blackcopter (Lane Signal)


Comment history

Rasmussen responds to concerns about out-of-town donations

As far as I'm concerned Rasmussen is not proven guilty of anything wrong here. But the amount of outside money and the idea that a conservative agenda might be trying to exert influence in a local election means Rasmussen will not get my vote. I will be more likely to vote in this election to ensure I can vote against him. Even if he is not beholden to these donors or their causes, the fact that he would take the money and not realize how bad that might look is a bad sign. At best he has used very poor judgement and I suspect it's worse than that.

March 29, 2015 at 5:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas to join states allowing concealed guns without permit

And again I would argue that Washington DC (your example) does not have a higher crime rate because of gun control measures, but rather they have some gun control because they have higher crime rate. Also, UK (again your example) DOES have a higher homicide rate (4 times higher than the US). So you are right that we have come full circle, but you are just circling back to the same falsehoods you cited before. You accused me of making unsupported claims, but even when I offer evidence, you choose to ignore the facts and continue to distort.

March 29, 2015 at 2:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas to join states allowing concealed guns without permit

I never said cc was not constitutional, just a bad idea. And you did say cc does not create more guns. It does. The murder rate (with or without guns) is much higher in US than UK. The rate of assault and robbery is higher in US than UK. It's not just gun crime that's higher here, but violent crime in general. I don't really know about Hong Kong, but technically they are now part of China, so even if they have some weird roof top crime issue, I don't think it's material. Unless you have a report showing otherwise, I assume Russia and China have pretty low gun crime rates because the number of guns per person is so low. But in the absence of hard data, I'm willing to throw them out. The rest of the sample should be enough to offer overwhelming evidence that more guns = more gun violence and that the US is not doing very well compared to most industrialized nations in the violent crime department. More guns and cc do not help reduce violent crime, they make it worse.

March 28, 2015 at 2:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas to join states allowing concealed guns without permit

How does the fact that China and Russia are not in the report make it flawed? My point was that your example of UK being lower violent crime rate was wrong. And you don't seem to be backing up your claim that cc reduces crime with any evidence at all. And you don't really expect anyone reading this to believe cc does not increase gun sales, do you? LJW has published many stories about spikes in gun sales after cc was passed.

March 28, 2015 at 10:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas to join states allowing concealed guns without permit

No Lawrence, the post you reference is ridiculously flawed. The reporting methods are very different between the 2 countries. The FBI has a very narrow definition of violent crime in the analysis and the UK a very broad definition. The murder rate (adjusted for population) in the US is 4 to 5 times the murder rate in UK.

The rate of gun deaths is more than 40 times higher in the US than UK.

By other measures like assault and armed robbery, US rate is twice that of UK.

More Guns = More Gun Violence

March 27, 2015 at 4:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Abuse trivialized

Yes, a creepy dude. It doesn't excuse murder, but it does help humanize Ms. McLinn. If Mr. Sasko did act as the defense contends, that does make him pretty creepy. It also, I think, means Ms. McLinn was being exploited and abused by Sasko. Calling this a "thrill killing" is inflammatory. Hard 50 makes no sense to me in this case. McLinn and Sasko were both victims here.

March 27, 2015 at 4:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Ego adjustment

I don't think you are being fair here. I think Self was being completely honest. I think Self's point was that Wichita is a good mid major team so they would have a good chance to beat KU and this would be an embarrassment since KU would be expected to win. A victory for KU against WSU means little, but a loss is a problem. I think that's what Self meant and I think that's a frank and reasonable explanation. Why stick his neck out if there is so much risk and such little reward? If WSU can maintain a program, over time, on such a high level that a victory by Kansas over WSU significantly enhances KU's reputation, then it might make sense to play them more often. There is also the revenue issue. Though WSU has a dedicated fan base, it's not a fan base that generates the kind of money a Kentucky or Arizona or Michigan game would bring in.

March 27, 2015 at 3:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas to join states allowing concealed guns without permit

Gun laws are not "restrictive" anywhere in the United States. The US has incredibly promiscuous gun laws. But crime rates are tied to population density, socioeconomic conditions, drug laws, drug availability, tax policies, school funding, employment rate, relationship of law enforcement with the community, to name a few. There is not a simple answer to the cause of crime and not a simple answer to the reason crime rates are higher in one state than another. But gun violence is only a subset of crime. Gun violence rates are orders of magnitude higher in the US compared to other industrialized nations. More guns = more gun violence. I think it's pretty obvious.

March 27, 2015 at 11:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas to join states allowing concealed guns without permit

Now you are trying to paint me as a racist? That's a bit of a jump, I think. And you can call it "precaution" if that makes you feel better, but it's just another word for fear.

March 26, 2015 at 3:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas to join states allowing concealed guns without permit

But do states with a higher crime rate have that higher crime rate because of more restrictive gun laws or do those states have more restrictive gun laws because they have more crime? I would argue that higher crime in those states inspires legislators to be less responsive to the gun lobby because they see guns killing more people. And I still say people carry guns out of fear or malice.

March 26, 2015 at 2:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )