That Would Be Fantastic. Show Me What You’ve Got.

By all means. Send away.

Absolutely.

Very well said!

Believe it or not, this silly meme is actually about gun control. You see, gun control advocates seem to think that, in order to prove guns “cause” crime, all they require is a statistic showing that firearm related crimes occur more frequently in areas that have access to firearms. At best, this is analytical trickery. Let’s back up: People generally take the path of least resistance. If one wishes to commit violent crime and can utilize only their bare hands, as is often the case in a well guarded prison for instance, then violent attacks involving fists will likely occur more frequently, since access to sharp objects or firearms is restricted. Now change the conditions to a country which has access to knives but few guns, and the frequency of stabbing incidents will likely take the lead. Lastly, introduce guns into the picture, and again, simply because they are more accessible (as in the case in the U.S.), the probability that they will be utilized in a violent offense increases. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, but it doesn’t actually say anything about TOTAL crime or overall safety. After all, are you safer in prison than you are in an average middle class American home? Of course not, and for obvious reasons.   Furthermore, as is clearly shown with the U.K. (which has a hand gun ban), stabbing rates are elevated. The point is one about statistics: you need to consider changes in OTHER variables. OF COURSE the presence of firearms means a gun being tied to a crime becomes more probable, but that doesn’t mean that crime - in general - had necessarily gone up or down as a result of the presence of firearms. Why do people so commonly ignore TOTAL violent crime? This is where our ridiculous automobile hypothetical comes back into play. Looking ONLY at gun related crimes after mandating changes to gun rights is the equivalent of mandating that all vehicles be repainted blue to then later declare that there’s an alarming spike in accidents related to blue vehicles. Anyone with half a brain would expect accidents under that scenario to more frequently involve blue cars. But that wouldn’t mean the color blue was CAUSING car accidents. To take the parallel further, it’d be just as silly as releasing countless articles advocating “common sense blue control,” and arguing that it was supposedly necessary to stop all the blue from causing cars to collide. Just as with crime statistics, where stabbings, strangulation, and beatings can reduce in areas where firearm related crimes become elevated, so to would accidents involving white, black, or grey cars. It would not mean that the rate of ALL car accidents had increased. It certainly wouldn’t mean that the color blue was “causing” cars to collide. And the same is true with firearms. Their presence may in fact show up in crime statistics, and especially so in areas where people have greater access to them, but that’s merely a byproduct of crime shifting out of one category and into another, it does NOT establish causality and it does NOT establish whether total crime went up or down. At the end of the day, this type of thinking on the part of gun control advocates represents an ignorance of statistics, serving only to confirm that which they already wanted to believe.

Send’em in. Will do my best to answer.

Reblog if you want an extremely sexual message in your ask.

Join the club.

Damned right

reblog if you love boobs

As long as it’s legal. Lol.