TexasCHLforum.com

Isn't it the other way around? I mean, who goes and buys a gun from a store, where gun sales can be tracked, to commit a crime with? Sure, there are bound to be some, but I'd bet that a large majority of guns used in crimes are obtained by means other than honestly or in ways that can be tracked. I think that gun sales go up in response to violent crime.

C-dub wrote:Isn't it the other way around? I mean, who goes and buys a gun from a store, where gun sales can be tracked, to commit a crime with? Sure, there are bound to be some, but I'd bet that a large majority of guns used in crimes are obtained by means other than honestly or in ways that can be tracked. I think that gun sales go up in response to violent crime.

The number of new gun licences issued on the Gold Coast has risen 36 per cent in the past two years, nearly double the increase across Queensland, with one criminologist attributing the rise to fears over home invasions

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=47162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and
viewtopic.php?f=94&t=47162#p579154" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Superintendent Hutchinson says the figures have no bearing on the crime rate.

"Self defence is not a reason to get a gun licence and our experience is that these offences aren't committed by licensed gun holders anyway, generally they're unlicensed firearms," he told reporters on Friday.

"We generally don't have any issues with licensed gun holders."

RPB wrote:

C-dub wrote:Isn't it the other way around? I mean, who goes and buys a gun from a store, where gun sales can be tracked, to commit a crime with? Sure, there are bound to be some, but I'd bet that a large majority of guns used in crimes are obtained by means other than honestly or in ways that can be tracked. I think that gun sales go up in response to violent crime.

The number of new gun licences issued on the Gold Coast has risen 36 per cent in the past two years, nearly double the increase across Queensland, with one criminologist attributing the rise to fears over home invasions

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=47162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That one's not too old, but it is a little dusty. I missed that one last year.

Believe this or not, I've actually heard of that Donohue guy before...and when I did, it was because I heard him use Mr. John Lott's name in some little anti-firearms speech he was giving. So, I contacted John Lott at that time and told him about it. He emailed me back and thanked me, and told me he was getting in touch with Mr. Donohue. I also contacted the fantastic Mr. Donohue myself and made some complaints about his claims. Of course, once again, I'm just a veteran and a mechanic, not a statistician or economist, so my email to him wasn't so academic in nature and just a little blunt. Amazingly enough, he did email me back, and tried his best to convince me with the numbers, not that I cared much. So, I guess you can say I stirred the pot between Mr. Lott and Mr. Donohue, though they didn't like each other much before that, anyway.

her report contradicts itself, the FBI says crime went down and she says it went up

Talk about dishonesty. She said, and the original print article did too, that "we did other research and found that there are notable studies . . ."

But now, in the ultimate act of dishonesty, they have changed the print to state "A notable study . . ."

I still want to know what other "notable studies" (plural) they found, or was that a lie too?

jimlongley wrote:Talk about dishonesty. She said, and the original print article did too, that "we did other research and found that there are notable studies . . ."

But now, in the ultimate act of dishonesty, they have changed the print to state "A notable study . . ."

I still want to know what other "notable studies" (plural) they found, or was that a lie too?

'

She responded and said it was the Donohue study at http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... hn_donohue" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

wgoforth wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Talk about dishonesty. She said, and the original print article did too, that "we did other research and found that there are notable studies . . ."

But now, in the ultimate act of dishonesty, they have changed the print to state "A notable study . . ."

I still want to know what other "notable studies" (plural) they found, or was that a lie too?

'

She responded and said it was the Donohue study at http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... hn_donohue" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Donahue is IMHO, as the Urban Dictionary defines/describes: Educated Idiot

An Educated Idiot is a person that went to college, but is dumber than a rock. The Educated Idiot feels like he/she is smart, but ...

Example: Obama has Harvard credentials .... He thinks he knows the answers and can fix the economy, unemployment and the world's problems

wgoforth wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Talk about dishonesty. She said, and the original print article did too, that "we did other research and found that there are notable studies . . ."

But now, in the ultimate act of dishonesty, they have changed the print to state "A notable study . . ."

I still want to know what other "notable studies" (plural) they found, or was that a lie too?

'

She responded and said it was the Donohue study at http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... hn_donohue" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The part you are either not understanding or are ignoring is that she said "STUDIES", plural, as in more than one, many as opposed to one, not just one. And then they go and change the text from studies to: "Look, see, here's a study" as in one, and only one, not many. Besides the simple fact that the Donohue "study" is not really a study, but a different way of looking at the same number, cherry picking the stats that he wants to use so that the "study" proves his point, there is the fact that the so called study cited is ancient, surely there must be something more recent, particularly if it's true.

She said studies, the text said studies, it is dishonest to change it, particularly since they probably can't find more than one, so I want them to either admit they lied to begin with and there are no studies, and that they are trying to cover up their lies, or come up with more than one ancient and discredited one.

jimlongley wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Talk about dishonesty. She said, and the original print article did too, that "we did other research and found that there are notable studies . . ."

But now, in the ultimate act of dishonesty, they have changed the print to state "A notable study . . ."

I still want to know what other "notable studies" (plural) they found, or was that a lie too?

'

She responded and said it was the Donohue study at http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... hn_donohue" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The part you are either not understanding or are ignoring is that she said "STUDIES", plural, as in more than one, many as opposed to one, not just one. And then they go and change the text from studies to: "Look, see, here's a study" as in one, and only one, not many. Besides the simple fact that the Donohue "study" is not really a study, but a different way of looking at the same number, cherry picking the stats that he wants to use so that the "study" proves his point, there is the fact that the so called study cited is ancient, surely there must be something more recent, particularly if it's true.

She said studies, the text said studies, it is dishonest to change it, particularly since they probably can't find more than one, so I want them to either admit they lied to begin with and there are no studies, and that they are trying to cover up their lies, or come up with more than one ancient and discredited one.

I just missed where you said "plural" and you are correct. Given the lack of credibility of the author of this one they did manage to produce was bad enough.