Gun Control

[Phatscotty]

for reference to earlier comments, here is how "Stomp on Jesus" went down, and the response is systemic

This month Florida Atlantic University provided yet another example of how universities have become left-wing seminaries.

An FAU professor told his students to write "JESUS" (in bold caps) on a piece of paper and then step on it.

One student who did not, a junior named Ryan Rotela, complained to the professor and then to the professor's supervisor. He explained that he had refused to do so because it violated his religious principles.

Two days later, Rotela was told not to attend the class anymore. The university then went on to defend the professor in an email to a local CBS TV station: "Faculty and students at academic institutions pursue knowledge and engage in open discourse. While at times the topics discussed may be sensitive, a university environment is a venue for such dialogue and debate."

FAU further pointed out that the stomping exercise — to "discuss the importance of symbols in culture" — came from a textbook titled "Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach."

After the story became news, FAU issued an apology: "We sincerely apologize for any offense this has caused. Florida Atlantic University respects all religions and welcomes people of all faiths, backgrounds and beliefs."

Of course, this "apology" is meaningless. Apologizing for "giving offense" has nothing to do with condemning the act. Not to mention that kicking Rotela out of the class belied the university's claim of open discourse.

This story is significant because it provides yet another example of the deteriorated state of American higher education. There are some excellent professors in the so-called "social sciences" at American universities. But they are in the minority.

The left has taken over universities as well as most high schools, and like almost everything the left has influenced — education, religion, the arts and the economies of most countries — this influence has been destructive.

The argument that the professor represents no one but himself is refuted by the fact that the university defended the professor until it feared the national outcry that resulted.

Moreover, in another incident, Northwestern University acted similarly in 2011. One of its professors invited his 600 students to stay after class to watch a live demonstration of female ejaculation, the subject of that day's class. A naked young woman (not a student) then used a motorized sex toy to come to orgasm. About 120 of the students watched.

When word got out, Northwestern defended the professor: "Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines. The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge."

Like FAU, only after condemnation grew did Northwestern "apologize."

Entire books have been written providing hundreds of examples of left-wing indoctrination having replaced education in American universities. FAU is just the latest example.

It is also instructive that the name to be stepped on was Jesus, not, for instance, Muhammad, Allah or, for that matter, Bill Clinton or Martin Luther King, Jr.

Imagine the reaction at FAU if a professor had told students to step on the name Muhammad.

The professor would be condemned at huge rallies organized by the university to protest "Islamophobia." And he would fear for his life. Desecrate Christianity and you get tenure. Desecrate Islam and you get bodyguards.

Or, imagine if the name had been Martin Luther King. FAU professors would have competed with one another in expressing outrage at this example of the racism that pervades the university and America. The president of the university would have issued a statement condemning the professor and distancing FAU from his action.

And is there one reader of this column who is surprised to learn that the FAU professor, Deandre Poole, is vice-chairman of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party?

Or that the party defended him?

The universities' damage is huge and enduring. And you don't have to believe in JESUS to recognize it

[Juan_Bottom]

Juan has a problem differentiating between a number of things.

For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" he ignores that not 100% of the voters voted Republican.
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores that the people that commit gun violence may not actually be Republicans (in another thread, there is some discussion about ex-convicts being Democrats and not Republicans, for example).
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores the more localized nature of gun violence.

That said, even a half-blind man could see the correlation between the traditional Republican strongholds and the gun violence. And as the article says, it's the states with the weakest gun control that have the most gun violence. Those are Repub states. Meanwhile you can also clearly deduce that the Northeast, the rock of Liberalism, has much less gun-violence than these other states.
Some of the more moderate states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Illinois fall in the middle.

Okay. Here's what I'm going to do (because I'm a sucker). I'm going to spell this out for you in plain statistical English and plain statistical data all gleaned from unbiased sources. My argument is to show that your data is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst.

Here are the top 20 cities in order by number of violent crime per 100,000 people. These statistics are from the FBI for 2011. I've also included the political party of the mayor. Enjoy!

(1) Detroit, Michigan - 2,137.4 - Democratic mayor since 1957
(2) St. Louis, Missouri - 1,856.7 - Democratic mayor since 1949
(3) Oakland, California - 1,682.7 - Democratic mayor since 1977
(4) Memphis, Tennessee - 1,583.5 - Democratic mayor since 1876
(5) Atlanta, Georgia - 1,432.8 - Democratic mayor since 1887
(6) Baltimore, Maryland - 1,417.4 - Democratic mayor since 1967
(7) Stockton, California - 1,407.8 -
(8) Cleveland, Ohio - 1,366.4 - Democratic mayor since 1989
(9) Buffalo, New York - 1,238.2 - Democratic mayor since 1965
(10) Kansas City, Missouri - 1,199.7 - Democratic mayor since 1991
(11) Miami, Florida - 1,197.6 - Republican mayor since 2009
(12) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - 1,193.3 - Democratic mayor since 1952
(13) Nashville, Tennessee - 1,181.3 - Democratic mayor since 1897
(14) Newark, New Jersey - 1,166.3 - Democratic mayor since 1962 (and current mayor is Democrat-darling Cory Booker)
(15) Washington, DC - 1,130.3 - Democratic mayor since 1967
(16) Indianapolis, Indiana - 1,100.8 - Republican mayor since 2008
(17) Cincinnati, Ohio - 1,032.1 - Democratic mayor since 1984
(18) Tulsa, Oklahoma - 999.7 - Republican mayor since 2009
(19) Milwaukee, Wisconsin - 999.1 - Democratic mayor since 1960
(20) Toledo, Ohio - 997.8 - Independent mayor since 2010 (formerly Democratic mayors since 1990)

Seems like a lot of violence in all of these Democratic strongholds, no?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/US_Mayors.html

What exactly is your point? Are you saying that there is a correlation between Democratic Mayors/City Councils and gun violence? Because I was saying that there definitely is a correlation between Republican policies and gun violence.

[thegreekdog]

Yes, I'm saying that I've just proven, using unbiased evidence, that there is a correlation between Democratic mayors and violence.

[Juan_Bottom]

[rdsrds2120]

Correlations aren't reliable to use if you're planning this to affect your voting behavior, etc. There is an elaborate and justifiable way to explain the correlation between gun violence rates and variable X, which in this context, is gun violence.

If we truly want to establish the incredibility of acting on correlation alone, here's a fun fact: There have been the least amount of full moons during Obama's presidency yet since 1970.

It's hard to comment on a post that only notes a correlation since you can't establish why, and to what degree, the amount of variance in X can explain the amount of variance in Y.

Also, tgd, unless you select random cities/times each time to create a population sample, there isn't technically a correlation. Notably, I haven't read this whole thread, so maybe you have, but it's usually unlikely that anyone has.

BMO

[BigBallinStalin]

Correlations aren't reliable to use if you're planning this to affect your voting behavior, etc. There is an elaborate and justifiable way to explain the correlation between gun violence rates and variable X, which in this context, is gun violence.

If we truly want to establish the incredibility of acting on correlation alone, here's a fun fact: There have been the least amount of full moons during Obama's presidency yet since 1970.

It's hard to comment on a post that only notes a correlation since you can't establish why, and to what degree, the amount of variance in X can explain the amount of variance in Y.

Also, tgd, unless you select random cities/times each time to create a population sample, there isn't technically a correlation. Notably, I haven't read this whole thread, so maybe you have, but it's usually unlikely that anyone has.

BMO

How about you take that X and shove it up someone else's Y?

[thegreekdog]

Correlations aren't reliable to use if you're planning this to affect your voting behavior, etc. There is an elaborate and justifiable way to explain the correlation between gun violence rates and variable X, which in this context, is gun violence.

If we truly want to establish the incredibility of acting on correlation alone, here's a fun fact: There have been the least amount of full moons during Obama's presidency yet since 1970.

It's hard to comment on a post that only notes a correlation since you can't establish why, and to what degree, the amount of variance in X can explain the amount of variance in Y.

Also, tgd, unless you select random cities/times each time to create a population sample, there isn't technically a correlation. Notably, I haven't read this whole thread, so maybe you have, but it's usually unlikely that anyone has.

BMO

What?

The cities with the highest per capita violent crimes in 2011 had Democratic mayors.
- Cities were selected based on the number of violent crimes per capita in 2011 (based on FBI statistics).
- Mayors were selected based on the history of mayors in each of the cities selected.
- 18 of the top 20 cities in violent crimes per capita had Democratic mayors and most of those have historically had Democratic mayors.
- Therefore, there is a correlation.
- There is no causation because I can't prove causation (unless I use non-statistical arguments).

Your moon/Obama example is cool and all, but the president has no ability to affect the moon and the moon has no ability to affect the president (unless he is a wereolf). The Democratic party, and specifcally a Democratic mayor, has the ability to affect (perhaps only marginally) violent crime in a city. Therefore, at least the correlation I've proven is more likely to have a causative effect than the moon has over the president and the president has over the moon.

Also, why do I need a random sampling of cities?

EDIT - Also, also, why didn't you reply similarly to JB's nice picture?

[Phatscotty]

This guy is citing the 90% number of the faculty in universities

A professors job is not to tell students what to think; it is to help them to think carefully, critically, and for themselves. There is a legitimate place for the catechist, the preacher, the social activist, and the community organizer; but that place is not the university classroom. Professors who seek to indoctrinate their students violate a sacred trust. They should be forcefully challenged and publicly held to account. In One-Party Classroom, David Horowitz does just that. The book should provoke a discussion of the ethics of classroom instruction that is long overdue.
—Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program
in American Ideals and Institutions, Princeton University

Definitive proof that, whether they succeed or not, thousands of professors go to work every day with the intention of indoctrinating their students in their personal political prejudices.
—Candace de Russy, former trustee, State University of New York

One-Party Classroom shows how far American universities have drifted from academic principles. The politicized courses described here are indeed among the worst cases. What is truly shocking is the unwillingness of university authorities to do anything about them.
—Stephen H. Balch, founder and president, National Association of Scholars

Reveals how political activists masquerading as academics dominate our liberal arts colleges. Regents and trustees need to become engaged in this important battle to restore academic rigor, standards, and accountability to our institutions of higher learning.
—Tom Lucero, regent, University of Colorado

There is not a university leader in this country who would not be better for confronting the well-reported case studies in David Horowitzs book.
—Frederick Mohs, former trustee, University of Wisconsin

[Juan_Bottom]

Correlations aren't reliable to use if you're planning this to affect your voting behavior, etc. There is an elaborate and justifiable way to explain the correlation between gun violence rates and variable X, which in this context, is gun violence.

If we truly want to establish the incredibility of acting on correlation alone, here's a fun fact: There have been the least amount of full moons during Obama's presidency yet since 1970.

It's hard to comment on a post that only notes a correlation since you can't establish why, and to what degree, the amount of variance in X can explain the amount of variance in Y.

Also, tgd, unless you select random cities/times each time to create a population sample, there isn't technically a correlation. Notably, I haven't read this whole thread, so maybe you have, but it's usually unlikely that anyone has.

BMO

What?

The cities with the highest per capita violent crimes in 2011 had Democratic mayors.
- Cities were selected based on the number of violent crimes per capita in 2011 (based on FBI statistics).
- Mayors were selected based on the history of mayors in each of the cities selected.
- 18 of the top 20 cities in violent crimes per capita had Democratic mayors and most of those have historically had Democratic mayors.
- Therefore, there is a correlation.
- There is no causation because I can't prove causation (unless I use non-statistical arguments).

Your moon/Obama example is cool and all, but the president has no ability to affect the moon and the moon has no ability to affect the president (unless he is a wereolf). The Democratic party, and specifcally a Democratic mayor, has the ability to affect (perhaps only marginally) violent crime in a city. Therefore, at least the correlation I've proven is more likely to have a causative effect than the moon has over the president and the president has over the moon.

Also, why do I need a random sampling of cities?

Mayors only enforce laws though. Usually.
I think in most American cities the City Council has more authority than the mayor. Cities with stronger mayors are the ones that went with the Republican Transformation that accompanied Teddy Roosevelt, I think.... I think... but I do not know. I just know that in olden times City Councils and City Aldermen had much more power than the mayor. And that Teddy led the mayoral reformation of New York City and Brooklyn, in an effort to let the people hold someone accountable for city screw ups. But my knowledge of traditional city government stops around 1915.

[thegreekdog]

My only frame of reference is Philadelphia. The mayor has a ton of power, but City council and the mayor are mostly or always Democrats.

[Phatscotty]

speaking of mayors, yall remember this? (the guy with the gun is VERY unsafe with it, showing how out of touch these guys are)

The mayors play a major role in the gun control effort

Gun homicides have dropped steeply in the United States since their peak in 1993, a pair of reports released Tuesday showed, adding fuel to Congress’ battle over whether to tighten restrictions on firearms. The findings throw cold water on one of the main arguments made by gun control advocates, that more firearms regulations are needed because gun violence is spiraling out of control.

A study released Tuesday by the government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That’s a 39 percent reduction.

Another report by the private Pew Research Center found a similar decline by looking at the rate of gun homicides, which compares the number of killings to the size of the country’s population. It found that the number of gun homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in 1993 to 3.6 in 2010, a drop of 49 percent.

Both reports also found the rate of non-fatal crimes involving guns was also down by around 70 percent over that period.

But perhaps because of the intense publicity generated by recent mass shootings such as the December massacre of 20 school children and six educators in Newtown, Conn., the public seems to have largely not noticed the reductions in gun violence, the Pew study shows.

The non-partisan group said a poll it conducted in March showed that 56 percent of people believe the number of gun crimes is higher than it was two decades ago. Only 12 percent said they think the number of gun crimes is lower, while the rest said they think it remained the same or didn’t know.

That may have something to do with the dramatic anti-gun rhetoric coming from anti-gun advocates. First Lady Michelle Obama last week told students at a Chicago high school that kids across the nation “wake up and wonder whether they’re going to make it out of school alive” because of guns.

In March, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) told MSNBC that so-called “assault weapons” were claiming the lives of “millions of kids.” Of course the statement is incorrect, but it was such an inaccurate statement it boggles the mind how he came up with that figure.

In 2011, the total number of gun homicides in the U.S. was 8,583. Using the 2011 total gun-related murder rate, it would take more than 116 years for one million people to be killed by a firearm.

These are just a few of the many example when gun control advocates have resorted to baseless emotional arguments to demonize guns and exaggerate the effect of gun violence. Now, 8,583 gun murders every year is 8,583 too many. However, we can’t have an honest debate about gun violence if we aren’t holding to the truth.

The trend in firearm-related homicides is part of a broad nationwide decline in violent crime over past two decades, including incidents not involving firearms.

But handguns play a major role in violent crime. The Justice study said that in 2011, about 70 percent of all homicides were committed with a firearm, mainly a handgun.

The data was released three weeks after the Senate rejected an effort by gun control supporters to broaden the requirement for federal background checks for more firearms purchases. Senate Democratic leaders have pledged to hold that vote again, and gun control advocates have been raising public pressure on senators who voted “no” in hopes they will change their minds.

Gun rights advocates have argued that people are safer when they are allowed to own and carry guns. Those supporting gun control say that with more background checks, gun violence would drop because more criminals and mentally unstable people would be prevented from getting weapons.

TheBlaze on Tuesday reported on some interesting FBI statistics that revealed California had the most gun murders in 2011 and a high gun murder rate, despite being named the state with the strongest gun control laws by the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence that same year.

Additionally, Washington, D.C., another state with strong gun regulations, topped the 2011 list for total gun murder rate with 12 homicides per 100,000 people.

[Lootifer]

I do wonder why you didnt link the David Horowitz book before...

[rdsrds2120]

Correlations aren't reliable to use if you're planning this to affect your voting behavior, etc. There is an elaborate and justifiable way to explain the correlation between gun violence rates and variable X, which in this context, is gun violence.

If we truly want to establish the incredibility of acting on correlation alone, here's a fun fact: There have been the least amount of full moons during Obama's presidency yet since 1970.

It's hard to comment on a post that only notes a correlation since you can't establish why, and to what degree, the amount of variance in X can explain the amount of variance in Y.

Also, tgd, unless you select random cities/times each time to create a population sample, there isn't technically a correlation. Notably, I haven't read this whole thread, so maybe you have, but it's usually unlikely that anyone has.

BMO

EDIT - Also, also, why didn't you reply similarly to JB's nice picture?

He fast posted me. You were the one making the original claim, he was offering a counterclaim. I figured you'd each understand where the concept applies. Also -- the moon thing. It was the first thing that showed up when I googled "examples of false correlation" to prove a point. The Obama reference, specifically, is irrelevant. I'll respond to the rest when I'm not nearly as exhausted!

BMO

[Woodruff]

Juan has a problem differentiating between a number of things.

For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" he ignores that not 100% of the voters voted Republican.
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores that the people that commit gun violence may not actually be Republicans (in another thread, there is some discussion about ex-convicts being Democrats and not Republicans, for example).
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores the more localized nature of gun violence.

That said, even a half-blind man could see the correlation between the traditional Republican strongholds and the gun violence. And as the article says, it's the states with the weakest gun control that have the most gun violence. Those are Repub states. Meanwhile you can also clearly deduce that the Northeast, the rock of Liberalism, has much less gun-violence than these other states.
Some of the more moderate states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Illinois fall in the middle.

Okay. Here's what I'm going to do (because I'm a sucker). I'm going to spell this out for you in plain statistical English and plain statistical data all gleaned from unbiased sources. My argument is to show that your data is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst.

Here are the top 20 cities in order by number of violent crime per 100,000 people. These statistics are from the FBI for 2011. I've also included the political party of the mayor. Enjoy!

(1) Detroit, Michigan - 2,137.4 - Democratic mayor since 1957
(2) St. Louis, Missouri - 1,856.7 - Democratic mayor since 1949
(3) Oakland, California - 1,682.7 - Democratic mayor since 1977
(4) Memphis, Tennessee - 1,583.5 - Democratic mayor since 1876
(5) Atlanta, Georgia - 1,432.8 - Democratic mayor since 1887
(6) Baltimore, Maryland - 1,417.4 - Democratic mayor since 1967
(7) Stockton, California - 1,407.8 -
(8) Cleveland, Ohio - 1,366.4 - Democratic mayor since 1989
(9) Buffalo, New York - 1,238.2 - Democratic mayor since 1965
(10) Kansas City, Missouri - 1,199.7 - Democratic mayor since 1991
(11) Miami, Florida - 1,197.6 - Republican mayor since 2009
(12) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - 1,193.3 - Democratic mayor since 1952
(13) Nashville, Tennessee - 1,181.3 - Democratic mayor since 1897
(14) Newark, New Jersey - 1,166.3 - Democratic mayor since 1962 (and current mayor is Democrat-darling Cory Booker)
(15) Washington, DC - 1,130.3 - Democratic mayor since 1967
(16) Indianapolis, Indiana - 1,100.8 - Republican mayor since 2008
(17) Cincinnati, Ohio - 1,032.1 - Democratic mayor since 1984
(18) Tulsa, Oklahoma - 999.7 - Republican mayor since 2009
(19) Milwaukee, Wisconsin - 999.1 - Democratic mayor since 1960
(20) Toledo, Ohio - 997.8 - Independent mayor since 2010 (formerly Democratic mayors since 1990)

Seems like a lot of violence in all of these Democratic strongholds, no?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/US_Mayors.html

You've already forgotten about what you agree with me on?

As far as I can tell, I was responding to JB with this post (not you).

While true, you don't seem to have incorporated the ideas that you seemed to agree with me on into your descriptions.

[thegreekdog]

At rds - Ah okay. I was actually posting that in response to JB, although I guess my original post could be construed as setting out the original claim. JB has done it before with other issues.

At Woodruff - Ah okay. I still don't disagree with you. I'm just responding to JB with a counter using his methodology.

[Juan_Bottom]

Yeah, but like here, I only did it as a counterpoint. Not a claim to evidence to argue from.
I mean, you might as well argue that there is a God because there's a Bible.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, but like here, I only did it as a counterpoint. Not a claim to evidence to argue from.
I mean, you might as well argue that there is a God because there's a Bible.

Okay, I didn't read it like that given the amount of work you put into the post.

[Phatscotty]

I do wonder why you didnt link the David Horowitz book before...

Because there are so many other sources, it's hard to choose which one goes first. But really what does it matter. Other posters have shared similar studies that showed 82%, 87%, 72%.

You also asked why he only researched 12 schools. I'm just not sure how many years you expect someone to study something to report what everybody already knows anyways

[Woodruff]

I do wonder why you didnt link the David Horowitz book before...

Because there are so many other sources, it's hard to choose which one goes first. But really what does it matter. Other posters have shared similar studies that showed 82%, 87%, 72%.

You also asked why he only researched 12 schools. I'm just not sure how many years you expect someone to study something to report what everybody already knows anyways

Is that like how "everybody already knows" that welfare recipients have a high rate of illegal drug usage?

[Lootifer]

I do wonder why you didnt link the David Horowitz book before...

Because there are so many other sources, it's hard to choose which one goes first. But really what does it matter. Other posters have shared similar studies that showed 82%, 87%, 72%.

You also asked why he only researched 12 schools. I'm just not sure how many years you expect someone to study something to report what everybody already knows anyways

I'd expect that if it was a serious issue, then it would have had a significant amount of resource dedicated to analysing the issue in a neutral way.

(for example: I am genuinely curious and interested in this issue and I am very eager to see a neutral study of this issue of converting education from how to think into what to think; I seriously doubt I am the first non-politically motivated person to wonder this).

[Phatscotty]

I do wonder why you didnt link the David Horowitz book before...

Because there are so many other sources, it's hard to choose which one goes first. But really what does it matter. Other posters have shared similar studies that showed 82%, 87%, 72%.

You also asked why he only researched 12 schools. I'm just not sure how many years you expect someone to study something to report what everybody already knows anyways

I'd expect that if it was a serious issue, then it would have had a significant amount of resource dedicated to analysing the issue in a neutral way.

(for example: I am genuinely curious and interested in this issue and I am very eager to see a neutral study of this issue of converting education from how to think into what to think; I seriously doubt I am the first non-politically motivated person to wonder this).

Okay, so whatever you say about the examples I have provided or whether or not you think they are good or bad and even if my sources are weak or strong, I have been putting up. I'm not saying you haven't, but I was wondering what you base your calculation that it's 50/50 on.

[BigBallinStalin]

I do wonder why you didnt link the David Horowitz book before...

Because there are so many other sources, it's hard to choose which one goes first. But really what does it matter. Other posters have shared similar studies that showed 82%, 87%, 72%.

You also asked why he only researched 12 schools. I'm just not sure how many years you expect someone to study something to report what everybody already knows anyways

Is that like how "everybody already knows" that welfare recipients have a high rate of illegal drug usage?

Well yeah! It's only common sense, Woodruff.

[BigBallinStalin]

I do wonder why you didnt link the David Horowitz book before...

Because there are so many other sources, it's hard to choose which one goes first. But really what does it matter. Other posters have shared similar studies that showed 82%, 87%, 72%.

You also asked why he only researched 12 schools. I'm just not sure how many years you expect someone to study something to report what everybody already knows anyways

I'd expect that if it was a serious issue, then it would have had a significant amount of resource dedicated to analysing the issue in a neutral way.

(for example: I am genuinely curious and interested in this issue and I am very eager to see a neutral study of this issue of converting education from how to think into what to think; I seriously doubt I am the first non-politically motivated person to wonder this).

Okay, so whatever you say about the examples I have provided or whether or not you think they are good or bad and even if my sources are weak or strong, I have been putting up. I'm not saying you haven't, but I was wondering what you base your calculation that it's 50/50 on.

Hey, PS, what else you got other than Horwitz and those YouTube videos?

(Looking for a peer-reviewed article).

[Phatscotty]

be patient. I can't win every thread at the same time.

btw did you see/accept the sources Nobunaga shared that showed 70 something % and 80 something %?)

There are plenty more sources. Unfortunately, I have to personally research them all which can take about an hour each to make sure I know what I am sharing, you'll have to stay tuned.

For now, I just got done with this one
2013 NRA Convention: Keynote Speech


For those who do not have the time or the will or even the courage to listen to the other side, it starts getting really interesting at 22m

[Night Strike]

An hour and 41 minutes long....sheesh! I knew it was long by the live tweeting (I was at work), but geez, that will take a while to watch if I choose to watch it.