ST: "like Finland and Switzerland where every house, pretty much, has a gun,">>

More NRA mythology. Percent of households with a handgun, 1991

United States 29%
Switzerland 14
Finland 7

Handgun murders (1992)

United States: 13,429 -- rate = 5.28
Switzerland: 97 -- rate = 1.42

ST: "These countries that have a higher household percentage of firearms percentage">>

Misleading at best. As a friend once put it:

"Actually, Switzerland has very strict gun control laws. The "assault weapon" also know as army rifle in "every" home is there, along with an army uniform (with train ticket to deployment area in the pocket), to dispense with the need for an armory/meeting and arming point for when their army deploys. These weapons are only in the homes of members of the army. The fact that every able-bodied male from 15 to 55 is in their army is why there are so many homes with army rifles in them. Any other guns owned by Swiss goes through shooting clubs (trained and more or less licensed). In Switzerland it is much harder to get a gun than in America. Just because there is wider (as a percent of population) gun ownership doesn't mean it isn't more controlled."

Gun related death, per 100k:

United States 14.24
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31

ST: "have fewer crimes and gun related violence than we do,">>

You just said they have more crimes. Of course they have less gun related violence than we do. They have Gun Control, we have Gun Shows.

ST: "the FBI uniform crime report also stated that fewer murders, rapes and robberies occurred.">>

Non sequiter fallacy.

ST: "More guns, less crime,...">>

Nope. We've actually tried that experiment and if more guns equaled less crime, we would have good numbers. But we don't. More guns, more crime. If you me to walk you through the errors in your John Lott crapola, get to it and I'll shred it.

Or you can begin your education here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/07/07…

"WASHINGTON, April 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- States in the South and West with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in overall firearm death rates...

The new VPC analysis uses 2005 data (the most recent available) from the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The analysis reveals 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."

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by fayfreethinker on 02/07/2012 at 11:27 PM

Re: “Arkansans candidate backs sensible gun measures

Lifebyinches asks: "Im still waiting for someone to tell me what an "illegal gun" is?"

It's a gun that is not legal for you to own. Here is, for instance, a list of new handguns that you cannot legally purchase in Massachusetts:

Now on to Steven E's foolishness:

STEVE: "...we already have more than enough legislated to keep guns out of the hands of nutjobs.">>

Obviously we don't or we wouldn't have the horrendous gun related statistics so entirely out of whack with comparable peer countries. For instance:

"ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations,...

The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.

[In case you suck at math, that means our rate is 284x greater than Japan's]

The study, done by the CDC,... The 36 countries chosen were listed as the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, with the highest GNP per capita income.

The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.

The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia."

Gun control in the US is a farce because:

a) The gun show loophole which lets anyone back up their pickup truck and buy, cash and carry, no check, no record, no receipt, anything being sold.

b) Differing laws between states, so the lowest denominator wins. Just go across state lines or on the internet and subvert the laws of your state.

STEVE: "Most of it is just a matter of record keeping, like the whack job in Arizona.">>

No, most of it is the ready availability of guns due to the efforts of idiotic organizations like the NRA and the plethora of know nothing gun nuts they spawn.

STEVE: "Aden... betrays us with the kool aid he has drunk regarding gun control.">>

Yes, because sensible gun regulations that could make it so we don't have 50x the gun related death as Britain, would be a bad thing:

"A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American." http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

We're not talking twice the rate, or ten times the rate, but rather 50 times the rate. If you can't comprehend the unnecessary death and destruction that results from that situation like that, then you are dumber than the average NRA tool, and that's saying a lot.

"In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.

In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 in the United States."
--WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by fayfreethinker on 02/07/2012 at 7:29 PM

All Comments »


© 2014 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation