The Acid Test - or What Happens If Guns Become Scarce

Your fellow crazed fearful gun-nut misspelled the word, kleine klauschen; that's all. It's spelled 'misperceive', not 'mispercieve'. He's stupid, just like you - but at least he isn't a troll like you.

Pot/kettle/litle man Ball:

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from William T. Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your correspondence with William Sessions. [start- Jon to me] Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the "meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" To: Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards have not been published in a final form for use. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if further information is needed. Thanks, William T. Sessions Associate Deputy Administrator Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message----- From: jonball@[...] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM To: Sessions, William Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find anything to indicate if the standards were adopted. Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance. Jonathan Ball Pasadena, CA ___________________________________________________ Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005

[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan Ball, you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to

5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball

Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon. You ought to be very careful.

Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old. You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.

Will do, when I get back in about a week. Mostly pics of the Atlantic, which you've probably seen :) but I haven't for a while. Took a video of the waves lapping the beach... typical tourist. :) Need to add a little leg to this trip so it's officially coast to coast.

Even in my early 20s, 500 miles per day was my limit. It was all my kidneys could take, on my Triumph 650 (TR 6 Trophy). I took six days to ride from East Lansing to Monterrey, CA. Then it took another couple of days for me to stop vibrating.

That cool bike of yours must be a lot more comfortable. Please send as many photos as you want to.

I'm aware of the spin that's been applied to this debate, but you've just given two examples of why it's mostly an attempt to distract attention from the basic issue. Rather than "developed," the whole point of the comparison should be something more like "countries that are economically, culturally, and circumstantially similar." But that's a mouthful.

The countries worth comparing are those that are similar to the US in ways that influence crime or other sources of homicides. The Mises Institute, in contrast, which will stand on its head to suggest that there is no connection between gun ownership and violent crime, likes to include Mexico, which has a raging and ongoing war among drug cartels and a crime-based refugee transportation system; and Brazil, which has gangs that set buses on fire and one of the highest income inequalities in the world. They're both crime cesspools loaded with corruption-based violence. In no way can they be compared to the situation in the US, despite their *average* economics.

Others throw in Russia, a drunken kleptocracy with institutionalized murder, and Israel, which is involved in a perpetual religious war on its borders.

To discuss this with any common sense you have to minimize the variables, and look at the countries most similar to the US in ways that relate to economics, education, culture, and to violence itself: Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and a few others. That is, if you're interested in exploring the truth of it rather than defending an ideological case.

Those are the countries that show the clearest correlation between private gun ownership and rates of violent crime. Are they cherry picked? Sure. They're cherry-picked for the closest sensible parallels to the US.

That's what I mean by trying to distract attention from the issue.

Often, it does. As in, "countries with few guns have fewer firearms-related homicides, because..." You can fill in the blank, and you won't be accused of jumping to conclusions.

OK. I reconsidered it....I'd make the same argument.

That your correlation and your 'developed nations' are cherry picked to produce the 'spin' you want, and the causality you desperately want to exist.....doesn't?

See, as soon as your narrative is exposed as the lie it is, you immediately want to drop it and move on to the next.

Ah, but that's the rub. They aren't economically, culturally, or circumstantially similar to the US in any but the most superficial manner.

Further by this very action you are admitting that there are numerous factors that govern crime rates, otherwise why would you need to attempt such a cluster? Yet, you do so. Further in your cluster you then fail to allow for the very factors you have admitted are much more relevant to the issue of violent crime. Matters like poverty, lack of economic opportunity, educational factors, social factors, political factors, social issues, and even history.

To admit that other factors exist and then to ignore and deny their existence and the possible impact on your comparison is yet another lame attempt to spin the discussion into your narrative rather than seeking the truth.

That truth is that guns don't cause crime. Weapons don't cause crime. PEOPLE cause crime. People are the only cause of ALL crime. The presence of an object doesn't cause one to turn to crime, yet you ignore that because it's not the narrative you want. You want to blame an inanimate object for the evil that some PERSON chose to commit. That PERSON is the cause of the crime. The factors you chose to ignore and overlook are those which are WHY that PERSON chose to engage in crime.

Violent crime isn't about a weapon causing harm, but rather PEOPLE choosing to cause harm.

That is the point you refuse to look at, because you want to blame an object.

If by some method you could make every gun on the planet disappear and even eliminate the knowledge of them including how to make them.....do you think violent crime would end, or would it simply take on a new form?

The people who chose to be violent criminals, will still be violent criminals, and they will retain their method of using violence to get what they want. Nothing will have changed. The violence will still continue.

So what then? Blame whatever they are using now? And then the next, and the next, and the one after that?

You can't stop people from being violent, and you certainly can't eliminate all the things that can, are and have been used as weapons.

The only solution to violent crime is to address those people who engage in it, and seek to do something about the factors that cause people to chose to engage in violent crime.

Now, are you looking for a solution....or a scapegoat?

More so since you have to deny reality and the truth to utter it.

Ah, but that's just the point....you haven't. Indeed, you've made NO effort to even identify what influences crime.

Why is the south side of Chicago so violent, and how is that at all similar to a mountain village in Switzerland?

Is it the economy of the nations? Is it the nature of their government?

Explain how the factors you look at with your 'developed countries' are those which have the most influence on violent crime?

Then knowing those factors are in play....explain why you don't identify and adjust for the inevitable variations that are going to exist from one country and any other?

Oh, but that's right, you take a few big factors and claim they are the influences of violent crime EXCEPT for the guns. So that MUST mean the guns are to blame because you have a correlation......

You have a correlation because that's what you set your criteria to find. What is lacking is causality. Because with true causality, you wouldn't need to pick and chose. You could show evidence of that causality no matter which countries you compared because it would always exist.

So the very fact that you have to cherry pick means you can't show the causality you're desperate to imply exists. At most you can cherry pick to produce a correlation and you hope that you won't be called on it when you assert or imply causality.

Well, you've been called on it and you will always be called on it. Because without causality, all you have is an artificially produced correlation.

Yes, and it shows that gun owners and violent crime do not go hand in hand. Ownership of guns among civilians is among the lowest in the world. Yet, look at all the violent crime. Further significant portions of that violent crime does NOT use a gun to commit. So clearly, the claim that guns are the cause fails to consider the reality.

Likewise, the same can pretty much be said of Brazil.

However, these countries don't fit your 'spin' so they are ignored. You come up with excuses of why your narrative doesn't apply....but then you ignore the fact those same excuses apply to the areas of the US with the highest crimes (which you want to blame on guns). Chicago is subject to a raging and ongoing war among rival criminal gangs, who among other criminal enterprises deal in drugs. Oh, but that's right, we're suppose to ignore that and just blame it on the guns.

As such, we see the way in which you cherry pick just that which gives you the 'spin' you want.

Well, then given the income inequalities in the US, we should expect violent crime then, right?

Oh, but again, you would assert that excuse only applies to Brazil and in the US it's the fault of guns.

You mean sort of like the southside of Chicago is, and a number of other hot spots of crime within the US. Further by ignoring those isolated hotspots we suddenly find that the violent crime falls much more in line with the other 'developed countries' on your list.

Ah, but again, you set the data to produce the spin you need for your narrative, so of course in the US those factors are ignored and instead it suddenly the fault of a piece of metal, wood and plastic.

And yet *averages* are exactly what you use to compare us to the countries on your list. First you tell us that's what makes a country comparable to the US....then you turn around and say it doesn't when the comparison doesn't produce the results you want.

And if what you assert actually has causality, then you should be able to show it's influence even in those countries.

But first you have to know what variables matter, and by how much, and factor that into all the comparisons.

And yet, I bet you can't tell us how *average* economics, *average* education, *average* culture, and *average* violence relate to identifying the actual causes of that violent crime.

and the rest of the world which doesn't fit your narrative can be ignored.

Tell me, off the top of your head, How closely do the demographics of the nations your claim are comparable match those of the US?

I ask, because in the US demographics have a strong correlation to violent crime rates.

Oh, but that's right, you ignore that consideration because it doesn't produce results that you want to see.

Oh, the contrary, I would love to see you explore the truth rather than trying to sell your ideological case.

But somehow, I doubt you would bother to do even a passing examination of the factors and points I included here.

Like Mexico? Like Brazil?

Oh, that's right, they don't, but we'll ignore them because they aren't part of your ideological case.

Then you have defeated the very data on which you try to rest your case.

Really?

Which of these countries match the US in: Size Population Demographics Education Economic Opportunity Income levels Income parities Social factors Cultural factors Urban, Suburban, Rural distribution, size, and interaction

Oh, and remember, no national *averages* are allowed by your own statements. Instead you will need to take it by small bites finding matching examples within the target country, and allow for and adjust for any differences that can be identified whether they seem to matter or not.

No, that is the issue. You're asserting a correlation as proof of causality. Showing that correlation not only isn't proof of causality, but that it doesn't imply causality is certainly a valid response to your assertions.

No, it doesn't.

Except that is EXACTLY what you are doing. You are taking a correlation and jumping to an unsupported and unfounded assertion of causality. The correlations noted above, do exist and are just as valid as the correlation you're pointing to, but are you going to assert that they mean causality as well?

Then, you're not interested in, and I quote, "in exploring the truth of it rather than defending an ideological case."

So much for your 'argument', it's just your ideological case....not the truth.

Scout, once again you have drowned out common sense with tedium. You go ahead and believe what you want.

Early Trumpets are a form of self abuse.

Few realize that in Englieland they were meant to be ridden about 20-30 Km and then left to leak oil while the owner had a cuppa.

Yes, but you must realize what I traded in to buy it -- A BSA Victor

441.

I bought it mostly for scrambles, but on the road, it was a form of medieval torture. They could use it in Game of Thrones.

Ha-ha! The really bad one was the Norton Commando. I considered buying one instead of the Triumph, but a friend who owned one said I'd have to be prepared for frequent replacement of the leather gaskets. d8-)

Yup. Murder rate in Baton Rouge: 26.2/100k. Murder rate in the UK:

0.92/100k.

Glutton for punishment are ya?

But the dread Zener diode made the Trumpets world class leg benders.

Nope - lie!@

Point is - gun confiscation and control _always_ fail.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: "These figures are truly terrible.

"Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offenses.

"The only word for this is failure: the Government's response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either.

"The figures will continue to be dreadful until the Government produces a coherent long term strategy to attack crime at its roots and get police visibly back on our streets."

Gun crime would not be cracked until gangs were broken up and the streets "reclaimed for the honest citizen by proper neighborhood policing", he added. At least some in the UK are talking about "attacking crime at its roots" by focusing on criminals, after all, guns are already banned so they can't blame crime on guns shooting themselves. Meanwhile in the United States, as more and more people own guns, the rate of violent crime has gone down.

Violent crime in the United States fell for the fifth consecutive year in 2011 with murder, rape and robbery all going down, although crime remains a serious problem in many urban areas, the FBI said on Monday.

The report of all crimes reported to police nationwide showed slightly more than 1.2 million violent incidents nationwide, while property crimes hit a nine-year low.

Compared with 2010, the new figures show violent crime down 3.8 percent overall. Property crime was down 0.5 percent.

Among violent incidents reported to police, murders were down about 0.7 percent, robberies dropped 4 percent, aggravated assaults declined 3.9 percent, and forcible rapes were down 2.5 percent. On top of these figures, the notoriously violent city of Washington D.C. just saw its murder rate fall below triple digits for the first time since 1963 and just four years after the Supreme Court overturned the city's handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller.

The District is poised to finish the year with fewer than 100 murders for the first time since 1963, and neighboring Prince George's County likely will post its lowest homicide total in 25 years.

The "murder capital" of the United States two decades ago, the District has had 79 murders so far this year, according to police records. The annual number has been declining steadily since 2008 and is a far cry from the five years during the late-1980s and early-1990s crack epidemic, when the number of homicides never dropped below 400.

Culture not tools.

But the Muzzies will soon change that in Londonistan.

Speaking of legs, it was a month before my kick-starter knee stopped hurting from the BSA. It also would launch you into low-Earth orbit from time to time. d8-(

The gun culture?

Ya gots to know how to release the compression.

Pull in the valve lifter which depresses the exhaust valve and then gently ease the piston over tdc.

Or pay da price.

No, not that culture for sure.

Hunters kill animals, not people.

You know what La.'s motto is, right?

I wasn't hunting when I killed my last wombat

Auztards do not count.