Gun banners won't put their money where their mouth is.

"President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was sworn into office in January, and his first order of business was working to reverse the previous administration’s pro-gun policies, including a decree that ordered citizens to register their firearms with the Federal Police, limiting the maximum number of guns a person can own from six to three, and suspending new firearm registrations.

The policies stand in stark contrast to those of Bolsonaro’s administration. Gun ownership increased sixfold in Brazil under Bolsonaro’s tenure, which lasted from January 2019 to December 2022, as the then-president issued more than a dozen decrees that loosened laws around citizens’ access to guns"

...

"Here is what I offer you. Let’s bet $1,000 and make it simple on whether the homicide rate in Brazil will go up or down during the first two years of Lula's presidency. If the homicide rate goes down from what it was in 2022, I will pay you $1,000. If it goes up, you will pay me $1,000," Lott wrote in his emails to fellow academics, which were provided to Fox News Digital.

"If you prefer, we can designate charities that we want the money to go to. Given the importance you put on gun control and the large percentage change in gun ownership that Lula is imposing, you should expect a substantial drop in homicides, but, as I say, let’s keep it simple on whether the homicide rate goes up or down."

Lott published an op-ed about the bet on The Federalist last week, noting that seven of the 12 academics didn’t respond to his offer while the other five did not take him up on the bet."

Firearms expert taunts pro-gun control academics with bet on rising crime (msn.com)

I predict the homicide rate will increase, and 12x banners will each keep their $1000 instead of giving it to charity. What do you think?

 

Well since Bolsanaro
has been described as "tropical Trump"....

Just like the people in the United States that said they would leave the country if he won the presidency... Completely failed to do so...

I see no reason why his liberal Southern tropical counterparts would not Welch on their bet too. It's not unheard of for progressives to Welch on bets.

But the thing I don't understand about the progressives who want to completely tighten up gun regulations and ultimately ban ownership.... ( Even though 99% of them won't admit that fact ) ...

They don't have a problem with the powers that be retaining all of their gun rights in order to protect their self..... Of course they usually employ other strong men to take care of that duty for them...

The people that took their guns away from them are the people who are still protected by the same guns that they took away from them....

This glaring double standard should make them angry. You have the same politician who passed the laws, that took their guns away, who say that those guns are just fine to protect their sorry asses...

I don't care what your job or your position is upon the face of planet Earth.... The life of you and your family is not more important than the life of me and mine.

I say the above just to get a head of the disarmed subjects of states who will say that "they face more threats than we do".....

A free man doesn't care about that. A free man cares about the safety of himself and his friends and family.

For a free person if you will.... A female can handle those duties when a man won't. Especially a man who wants to take guns away from other men

 

Ya, neither of us are ever going to understand the mindset of those eager to be inferior to and dependent upon the elite. I guess feudalism was the status quo for such a long time for a reason...

 

John Lott? He still taking money from the NRA?

Idiot! He knows that 2 years will not make a dent in the gun violence as it will take at least 5-10 years

 

I'd say it's kind of the opposite of feudalism since they're not willing to fued to keep up the lism?

People engaged in feudalism insist on having arms.

Even if you're not in the middle of a feud arms are a good idea because you don't always have to be in a feud to get in a position where you might need some arms

 

Who is the equivalent of his opposing counterpart who you get most of your graphs from?

 

Sites with validated research

 

Funded by the John's Hopkins School Of Public Health, perhaps?

 

In feudalism, you work the lords land and give him a cut, and he protects you with his army. But usually bandits or other lords wait until the army is busy to raid the peasants, so the peasants and up defending themselves and wondering what they pay the lord for. Then the lord ends up having to fight his own peasants who refuse to pay for his not-so-effective protection. Most often the lord just ends up using the army to disarm and oppress his own peasants so they're too weak to revolt and too poor to bother raiding.

So, basically, most of the world is still feudalism... its just that the fiefdoms are 'countries' now and vote for the lord.

 

According to your graph, results would be immediate. So its fair to assume banners (and you, I guess) dont think thats whats gonna happen...

It would only have to have a slight effect for Lott to lose the bet. But still no one took it...

 

its up there with the Harvard/Hemenway propaganda center

 

Like that idiotic GVpedia-a guy who has such a serious hard on for John Lott, he chases Lott around like a lovesick mutt?

 

Oooh! Tell me more! Or better yet supply a citation

 

you spew GVpedia stuff all over this board and you don't even know about why that clown founded that propaganda site?

 

a guy who is obsessed with the fact that Lott is famous and he is not, that Lott has superior academic credentials and he does not. The guy who founded GVPedia Devin Hughes has no academic credentials in criminology He has a Bachelors in finance from Oklahoma He has a CFA (which my brother-top of his class at Columbia MBA has) but nothing past a bachelor's degree. Lott has a doctorate from a much more prestigious university-UCLA and has been affiliated with major league universities as a researcher
https://www.linkedin.com/in/devin-l-hughes-cfa-98aa4065

 

I cited it once and from my searches nothing he has posted about Lott is wrong but be my guest to “prove” me wrong. Lott is well known for conducting poor science

 

Lott started off as anti gun. He changed due to what he learned. that clown at GVpedia started off as a anti gun leftist with no credentials and hasn't become any more credible

 

Lott has been deservedly critiqued for poor science where he has manipulated the results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott
https://www.mediamatters.org/john-l...cher-john-lott-falls-apart-when-you-press-him
https://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12700222/nra-social-scientist-claims-debunked
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/11/john-lott-gun-crime-research-criticism/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-re...ions-of-the-man-shaping-the-gun-rights-debate

Do you want me to go on? His “research” is rubbish and rarely peer reviewed

 

And again you have not provided a citation or fact based critique to support this

 

wiki-where PRC agents can add stuff? the rest of the stuff you cite is hard left
here are the "credentials" of the opinion writers you cited

Cydney Hargis is a senior researcher for guns and public safety at Media Matters, where she has worked since July 2015. She has a bachelor’s degree in journalism from The George Washington University, with a minor in political science, and previously interned at Coalition To Stop Gun Violence.

another one was written partially by that Devin Hughes twit.
Mike Spies has no academic credentials in the subject matter-he has a masters in Creative writing

 

Feel free to critique (not criticise but critique) the research

 

Are they wrong?

 

what credentials does your GVpedia hack have that are relevant to criminology? he is an accountant-a financial analyst with only a bachelor's from a mediocre state university

 

why don't you argue your points-rather than citing hacks who are anti gun with no real academic credentials. and ultimately it's all opinion. you reject freedom. we reject nanny state bullshit.

 

That's what you don't understand? Well it is a simple thing to explain. First of all, you are wrong that the Left wants to ban all guns; many gun owners, if you didn't know, also lean to the political Left. What Progressives want, is to make it harder for the wrong people to get guns: people who are mentally unstable, or who have a history of violent/criminal behavior. There are numerous proposals towards this aim, but the one that at least 80% of the country sees as just basic, common sense, is universal background checks. Here is a little demographics tip for you (or, for some, maybe a math tip): that means that this 80% are not all "Progressives." This is just one of the glaring inconsistencies-- albeit a huge one-- in the unbelievable theory that you & the tiny minority of people against any kind of gun regulation whatsoever, try to spin: that it's just the wacky liberals who favor regulation, and that what they all really want, is to disarm everyone. To the contrary, it is the clear majority of the population, who see the need for improving firearm regulations.So one who accepts the delusional notion, of a secret agenda conspiracy, to disarm everyone in the country, would need suffer from severe paranoia-- which is perhaps why these people are so adamant about not increasing the scrutiny given toward gun owners.

There are a buffet other precautions, which appeal variously, to Progressive individuals: from licensing-- which might include passing a test to show the gun owner is competent enough to use his weapon safely-- to safe storage regulations, red flag laws-- to disarm those who seem an imminent threat to themselves or others-- and even liability insurance requirements. There is, also, the class of guns that many do want to ban, the so called assault weapons, which-- based on both the way they are marketed, and the way that they are by far, the fetishized weapon of choice, of mass shooters-- is an appropriate name. But as it is inconceivable that you haven't already heard the arguments for these things, yet hold fast to your fantasy narrative about national disarmament-- as if that were even possible-- I'm not going to waste the time, when obviously you will be disregarding everything I say.

Instead, I will go right to your specific, if highly faulty, question, about the people who would be taking "their guns away"-- that is, politicians, still having gun- carrying security. So again, no one is saying that nobody should have a gun. Many who see the wisdom of at least some regulatory steps, themselves own guns, and enjoy hunting, sport shooting, and/or just like having a gun for protection, should they ever need it. But even those few who would want to outlaw guns in citizen hands, would not believe that no one could get a gun-- obviously, security positions that might require use of firearms, would be expected to still be allowed, if tightly regulated.

Next, of course no one would be "taking" anyone's gun, so those left without a firearm, would only be those who never wanted one, or who had voluntarily turned theirs in. But to the supposed "double standard," you think you see: that is an erroneous thought, as well. The fact that a public official has armed security for themself and possibly their family-- and, I have to point out, yet again, what an unreal scenario this is: most officials have no such security (other than the President & Vice President, of course); even when Nancy Pelosi was the third highest official in government, she had no armed security, guarding her residence-- but even if your imagined situation existed, it would not mean that anyone was judging their own lives & safety, ahead of your own. The difference would be the heightened threat, on a public official, because of all of the attention they get, and much of it negative, at least in the eyes of any who disagree with their political positions.

In contrast, relatively few people have reason to know your political positions, and even less than the small number who do know them, want to know them, or care about them. Because your views have little practical means, of becoming law.

I could go into the difference, that people who disagreed with your political views, first of all, would not know where to find you since, unlike politicians, your address, and that of your workplace, are not necessarily public information. But even if those can be ascertained, the important factor is that you have no political power. Therefore, you can have as wacked out a view, as could possibly be dreamed up, and it doesn:t affect anyone else. So, no offense, but you are not worth the trouble of targeting. You cannot impact millions of people, because of your views on some issue. That hopefully clarifies why anyone who is much more in the public eye-- especially those who have the power to affect the rest of us, but even just really famous celebrities-- are at more potential risk than the average person, so would be a more reasonable candidate for personal security.

But, once more, if you want to have a hand gun, for yourself, provided there is no conventional legal obstacle to that, nobody is going to come around, looking to take it away.



Now, can you explain to me, why Republicans trust that if they give up the really most powerful weapon we have, to keep our government in line-- our democratic system-- that those autocrats they create, will only do things that are in line with these citizens' own interests?

If you remove the efficacy of the vote, we would be completely at the mercy of our leaders; it makes no sense: I frequently hear these same people, claiming that it is those on the Left, who expect government to take care of them.