Reality Check: More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low

Truth is, the N.R.A. does not spend as much on Politicians as others do.

And yes, I am a huge suporter of Individualism.
If you only knew........

I never followed the herd, even as a lad, I marched to a different beat...

 

You don't think $7 million on one politician is a lot of money? Wow! For a supporter of individualism you really have some weird ideas!

 

7 Million is but a drop of rain in a deluge of PACK monies.....

But yes, aside from that, not only, I have been to other Worlds and seen things that would seen one way, normal, contrarywise, you would not believe !

 

That you would dismiss $7 million to one politician informs me that any notion of individualism is a sham.

 

Why ?

Money in Politics has always been a reality and not my bailiwick.
I simply choose to ignore it.

My individuality is quite another matter entirely and not in question.

 

Because $7 million, just for one politicians, refers to influence costs and how government is bought.

It is a shame that pro-gunners are willing supporters of these anti-individualism practices. But that's how ideological limitation works. You become sheep

 

Its not because of guns, its because Minnesota is very white and rural which means lower crime. Violence is because of culture not guns.

 

Ha !

Democrats waste untold fortunes on Elections, and I have always been of the Democratic Party from my youth and have never changed affiliations, I am not limited in any way shape or form, and I am not a sheep.

 

*looks at figures* Hmmm...a homicide rate roughly twice that of Sweden.

Not something to be THAT proud of, surely?

 

Completely unimportant.

The Murders are being commited by the same people that compose the majority of the Prison Populations..
Minorities.

So it is not relevant.

The vast majority of licensed gun owners are law abiding and have not murdered anyone.

Most deaths involving firearms are suicides, 2/3 so the actual tally is not 33,000 it is around 11,000 deaths that occurs mostly in slums and Ghettos and are related to Gangs and illegal drugs, the left over gun death statistics, are less than 1,000 a year and those are still people shot in hold ups or other robberies and ancillary crimes.

Bans and further gun control will not prevent these deaths.

 

According to the open secrets website, the NRA is outspent by wide margins by various other lobbying groups that represent big businesses and industries, rather than individuals.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/

 

I find the idea of a pressure group giving a politician $7 million quite abhorrent. Such influence costs are certainly alien to individualism.

 

LOL

For fun, I waded through every post of yours on this thread. What an interesting debate style.

You offer no evidence to support your rejection of the premise outlined in the thread, and then anchor your argument on a line between NRA support for politicians, specifically McCain as proof of manipulation of politicians. Not only have you failed to prove any dollars have resulted in manipulation, but you've completely diverted from the topic of the thread.

Worse, you've assumed the position of pseudo-intellectual, by chastising people for failing to meet your standards of proof, which you've offered none of.

For your premise to work, you would have to prove such backing resulted in manipulation. You have failed to do that. You've simply assumed dollars equal manipulation.

On the point of the thread, you've demanded evidence to support the contention, but have offered nothing to support your rejection.

Over all, pretty slick, but a total fail.

 

Try this one: http://fortune.com/2018/02/15/nra-contributions-politicians-senators/

Enjoy!

 

Lame. I, of course, already looked up your accusation, since I didn't see where you provided any link to prove it. I could have missed it.

So where is the proof those dollars manipulated McCain?

It will be interesting to see where this superior intellect you seem to be peddling takes your answer.

As to the other point you side stepped. Where is the proof/data anything to support you position in opposition to the suggestion in the OP?

You've claim to be a master of data and evidence. Do you plan to demonstrate that with some facts, as opposed to idle boasts?

 

HAHAHAHA! $7 million isn't influence? Gosh, you folk say the most naive things

 

Don't think for a minute your debate style is accomplishing anything. I asked for proof. By your answer, you appear to have none.

I also asked for facts to support your rejection of the premise offered in the OP. You have now twice side stepped that.

Pretty clear you can't back your game here. When I'm in that position, I have to accept the fact I failed.

You?

 

I'll set you a task. Here's an old post that I've posted:

"Cook and Ludwig (2006, The social costs of gun ownership, Journal of Public Economics, Vol 90, pp 379-391) conclude that "an increase in gun prevalence causes an intensification of criminal violence—a shift toward greater lethality, and hence greater harm to the community". Duggan (2001, More Guns, More Crime, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 109, pp 1086-114) is able to conclude that "guns influence crime primarily by increasing the homicide rate". The paper finds that one-third of the differential in decline between gun and non-gun homicides can be explained by reductions in the household gun prevalence. Then we have the more specific analysis. Rubin and Dezhbakhsh (2003, The effect of concealed handgun laws on crime: beyond the dummy variables, International Review of Law & Economics, Vol. 23, pp 199-217) fail to find any evidence of significant crime-reducing effects. Mocan and Tekin (2006, Guns and Juvenile Crime, Journal of Law & Economics, Vol 49, pp 507-531) conclude that after "[c]ontrolling for a very large number of personal and family characteristics and exploiting the time variation in criminal activity and gun availability,...gun availability at home is positively related to the propensity to commit crime for juveniles". Lemaire (2005, The Cost of Firearm Deaths in the United States: Reduced Life Expectancies and Increased Insurance Costs, Journal of Risk & Insurance, Vol. 72, pp359-374) finds that "firearm violence shortens the life of an average American by 104 days (151 days for white males, 362 days for black males)"

Try updating that, providing a recent article that you think disputes these findings. Don't let me down now!

 

You've already been given proof! That you're even trying to deny the monies used to buy politcians just shows that you aren't here to be convinced. You're here to give the herd viewpoint?

 

LOL

Nice try Reiver. As usual, you run from the questions and try to introduce a strawman.

I've asked you to provide proof that supports your rejection of the suggestion in the OP. Further, I've asked you to prove McCain was manipulated by the NRA.

Posting what did here, opens the door to the suggestion you can do neither.

You are two days in on a thread, posting as if you are firmly enthroned on Mt. Olympus, and yet, you've provided nothing to back your position.

It's one thing to offer an opinion, but that is not what you have been doing on this thread.

 

Tut tut, you asked for evidence then you dodge! That is pitiful. I'm happy to choose a paper that I haven't even read. Try critiquing this recent piece of evidence:

http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf

It is obvious that the OP is talking cobblers as he/she is falling for the same spurious relationship flaw that the herd have come to completely rely on. I of course refer to crimniology research which necessarily isolate gun effects

 

You have provided no proof that McCain changed any position, or did anything that would show he was manipulated by donations from the NRA.

You're making an assumption, which you can of course make, but that's not the position you have taken here. You've stated McCain was manipulated.

Prove it.

 

As they pointed out:

Limitations exist when doing any research in the social sciences. One of the limitations of the current analysis is the lack of accurate firearm ownership information. More accurate information could begin to clear some of the confusion as to the exact extent and direction of firearm ownership and crime. Illegal transfer and purchase of guns is difficult to measure when criminologists are not sure of the extent of legal firearm ownership.
​

And then there is the evidence pointed out in the OP.

 

Its because Asian gangs fight each other with kung fu not guns silly.

 

So your position is that NRA gifted millions to politicians and it had no actual impact on their behaviour? By crikey, you must think the NRA are proper divs!