Does gun control work?

Washington D.C. used to have the most stringent gun laws in the US, luckily the courts struck down that law. The murder rate since the ban has risen 134% whilst the nations murder rate fell 2%. When the ban ended the amount of violent crime decreased. At the same time Virginia Beach had the lowest crime, one of the lowest, murder rates when they had less stringent gun laws.

NYC, everyone loves that place, until they get mugged. In 1960 only 19% of all murders involved usage of a gun, after they restricted handguns the number jumped too 49%. There are only 28,000 legally owned handguns in the city, and 1.3 million illegal ones. Meaning people where obtaining them illegally regardless of the law, meaning gun control fails.

In maryland 1986 small cheap weapons, saturday night specials, was made to lower the amount of murder involving a small quarel then driving over to the nearest gun dealer. In 2 years murder rose 20%. Its murder rate was 33% higher then the rest of the nations.

New Hampshire has little gun control, and little crime.

Vermont has the lowest gun control (higher number the better) and rankes 47th in murder, and 49/50 for all crimes.

States that passed ccw laws murder dropped 8.5%

Guns do make it easier for bad things to happen, but they also make it easier to deter criminals and defend oneself. Guns deter more crime then they cause. Gun control is doing the opposite of what it is supposed to do.

Romney v. Obama, another prediction

Another one, I know I am annoying. But this time I am going to use elephant watcher data not roves data. With their polls selected (they choose only the common accurate ones i.e. Gallup or Rasmussen). They have Romney at +.8%. That's a tie based on margin of error, something they miss. So this data is more faulty then the one I used yesterday.

Now using their data romney will win the core republican states, ohio and florida. Basically his 3-2-1 plan (3-2-1 plan: http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2012/4/20/karl_rove_voters_need_reason_to.htm) so the map looks like this: (or similar)

http://ElectoralMap.net/2012/myPrediction.php?d=bo0wqnr0qr0nqwnxz

 

 

REPUBLICAN 271 ✓

DEMOCRAT 267

 

 

Is banning Same Sex Marriage unconstitutional?

"The three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled that the provision defining marriage as between a man and woman is unconstitutional in that it denies gay couples the rights granted to heterosexual couples."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/federal-court-rules-centerpiece-gay-marriage-law-unconstitutional/#ixzz1wZBlEzlL

Claim: It infringes the due process and equal protection clause

 

Fact: The debate over same sex marriage is actually what marriage is. No one can claim a breach of liberty, right, or other notions without first answering this question. to claim a liberty has been violated, marriage must be defined."[1] As Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson continue:

""Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded."[1]

 

This is the most common quote I think that has been used in the SSM debate, and the thing is it works. Before claiming whether or not this right is being infringed we must ask even if the right applies. Marriage is by nature a heterosexual procreative union meant to lead to other child rearing acts. Marriage is a heterosexual union. Same Sex "marriage" does not exist therefore no right is being infringed. 

 

Also arguing any loss of rights actually begs the question if the right even exists. Only if this right exists are they actually being deprived of something.  Even if this right exists, the equal protection does not apply (see quote). 

Also this view falsely argues all discrimination is unjust discrimination. Like all other rights it is NOT absolute. Freedom of speech can be taken away. Gun rights for criminals can also be taken away. Even if we have this pre-conceived notion that the right exists one could argue that it is not absolute (it is, it only applies to heterosexuals). One could also argue discrimination is NOT even bad, as only unjust discrimination is inherently bad. 

So as we can see this claim is a moot, and before you claim liberty is being deprived you have to define what marriage is. As marriage by nature is ONLY heterosexual one can argue the right to marriage does not apply. This liberal claim is illogical. 

Claim: A right to marriage exists

Fact: I personally agree, no doubt that the gays and myself hold this to be true. However, our views do separate and my view here is not self refuting. Even though we agree it is a right, we differ on what marriage entails. (see above claim, it is not self defeating).

 

But it is often argued in courts same sex marriage is a right, and they should get access to the institution, even if it means a redefinition.  Now in my opinion this simplifies the issue, as it means they will be forced to define marriage is just a loving relationship. But this is faulty as this definition means we would have to accommodate for many other couples. And back to what I have been saying this whole time:

"Secondly, one cannot claim to have a right to some X unless one first knows what X is."[2]

 

X is a procreative natural heterosexual union. The point being you cannot have a right to X unless you either define X to your advantage or get rid of X altogether. So marriage is a right, but not for homosexual couples. 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Well, that's how illogical gay marriage is folks. 

 

 

 

 

______________

[1] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)

[2]  http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/marriage-same-sex-marriage-and-fundamental-rights/

Romvey v. Obama new guess

Elephant watchers: Romney 65% chance at winning, Obama 35. -- http://www.elephantwatcher.com/p/candidate-rankings.html

Note they accurately predicted the primaries last election, the general election last election, and the primaries this year.

Rove.com -- Romney is surging in state polls, but not in national. His EC (electoral college) count increased 16. Obama's only gain was NH, lean obama to safe obama. Where Romney gained strength:

North Carolina. Lean obama --> Toss up
Tennessee. Toss up --> lean Romney
Oklahoma. Safe Romney --> safer Romney?
Maine. Safe Obama --> Safe obama (Romney gained 8%)
New York. (wow). Safe Obama --> Safe Obama (Romney 3% gain)
New Jersey. Safe Obama --> Safe obama (romney gain 1%)
http://rove.com/election

Lets assume the romney surge continues.

REPUBLICAN 244

DEMOCRAT 294

 

http://ElectoralMap.net/2012/myPrediction.php?d=no0wqwr0nr0orwn0w

 

This will be updated as often as I can. 

 

Gun Control Myths

1. Most Americans favor gun control

Americans are not dumb, and thats why they ignore the media and either look at facts or understand deterrence theory. Scientific polls show that people actually do not like costly regulation, police dictating who owns guns, and believe gun control laws are ineffective. This pew research poll showed 49% of Americans favored gun rights over gun control, and 45% favored gun control. (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2251/social-issues-gun-rights-gay-marriage-abortion-presidential-campaign)

This Gallup poll examined a handgun ban law, 73% opposed 26% supported. Graph:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

Interesting how this myth is far from reality, along with all other gun control myths.

2. Gun control works in Japan

This is always heard in these debates, look at this country low gun rates and low crime. America can be like that if we choose those laws. This is an argument showing they must be looking at blogs, liberal blogs with no sources anyway. ;)

"All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. It is impossible to draw valid conclusions without taking into account differences in each nation's collection of crime data, and their political, cultural, racial, religious, and economic disparities. Such factors are not only hard to compare, they are rarely, if ever, taken into account by "gun control" proponents. [...] (this quote within the quote is from David Kopel) "Contrary to the claims of the American gun control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations." He noted that Israel and Switzerland, with more widespread rates of gun ownership, have crime rates comparable to or lower than the usual foreign examples."
 http://www.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

3. Gun control is crime control 

Is it really? Explain why when any gun control law is passed crime increases. This is often countered by correlation is not causation. I understand this, but with a STRONG correlation one can assume certain effects, whether it is responsible for the whole thing or not, occur. I am not idiotic enough to claim the law creates all of the rise, but I do think it has a large impact.

-- UK

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

-- Washington DC


"In 1976, Washington, D.C., instituted one of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. The murder rate since that time has risen 134 percent (77.8 per 100,000 population) while the overall rate for the country has declined 2 percent."
 http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

-- Canada

their laws where passed in 1995

"The contrast between the rate of criminal violence in the United States and that in Canada is much more dramatic (figure 12). Over the past decade, the Canadian rate of violent crime has stayed basically flat while, in the United States during the same time period, the rate of violent crime has slid from 600 per 100,000 to 500 per 100,000 (Gannon 2001)"
www.gunsandcrime.org/faildxprmt.pdf

This means gun control had no effect in Canada.  

CONCLUSION: gun control has no effect on crime, or increases crime, and is not worth the cost of losing our liberties and a whole industry in the USA.
 
 

How does CO2 cause warming?

If it caused warming, natural increases would increase temperatures. CO2 would have to have a correlation for millions of years to cause warming, even if it was naturally made. We have I think ~380 ppm (parts per million) CO2 in our atmosphere. It causes the "scary" warming we see today. If this was true, then CO2 twice the amount of today would lead to higher temperatures (i.e. natural increase = temperature increase). I have never seen an article proving there has been a correlation for millions of years. Look at this:



Co2 might be high when temperatures are low, and vice versa. So how can this work? How can a light amount of 380 CO2 cause warming, if a ppm of 4500 did not 450 million years ago? No alarmist can answer that.

Lets look at the big ben. Big Ben is 316 ft high. If this was the atmosphere (using top to bottom) all CO2 is 1 1/4 inches total. Humans are responsible for 1 mm of that. Cool huh? If we took 1mm out of the big bang, or added 1mm, would it be much taller or shorter? No. It would have no visible effect. If someone argued it would lead to huge differences we would say "you are crazy" right? Same with CO2, your crazy.

CO2 is a natural cycle. If normal warming trends look like this (graph below) when why does this specific one have to be man made?


(IPCC)

Again, why does our natural normal looking trend have to be man made? it does not, because it is natural.

Hitler the liberal

A common misconception on Hitler is he was a right wing fascist, but these claims do not follow the facts.

We need to first look at icons, as icons are very important to the debate. Everyone agrees Stalin and the USSR where huge government  liberals, communists, or socialists right? Right. Although hitler stole the swastika from many civilizations, one of the influences may have been the RUSSIAN SWASTIKA. It was worn on the uniform of Russian troops. Also:


source: http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html 

Labor unions, liberal democratic thinking. Help the worker right? yes, common liberal theme. Now who said this quote?

As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence.[1]

Democratic senator? Obama? A labor union official? No, Hitler. Hitler was pro unions, as a national socialist he expanded unions. Now, which part of the spectrum does that sound like? 

Also:

  

Sources: http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/fascism-is-communism-lite-t3534.html#p66205

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

Guess what it says? Hate gays be conservative? No. It means we the workers have awoken, a pro union pro labor pro worker poster. For the nazis. Once again, sound socialist. 

Also, ever heard the term greenie, or green? The green movement? Hitler was fond of it, if you where wondering.  What Hitler did, according to PHD John Ray:

• "We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind's own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger . . .
  
  This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought." 
• Quote from non other then leading Nazi biologist, Ernst Lehmann
• Hitler banned experiments on animals  
• 2/3 of people in the nature clubs, nowadays could be called greenies, or by me liberty sucking hoaxers, joined the nazi party
• Caught youth attention by making a movement that says we are connected to earth
• Killing whales forests are bad, taking away out relationship from nature (nazi teaching)

• So Nazis where pro green, how does this relate to modern day activists? Watch: "In the name of speaking for the trees and other species, we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism."Guess who taught this to their people? Hitler. Guess who said it? Greenpeace international leader [former] Patrick Moore. 

What was Hitlers leading argument for some killings?  Population control, living space, preventing overpopulation. [2] A liberal, Paul Ehrlich said: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."[1] Hitler said:

"Germany has an annual increase in population of nearly nine hundred thousand souls. The difficulty of feeding this army of new citizens must grow greater from year to year and ultimately end in catastrophe, unless ways and means are found to forestall the danger of starvation and misery in time... Without doubt the productivity of the soil can be increased up to a certain limit. But only up to a certain limit, and not continuously without end..... But even with the greatest limitation on the one hand and the utmost industry on other, here again a limit will one day be reached, created by the soil itself. With the utmost toil it will not be possible to obtain any more from it, and then, though postponed for a certain time, catastrophe again manifests itself". (Mein Kampf pp. 121 & 122)" [1, 2]

Guns, Hitler like conservatives like guns? Hardly.  Gun control was already popular in Germany, but the Nazis took a step further. Only politically reliable people could own guns, like what many socialists argue today. "only cops should have guns". Hitler aligns with the left yet again.

For more info: http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

Hitler was a liberal.

Sources:

[1] http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

[2] Mein Kampf