Gun control ... actual question

[Que]

... and, as I said in the above statement, you're sort of skirting around the point that having law-abiding trained gun owners means there are guns available, and hence non-law-abiding non-trained gun owners.
Which, I guess, brings me back to my original point. Let's assume the following:
- gun ownership is a right under the Second Amendment;
- the cultural and historical background of the US has resulted in fairly high levels of legal gun ownership;
- significant chunks of the population seem disinclined to tighten up on gun control;
- significant numbers of guns within the population and the relative normalisation of gun ownership inevitably means there's also fairly high levels of non-legal gun ownership;
- a lot of deaths results from non-legal gun ownership.

Is that a problem? And if so, how do you resolve it?

I wouldn't bother with navel-gazing about the unsolvable. We can't keep contraband from coming into the country and we really can't do anything at all about contraband that is already firmly established in our country.

Illegal guns are so prevalent and so easily acquired that they don't always fetch full retail value for the guns. The guy that has it can't sell through legitimate outlets and those that are his customers know that.

Granted most of the guns in the illegal marketplace are junk but they're still functional for what their intended for- single, disposable use.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

You have discovered the conflation of various societal ills as some mythical problem called "gun deaths."

Suicide and murder are the problem, not the instrument of choice.

That's pretty fucking stupid, even for you, panty sniffer.

 

[KimGordon67]

I wouldn't bother with navel-gazing about the unsolvable. We can't keep contraband from coming into the country and we really can't do anything at all about contraband that is already firmly established in our country.

Illegal guns are so prevalent and so easily acquired that they don't always fetch full retail value for the guns. The guy that has it can't sell through legitimate outlets and those that are his customers know that.

Granted most of the guns in the illegal marketplace are junk but they're still functional for what their intended for- single, disposable use.

So you don't think there's a correlation between levels of legal gun ownership - or maybe the level of gun control - and levels of illegal gun ownership?

 

[Que]

So you don't think there's a correlation between levels of legal gun ownership - or maybe the level of gun control - and levels of illegal gun ownership?

Obviously there is. No one buys or sells stolen gold coins until someone mines gold and someone else mints the coin.

I'm saying there are already more than enough guns in criminal hands now to supply criminals for the next 100 years. Tens of millions of guns is not a hyperbolic estimate.

The hundreds of millions of guns legally owned is why we are not Mexico, in terms of violence. We have the very same gangs on this side of the border as they have on that side of the border. The difference is the gangs on this side of the border are not free to go house-to-house demanding tribute and execute local officials who defy them.

 

[KimGordon67]

Obviously there is. No one buys or sells stolen gold coins until someone mines gold and someone else mints the coin.

I'm saying there are already more than enough guns in criminal hands now to supply criminals for the next 100 years. Tens of millions of guns is not a hyperbolic estimate.

The hundreds of millions of guns legally owned is why we are not Mexico, in terms of violence. We have the very same gangs on this side of the border as they have on that side of the border. The difference is the gangs on this side of the border are not free to go house-to-house demanding tribute and execute local officials who defy them.

I'm sceptical that's the only reason.

Is there any sort evidence for that level of illegal gun ownership? (Yes, I get the difficulty of measuring anything that's illegal, but without some actual evidence, everyone's just making best guesses based on pretty much nothing.)

There's actually a few points you've made where I've asked (above) for the relevant research or stats, but not really seen anything ...?

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

I'm sceptical that's the only reason.

Que should thank you for being so charitable. I find the notion we are not Mexico in terms of violence owing to high levels of citizen gun ownership to be absolutely batshit insane.

 

[BotanyBoy]

OK, so without seeing the actual research, that seems like a simplistic argument at best.

Sure comrade, the state does a much better job at raising kids than a multiplicity of invested caring parental figures.

 

[Que]

I'm sceptical that's the only reason.

Is there any sort evidence for that level of illegal gun ownership? (Yes, I get the difficulty of measuring anything that's illegal, but without some actual evidence, everyone's just making best guesses based on pretty much nothing.)

There's actually a few points you've made where I've asked (above) for the relevant research or stats, but not really seen anything ...?

You won't. I'm not doing a PhD dissertation. Common knowledge is common knowledge if you have something different I'm happy to take a look at it.

Estimates vary widely because as you point out no records are kept of guns that change hands without records. The ubiquitous M1911 in .45ACP is so named because it entered servive in 1911. Same idea between the Springfield 03 rifle. That would be 1903, not 2003.

Guns are durable goods and hold their value with a minimum of proper care. Basically keep them oiled and dry. 100 year-old firearms are very much usuable.

We have good records on the number of firearms manufactured and sold in the United States as well as those that were legally imported. We also have a good idea of the number of guns that are reported stolen. Whether those weapons were actually stolen or were actually straw purchases where someone is funneling thos3 into the criminal market- either way we can assume that those are in the wrong hands.

As I point out above, the guns for the most part can assumes to still be somewhere in circulation and in operable order.

When a gun is finally recovered at a crime scene it is not uncommon for that gun to be linked to other previous unsolved crimes. criminals who are forbidden to own a firearm of any descriptions don't particularly care necessarily weather the gun they were buying is for example report it stolen. That's sort of the least of their worries if they're caught with it. They would like to know if the gun has a history that would leave them answering some rather pointed questions but it's unlikely that the seller of the gun is going to know or care to pass that sort of information along.

Criminal burglarize and rob other criminals regularly. Not so much because there's no honor among thieves as much as the fact that criminals tend to live in high-crime areas.

If I were to ask virtually anyone on the street in a criminal area if they would be able to get their hands on a gun they would mostly be concerned about why would I want to know that then give me a blank look of no idea.

We also don't have an accurate inventory of drugs on hand at any given point, but we don't need to do a lot of research to know that they are readily available and easily obtained. Same thing, except for trafficking in the odd pistol at carries a much lower penalty.

 

[KimGordon67]

You won't. I'm not doing a PhD dissertation. Common knowledge is common knowledge if you have something different I'm happy to take a look at it.

Estimates vary widely because as you point out no records are kept of guns that change hands without records. The ubiquitous M1911 in .45ACP is so named because it entered servive in 1911. Same idea between the Springfield 03 rifle. That would be 1903, not 2003.

Guns are durable goods and hold their value with a minimum of proper care. Basically keep them oiled and dry. 100 year-old firearms are very much usuable.

We have good records on the number of firearms manufactured and sold in the United States as well as those that were legally imported. We also have a good idea of the number of guns that are reported stolen. Whether those weapons were actually stolen or were actually straw purchases where someone is funneling thos3 into the criminal market- either way we can assume that those are in the wrong hands.

As I point out above, the guns for the most part can assumes to still be somewhere in circulation and in operable order.

When a gun is finally recovered at a crime scene it is not uncommon for that gun to be linked to other previous unsolved crimes. criminals who are forbidden to own a firearm of any descriptions don't particularly care necessarily weather the gun they were buying is for example report it stolen. That's sort of the least of their worries if they're caught with it. They would like to know if the gun has a history that would leave them answering some rather pointed questions but it's unlikely that the seller of the gun is going to know or care to pass that sort of information along.

Criminal burglarize and rob other criminals regularly. Not so much because there's no honor among thieves as much as the fact that criminals tend to live in high-crime areas.

If I were to ask virtually anyone on the street in a criminal area if they would be able to get their hands on a gun they would mostly be concerned about why would I want to know that then give me a blank look of no idea.

We also don't have an accurate inventory of drugs on hand at any given point, but we don't need to do a lot of research to know that they are readily available and easily obtained. Same thing, except for trafficking in the odd pistol at carries a much lower penalty.

In my experience, 'common knowledge' is often not well supported by actual evidence. That's why when I say things, I try to do my best to support the statement - and in doing that I'm sometimes surprised that the assumption I'd made turns out to be untrue. (As an immediately relevant example, my 'common sense' assumption was that high levels of gun ownership would result in more violent crime - turns out that's not the case, or at least not according to the evidence I decided to use.) I wasn't really entirely confident about my hunch that high levels of gun ownership don't necessarily increase the safety of women in respect of domestic violence, and found some stats that, while not proving that hunch, did support it.

I would hope that something like gun control laws aren't based around 'common knowledge' ... although given what I've seen of actual government policy documents regarding legislation in other areas, I'm not hugely confident about that.

 

[KimGordon67]

Que should thank you for being so charitable. I find the notion we are not Mexico in terms of violence owing to high levels of citizen gun ownership to be absolutely batshit insane.

But ... you do have tacos, right?

But, in general, Que's points have been pretty reasonably presented, and with the exception of the original post, which he amended, without the general insults that accompany dissenting attitudes on the GB. I don't necessarily agree with him, at least not on all points, but he's provided arguments that have made me better informed about at least some aspects of the situation.

 

[Que]

In my experience, 'common knowledge' is often not well supported by actual evidence. That's why when I say things, I try to do my best to support the statement - and in doing that I'm sometimes surprised that the assumption I'd made turns out to be untrue. (As an immediately relevant example, my 'common sense' assumption was that high levels of gun ownership would result in more violent crime - turns out that's not the case, or at least not according to the evidence I decided to use.) I wasn't really entirely confident about my hunch that high levels of gun ownership don't necessarily increase the safety of women in respect of domestic violence, and found some stats that, while not proving that hunch, did support it.

I would hope that something like gun control laws aren't based around 'common knowledge' ... although given what I've seen of actual government policy documents regarding legislation in other areas, I'm not hugely confident about that.

"Supporting your statements" in the age of Google is nothing but perusing for confirmation bias. It leads nowhere.

One of my Facebook friends is a nationally known author. I got to know him by the mere coincidence that he happens to currently live in a town that I lived in during my youth. He is a well-known historian that literally wrote the book on a particular founding father. I've actually seen people arguing with him about this and dredging up Googled cites to prove that they are right about what the subj3ct of that biography did or didn't say in the actual source materials that this guy has seen firsthand with his own eyes. In the age of Google, everyone is an expert on everything. I frequently Google when I'm responding if I can't recall a particular fact at my fingertips when I grab a fact that way I don't take the time or interest to see whether the source I'm grabbing that particular fact from is the one I have 100% confidence in.

Some of your queries have sparked curiosity in me about questioning what I "know" and trying to recall how it is that I know that particular little factoid. this led me to reading some interesting articles one in front line one in Fortune Magazine where ATF agents were interviewed about how it is the criminals acquire guns. I read those things not to find sources to cite but simply because I'm curious. I have yet to see a citation on any subject that has ever changed any one's mind. I also have never seen a particular point of view the couldn't easily be backed up with 17 first page Google citations if you Google it for the way you think something is.

I used to be a blogger and had analytics attached to my blog. I could see where people had come from. It always amused me when someone found something that I wrote from a Google search, especially if my particular collection of words made it to page one of the Google search for that particular search term or phrase.

Dualing cites is pointless. Reading from a wide range of sources is interesting and useful.

As I have often pointed out here to no avail people used to have actual conversations on a wide range of subjects long before smartphones and google were invented. Nobody ran down to the library and went through the card file for a Dewey Decimal shelved volume to prove their point. I don't do it won't do it and I'm not interested in it.

If I direct anyone anywhere it's simply because I read something that fascinated me and simply pointing out to them that hey I think this would be of interest you about that thing we were talking about the other day. But it's never in my estimation a way to advance an argument.

 

[Ishmael]

"Supporting your statements" in the age of Google is nothing but perusing for confirmation bias. It leads nowhere.

One of my Facebook friends is a nationally known author. I got to know him by the mere coincidence that he happens to currently live in a town that I lived in during my youth. He is a well-known historian that literally wrote the book on a particular founding father. I've actually seen people arguing with him about this and dredging up Googled cites to prove that they are right about what the subj3ct of that biography did or didn't say in the actual source materials that this guy has seen firsthand with his own eyes. In the age of Google, everyone is an expert on everything. I frequently Google when I'm responding if I can't recall a particular fact at my fingertips when I grab a fact that way I don't take the time or interest to see whether the source I'm grabbing that particular fact from is the one I have 100% confidence in.

Some of your queries have sparked curiosity in me about questioning what I "know" and trying to recall how it is that I know that particular little factoid. this led me to reading some interesting articles one in front line one in Fortune Magazine where ATF agents were interviewed about how it is the criminals acquire guns. I read those things not to find sources to cite but simply because I'm curious. I have yet to see a citation on any subject that has ever changed any one's mind. I also have never seen a particular point of view the couldn't easily be backed up with 17 first page Google citations if you Google it for the way you think something is.

I used to be a blogger and had analytics attached to my blog. I could see where people had come from. It always amused me when someone found something that I wrote from a Google search, especially if my particular collection of words made it to page one of the Google search for that particular search term or phrase.

Dualing cites is pointless. Reading from a wide range of sources is interesting and useful.

As I have often pointed out here to no avail people used to have actual conversations on a wide range of subjects long before smartphones and google were invented. Nobody ran down to the library and went through the card file for a Dewey Decimal shelved volume to prove their point. I don't do it won't do it and I'm not interested in it.

If I direct anyone anywhere it's simply because I read something that fascinated me and simply pointing out to them that hey I think this would be of interest you about that thing we were talking about the other day. But it's never in my estimation a way to advance an argument.

He/she/it didn't even bother to read Snyder's monograph on the issue and then remarked that he/she/it couldn't be bothered to read books.

You are expending a great deal of time in debate with an ignorant SOB who is hormonal driven by their "feelings". Facts be damned.

Now, if you are still engaged with the thought that there are others that may read but not post, carry on. But do so in the manner that you are speaking to a crowd, not to an individual. Because the only reason that this thread exists is for he/she/it to advance his/her/it's agenda. There is no "honest question" involved here.

Ishmael

 

[Que]

But ... you do have tacos, right?

But, in general, Que's points have been pretty reasonably presented, and with the exception of the original post, which he amended, without the general insults that accompany dissenting attitudes on the GB. I don't necessarily agree with him, at least not on all points, but he's provided arguments that have made me better informed about at least some aspects of the situation.

I generally choose to interact with or not interact with people including Rob and his puppets based on how they present themselves in a particular post and I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else who to interact with about what, but I feel like I should point out to you that this is RobDownSouth's recently formed alt. He created it to replace his FreudianSlip alt that he had tarnished by going full "Skiddles" mode.

He had gotten some traction with that particular all by presenting fairly reasonable, intelligent-sounding posts where he borrows (without attribution) from scholarly sources. This particular sock puppet of his is supposed to be the new "smart" one.

He's not very organized about all of this so he frequently forgets which sock puppet he's using for what. The one thing he is consistent about is on his parent account RobDownSouth he always has a reference to me in his profile. He has made it his mission for the last 3 or 4 years to quote run me off the board unquote.

^ Is a member of the church of panty sniffing.

This is RobDownSouth in full unfiltered mode.^^^^

He has a rotating, never-ending army of sock puppets that he uses to impugn other people by making it appear that more than one person is fighting with his target while keeping RobDownSouth looking less manaically obsessed with "winning" the internet than he actually is.

 

[Que]

He/she/it didn't even bother to read Snyder's monograph on the issue and then remarked that he/she/it couldn't be bothered to read books.

You are expending a great deal of time in debate with an ignorant SOB who is hormonal driven by their "feelings". Facts be damned.

Now, if you are still engaged with the thought that there are others that may read but not post, carry on. But do so in the manner that you are speaking to a crowd, not to an individual. Because the only reason that this thread exists is for he/she/it to advance his/her/it's agenda. There is no "honest question" involved here.

Ishmael

I think it's perfectly normal for anyone engaged in persuasive speech to fantasize about the idea that someone might be persuaded by their words to come around to the writers way of thinking. I don't see anything particularly unusual or wrong with that.

 

[Ishmael]

I think it's perfectly normal for anyone engaged in persuasive speech to fantasize about the idea that someone might be persuaded by their words to come around to the writers way of thinking. I don't see anything particularly unusual or wrong with that.

Disabuse yourself that the thread starter is one of those that might 'come around.'

Ishmael

 

[Que]

Disabuse yourself that the thread starter is one of those that might 'come around.'

Ishmael

Oh, clearly not. She has her fully-formed worldview as do I.

The only thing that I've ever seen change anybody's perspective on guns is to actually handle and shoot them. I think a lot of people have a visceral reaction to them based on fear and the fear dissipates when they learn to see them as the inanimate, dangerous objects that they are. It's not that I don't think that intellectually they understand that they are in fact inanimate objects but I think on some sort of primal level you have to fire one to understand.

It's like you often see on the back of jeeps. "It's a Jeep thing. You wouldn't understand."

Speaking of which I happened upon another customer in a Napa Auto Parts up in Wickenburg who mentioned that he had recently inherited a couple of CJ2A's that he was looking to get rid of.

 

[KimGordon67]

"Supporting your statements" in the age of Google is nothing but perusing for confirmation bias. It leads nowhere.

One of my Facebook friends is a nationally known author. I got to know him by the mere coincidence that he happens to currently live in a town that I lived in during my youth. He is a well-known historian that literally wrote the book on a particular founding father. I've actually seen people arguing with him about this and dredging up Googled cites to prove that they are right about what the subj3ct of that biography did or didn't say in the actual source materials that this guy has seen firsthand with his own eyes. In the age of Google, everyone is an expert on everything. I frequently Google when I'm responding if I can't recall a particular fact at my fingertips when I grab a fact that way I don't take the time or interest to see whether the source I'm grabbing that particular fact from is the one I have 100% confidence in.

Some of your queries have sparked curiosity in me about questioning what I "know" and trying to recall how it is that I know that particular little factoid. this led me to reading some interesting articles one in front line one in Fortune Magazine where ATF agents were interviewed about how it is the criminals acquire guns. I read those things not to find sources to cite but simply because I'm curious. I have yet to see a citation on any subject that has ever changed any one's mind. I also have never seen a particular point of view the couldn't easily be backed up with 17 first page Google citations if you Google it for the way you think something is.

I used to be a blogger and had analytics attached to my blog. I could see where people had come from. It always amused me when someone found something that I wrote from a Google search, especially if my particular collection of words made it to page one of the Google search for that particular search term or phrase.

Dualing cites is pointless. Reading from a wide range of sources is interesting and useful.

As I have often pointed out here to no avail people used to have actual conversations on a wide range of subjects long before smartphones and google were invented. Nobody ran down to the library and went through the card file for a Dewey Decimal shelved volume to prove their point. I don't do it won't do it and I'm not interested in it.

If I direct anyone anywhere it's simply because I read something that fascinated me and simply pointing out to them that hey I think this would be of interest you about that thing we were talking about the other day. But it's never in my estimation a way to advance an argument.

I'm pretty careful about the sources I cite. If it's just a raw stat, I might go with something a bit less reliable, but usually where it's clear they got the stat from a reliable source. I think I gave an example above where I thought 'OK, how would this point be proven', found the relevant stats, and voila! They didn't prove my suspicion, so I ceded the point. I could have gone looking for another set of stats that did prove my point, but the ones I was using seemed pretty good in relation to the point I was interested in.

 

[KimGordon67]

He/she/it didn't even bother to read Snyder's monograph on the issue and then remarked that he/she/it couldn't be bothered to read books.

You are expending a great deal of time in debate with an ignorant SOB who is hormonal driven by their "feelings". Facts be damned.

Now, if you are still engaged with the thought that there are others that may read but not post, carry on. But do so in the manner that you are speaking to a crowd, not to an individual. Because the only reason that this thread exists is for he/she/it to advance his/her/it's agenda. There is no "honest question" involved here.

Ishmael

I think I said I was too busy, which is not the same as 'can't be bothered', and I asked you if there was a summation of the relevant arguments that I could see, to which (as far as I can tell), you 'didn't bother' to respond. I actually read research all the time ... I'm sort of surprised that you can read the stuff I've written in here and not realised that I actually know my around a bit of research ... but whatever. If it makes you happy to think that my thoughts on a topic are of less value because 'hormones', that's fine - it doesn't really make any difference to me, and if it gives you a bit more joy in your life, then super.

 

[KimGordon67]

I generally choose to interact with or not interact with people including Rob and his puppets based on how they present themselves in a particular post and I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else who to interact with about what, but I feel like I should point out to you that this is RobDownSouth's recently formed alt. He created it to replace his FreudianSlip alt that he had tarnished by going full "Skiddles" mode.

He had gotten some traction with that particular all by presenting fairly reasonable, intelligent-sounding posts where he borrows (without attribution) from scholarly sources. This particular sock puppet of his is supposed to be the new "smart" one.

He's not very organized about all of this so he frequently forgets which sock puppet he's using for what. The one thing he is consistent about is on his parent account RobDownSouth he always has a reference to me in his profile. He has made it his mission for the last 3 or 4 years to quote run me off the board unquote.



This is RobDownSouth in full unfiltered mode.^^^^

He has a rotating, never-ending army of sock puppets that he uses to impugn other people by making it appear that more than one person is fighting with his target while keeping RobDownSouth looking less manaically obsessed with "winning" the internet than he actually is.

I think, in this particular thread, I've probably demonstrated a desire for evidence to support any side of the argument ... it's been notably unforthcoming, with the exception of Adrina's graphs (Adrina is an evidence machine), which I'm still thinking about.

 

[Que]

I'm pretty careful about the sources I cite. If it's just a raw stat, I might go with something a bit less reliable, but usually where it's clear they got the stat from a reliable source. I think I gave an example above where I thought 'OK, how would this point be proven', found the relevant stats, and voila! They didn't prove my suspicion, so I ceded the point. I could have gone looking for another set of stats that did prove my point, but the ones I was using seemed pretty good in relation to the point I was interested in.

If I'm not mistaken, you're a couple of years younger than I, but more or less of the same vintage.

What did you use to do when holding a conversation before the advent of Google? if you and I were having this conversation in a bar 20 years ago would you come back to me a week later with citations?

I'm fine with you advancing your arguments with those things you think logically likely and intellectually consistent with your point of view.

We could go to weather.com to decide whether or not you need to wear a sweater tomorrow or we could just hazard a guess based on what the temperature was like today what time of year it is and what we expect, generally.

I find discourse in the information age far less informative than it was when people simply had to rely on that which they had previously read. Probably because back then most people had a smaller store of subjects that they were likely to wade in on.

 

[Ishmael]

I think I said I was too busy, which is not the same as 'can't be bothered', and I asked you if there was a summation of the relevant arguments that I could see, to which (as far as I can tell), you 'didn't bother' to respond. I actually read research all the time ... I'm sort of surprised that you can read the stuff I've written in here and not realised that I actually know my around a bit of research ... but whatever. If it makes you happy to think that my thoughts on a topic are of less value because 'hormones', that's fine - it doesn't really make any difference to me, and if it gives you a bit more joy in your life, then super.

A semantic twist more the note for its similarity than its difference.

Ishmael

 

[Que]

I think, in this particular thread, I've probably demonstrated a desire for evidence to support any side of the argument ... it's been notably unforthcoming, with the exception of Adrina's graphs (Adrina is an evidence machine), which I'm still thinking about.

I think like the disaster that is the field of climate "science" you will find "evidence" for whatever point of view you already have.

The only place that I know of that has raw data on this subject is the FBI's uniform crime statistics report.

I think it's pretty telling that the anti-gun nuts rarely cite data from that.

Bloomberg's "work" on the subject is especially bad. His advocacy group put together the nonsense about "school" shootings by culling newspaper accounts of shootings then overlaying them on a map and deciding which ones were "near" schools.

As I have repeated (I realize you've acknowledged the signifigance) anti-gun zealots have conflated suicides in every map, graph and "study" you will encounter from them to TRIPLE the actual size of the problem. That isn't just cherry-picking data which even fairly neutral researches find themselves doing. That is transplanting an apple orchard.

Combine that with them implying that gang-violence is somehow relevant to mr and mrs main street on main street making decisions for mainstreet and that is a six-fold layer of hyperbole, which is why Ish, and usually I give such discussions no weight.

 

[Hypoxia]

Living in a culture that's pretty much as you describe, I know I feel a lot safer knowing that assailants don't have a gun.

Our cousin, an ex-USN medic volunteering aid work in rural Guatemala, met a beautiful local nutritionist from an upper-middle-class family. We flew down for the spectacular wedding. The bride's BFF was Honduran-Texan, going to college in Boston. She said she felt nervous in Boston because there weren't enough guys with shotguns standing around watchfully.

This was about a decade after the brutal civil war ended. Lots of guys who'd been fighting in the hills suddenly needed jobs; security guard was a common gig. Guys with shotguns guarded everywhere: stores, estates, pickups loaded with empty bottles. If it was valuable, it was guarded.

We loved Guatemala and drove there from the states a few times. Each time, we saw fewer armed guards. That was the marker that life was improving.

Anyway, the irony: Some feel safest with no guns around, and some when armed guards are everywhere. I was in Mexico City in 1974 when civil unrest put armed troops on every street corner and halfway down each block. I'm not sure if I felt more or less secure there.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The only place that I know of that has raw data on this subject is the FBI's uniform crime statistics report

I think it's pretty telling that the anti-gun nuts rarely cite data from that.

Especially considering their love and devotion to all things government control.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

I generally choose to interact with or not interact with people including Rob and his puppets based on how they present themselves in a particular post and I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else who to interact with about what, but I feel like I should point out to you that this is RobDownSouth's recently formed alt. He created it to replace his FreudianSlip alt that he had tarnished by going full "Skiddles" mode.

He had gotten some traction with that particular all by presenting fairly reasonable, intelligent-sounding posts where he borrows (without attribution) from scholarly sources. This particular sock puppet of his is supposed to be the new "smart" one.

He's not very organized about all of this so he frequently forgets which sock puppet he's using for what. The one thing he is consistent about is on his parent account RobDownSouth he always has a reference to me in his profile. He has made it his mission for the last 3 or 4 years to quote run me off the board unquote.



This is RobDownSouth in full unfiltered mode.^^^^

He has a rotating, never-ending army of sock puppets that he uses to impugn other people by making it appear that more than one person is fighting with his target while keeping RobDownSouth looking less manaically obsessed with "winning" the internet than he actually is.

Quoted for hilarity.