Quote of the day—brookster1

Less guns means less shootings. End of story. No statistic can circumvent this simple formula. We need less guns.

December 2, 2015 1:30 PM PST.
Comment to Active shooter reported in San Bernardino, Calif.; authorities say multiple victims, as many as three attackers
[“End of story.” I presume thins means discussion needed or allowed. Just so ou know, this means they would eliminate the First Amendment as well as the Second.

Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]


18 thoughts on “Quote of the day—brookster1

    • Actually, that’s not true. More guns in the hand of good people reduces violence. See the work of John Lott.

      • Lott found a very weak correlation, and it hasn’t borne out in other studies. Other studies are consistent that less guns does not lower crime when you control for other factors.

        (I actually know a left-ish friend who is a brilliant statistician who has decided to take this on. I’ve warned her that it’s going to ruin her as an academic, but she doesn’t get it. “My work will be unimpeachable because I’m doing it right, and the results are going to be what they are; I’m not going in with an end in mind.”

        My wife and I keep trying to explain to her that it doesn’t matter if her research isn’t political, the leftists will MAKE it political, and she’s going to suffer all manner of ad hominem attacks and become an academic pariah. She’s plowing ahead anyways.)

        On the other hand, I’ve already helped her to know that she has to control for justifiable homicides and suicides in the “gun deaths” numbers, and she is, so there’s hope that we get another good, comprehensive study to reinforce Lott in a few years.)

        • I remember that Lott’s work was “contradicted” by a CMU team which took Lott’s data, deleted 85% of it, and used the carefully selected 15% to “show” that Lott was wrong.

          • I’m not talking about that one, there have been plenty more that replicated his lack of negative correlation. Even Lott himself doesn’t give much weight to the positive correlation when he’s asked about it in interviews.

          • Oh, I’ll make sure it gets out. Even if it is nothing new, I want my friend to get recognition for her effort.

  1. Notice less guns, not no guns. So, less guns for whom, I would like to ask.

    Only citizens will be forced to surrender them.

    Criminals will not give them up. They will steal, manufacture, or import them with complete ease.

    The government will, of course, keep them. I seem to recall at least a half-dozen recent democides done by governments after they disarmed their citizens. Thus, I would like for brookster1 to address how 200+ million dead versus a handful due to mass shooters compare. After all, that is a grisly potential result if we disarmed.

  2. I caught a snippet of a conversation on CNN, before we surfed away from it quickly, where some commentator argued for a permit system where the government would require training and investigate your background etc. before issuing the permit. She also claimed that such a thing had never be tried before.
    The next commentator, a retired police chief, pointed out that in all the years on the force he had *never* arrested a person who had a legal gun, and that therefore this sort of thing would be pointless and the wrong thing to look at.
    I didn’t remember until this morning that the lady’s proposal amounted to “may issue” and of course CA is already a notorious “may issue” (or, in many cases, “won’t issue”) state. So yes, it has been tried, and as you can see it doesn’t work.

  3. Less population means less shootings. End of story. We need more guns and more shootings to reduce the population to levels where shootings are less common. It’s for the children.

  4. Oh hey, I’ll just leave this here:


    Yes the graphics matter series does not control for things like improvements in medical technology, but considering crime is going down at roughly the same rate as the deaths are, it seems like other factors have little to do with it. But even without controlling for other factors, the raw numbers show this guy is an idiot. The raw numbers show more guns. The raw numbers also show less crime and death. Therefor this guy is either an idiot or a liar (and quite possibly both).

    • One of the best ways to account for medical technology is to track rate of aggravated assault with a gun. dead or no, “threatened / shot at / shot” still counts.

  5. anyone know the difference between “less,” and “fewer.” hint: one of words is qualitative, and one is quantitative. for example, less intelligent, fewer persons.

    i am normally not a grammar cop, and am as guilty as anyone in such transgressions, but this is pretty basic.

    • So he’s illiterate as well as innumerate and poorly educated. I know that one, but see it so often I ignore it.

      “But he means well, bless his heart.” /old southern lady

    • “You should know when,
      It’s ‘less’ or it’s ‘fewer’
      Like people who were,
      Never raised in a sewer.”

      –from “Word Crimes” by Weird Al Yankovic

Comments are closed.