15
2012
How The Mets Seduced And Swayed The Fanbase
An article by 
A Marked Man: Dickey at the Mets Holiday Party.
The Mets haven’t done many things right in the last half decade, and God knows they’ve paid the price with plenty of bad press and a sorely tarnished image. Have no fear… I’m not about to resurrect all the bad memories of the last five years and point out every single thing that has gone horribly wrong. On the contrary, this post is about what the Wilpons have always been very good at…
Whisper Campaigns – The timeless art of using the media to spread rumors designed to discredit a person and sway public perception.
In the Mets’ case the goal is to persuade the fanbase to turn on a player while dividing and conquering the base itself with the greatest of ease. A wonderfully diabolical scheme that never fails.
The Wilpons by no means invented whisper campaigns, but they have turned it into an art form and perfected it to the point of effortlessly steering the opinions of their fanbase with such surgical precision.
And while the fanbase is ultimately the weapon of mass destruction in these campaigns, the players they choose to discredit are always the unsuspecting targets and innocent victims. They never see it coming. The always inevitable outcome is quite simple; a trade, a release, or letting the player walk as a free agent.
We’ve seen these whisper campaigns before as Met fans, and one only has to go back to Tom Seaver, the first Met player to incur such an underhanded attack.
However, that campaign was poorly executed and the fanbase was never swayed against their beloved ace, aptly nicknamed The Franchise. Oh sure, the Mets traded him anyway, but the team was vilified for it and eventually was forced to sell the team. It seems M. Donald Grant could have used a few lessons from current owners Fred and Jeff Wilpon, and general manager Sandy Alderson.
In the last two years, we’ve seen Carlos Beltran and Jose Reyes fall victim to this seedy practice by the Mets. But I must say that the whisper campaign that was waged against R.A. Dickey, was by far their most monumental achievement of all time.
The trap that was set was ingenious from the very start, inviting Dickey to play the part of an Elf at the team’s Holiday Party held on December 11th (remember that date). For a goodhearted, family oriented man like Dickey, he couldn’t resist the opportunity to bring a smile to the faces of 300 children who were all from families that were effected by Superstorm Sandy. It was the perfect Hollywood script.
With the Holiday Party still ongoing, the attack was launched with a few shadowy tweets on Twitter that the Mets were unhappy that R.A. used the function to gain traction in negotiations for a new extension. In truth, he simply answered questions that the Mets already knew would be asked of him. Dickey, honest as always, answered every question without any evasiveness. However, the battle lines had been drawn, the media was enlisted, the front office had received their marching orders, and the war was on.
I’m sure you all love those polls on MetsBlog just as much as I do. On November 19th, in one such poll, the readers of MetsBlog voted 66% in favor of not trading R.A. Dickey and signing him to an extension instead. I was one of those who voted in the majority with well over 10,000 votes tallied.
One day after the Mets Holiday Party, ONE DAY, MetsBlog ran another poll and this time the results were shocking to say the least. Only 28.4% of those polled still wanted to re-sign Dickey and not trade him. In less than one month, the entire fanbase flip-flopped and the majority now wanted R.A. Dickey gone – Cy Young Award and all.
What a coup for the Mets. A precision attack with the most optimal results they could have hoped for. With one bold strike they swayed the entire fanbase and got the majority of them to see things their way.
This was a stroke of genius, unseemly yes, but a stroke of genius nonetheless. Mets ownership and management know just how to push our buttons and they do so time and time again. This says as much about Met fans as it does the team’s ownership and management.
I’m not saying we believe everything we read or hear no matter how untrue, but these whisper campaigns always seem to do the trick and the proof is in the pudding, or in the Mets case the putting.
On November 19th, were you all as enthusiastic about trading R.A. Dickey as you are today?
Happy Holidays, R.A.. May your next Holiday Party be a thousand times more joyful and a thousand times less disingenuous as this one was for you. Go win yourself another Cy Young and a World Series ring too while you’re at it, eh…
About the Author: Joe DeCaro
I'm a lifelong Mets fan who loves writing and talking about the Amazins' 24/7. From the Miracle in 1969 to the magic of 1986, and even the near misses in '73 and '00, I've experienced it all - the highs and the lows. I started Mets Merized Online in 2005 to feed my addiction. Follow me on Twitter @metsmerized.
378 Comments + Add Comment
NL East Standings
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braves | 42 | 30 | .583 | - |
| Phillies | 35 | 37 | .486 | 7.0 |
| Nationals | 34 | 36 | .486 | 7.0 |
| Mets | 27 | 40 | .403 | 12.5 |
| Marlins | 22 | 48 | .314 | 19.0 |
Last updated: 06/19/2013
MMO Mets Chat
Recent Comments
- Djmurphy: on Marcum Can’t Find Win Column As Mets Fall To Braves 5-3: Not sure what ur talking about both...
- Djmurphy: on Marcum Can’t Find Win Column As Mets Fall To Braves 5-3: The trade w toronto was great. It...
- Djmurphy: on Marcum Can’t Find Win Column As Mets Fall To Braves 5-3: The beltran n fickey trades will go...
- Metsie: on Marcum Can’t Find Win Column As Mets Fall To Braves 5-3: I hear that World War Z is...
- Djmurphy: on Marcum Can’t Find Win Column As Mets Fall To Braves 5-3: Drafting plawecki w the reyes comp pick...
Latest From Mets Minors
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1334 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
I checked.
On November 19th I said
“When Wright or Dickey are signed or in another uniform, then I’ll look back on everything and come up with my opinion of how it went down. Until then, I’m going to take everything with a grain of salt”
So since he isn’t in another uniform yet – I’ll let you know how I feel when he is. Maybe I’m in the minority here…
The smart move was to trade him from day one. The survey results were a result of the fanbase being very emotional and excited about RA’s accomplishments in mid-November. But when that wore off, and the reality of the Mets being able to improve the team for the future, instead of having a twenty game winner when it doesn’t matter, set in.
I doubt 40% of the fans are so shallow that their emotions are as exaggerated as you suggest. Were you in that 40%? Or did you just want to trade him all along? I want to hear from the 40% and see why they switched gears and I don’t think you are qualified to speak for them. Neither am I because I always wanted to keep him. Fact is Wilpon had an effect here. No doubt.
Just my theory because I would hope the fan base would recognize the value in trading Dickey and not want to trade him over propaganda.
Well look at how the fans turned on Beltran and Reyes? And how most didnt on Bay because the message was always how hard he worked his ass off. What was that all about? It’s too bad we cant actual ask the people who voted why they changed, then we would know for sure. But I’ve seen the Wilpons do this way too many times, with Todd Hundley, Jeff Kent, Kevin Mitchell, etc. Plenty more I’m not mentioning the list is long.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/ike_plays_defense_HGJaRd4TCOX4WZ16SYL2VN
Dont forget Delgado …who was called a clubhouse cancer for the first time in his career..
as a matter of fact…most of the guys listed, including Castillo and Perez were never called bad clubhouse guys before they came to NY
Yet the refused to implicate Paul Lo Duca. Also Al Leiter and John Franco with Scott Kazmir fiasco and Glavine with ‘Hey rookie”, Lastings Miledge.
no need to throw dirt on LoDuca, he was already all over the back pages for sleeping with a 18 year old college student and his Playboy cover wife was leaving him. then there was the gambling thing that mysteriously came out of nowhere.
How do you think you even know about how Al Leiter and John Franco were involved with the Kazmir issue…how Kazmir got yelled out for playing Eminem in the clubhouse…the influence of those “super scouts”…and the 101 other things that went wrong there…..
All of those guys deny any involvement
And it was Billy Wagner who said Hey Rook to Lastings…not Glavine…
Billy Wagner, the same guy that Fred made a pledge to, trading him to a contender, completely bypassing the GM, who i thought made the call on roster decisions…
or maybe not
Just-Da- Damaja: Thanks for the correction on Billy Wagner not Glavine on “Hey Rook incident”.
What you said apply to DW as well. Actually DW’s contract is much longer.
In what world is trading RA Dickey for a couple of “prospects” the smart thing to do!? Zack Grienke gets a mega deal from the Dodgers and yet RA Dickey, who put up better numbers than Grienke over the past 3 years, gets traded for garbage. D’Aranaud is not the answer at the catching position. If the Mets were gonna take a catcher from north of the border, it should have been JP Arencibia, a guy who has proven himself to be a serviceable MLB player. A catcher with bad knees and a single-A pitcher for a stud Cy Young Award Winner in RA Dickey? Sounds like a gigantic win for the Blue Jays if you ask me.
this is such drivel… is “Joe C” just a catch-all for a team of monkeys?
this is such drivel… is “Joe D” just a catch-all for a team of monkeys?
Real classy.
Drivel huh? Like you could ever write something worth looking into. Piss off, loser.
Propaganda works, Always has always will. This is not surprising at all.
Pretty sure Cerrone has that honor all sewn up. The team of monkeys there all feed at the same troff.
YUP! Propaganda works on those that don’t pay too close attention and don’t think for themselves. Just look at the 2012 Election. Woops…Did I say that out loud?
You could scream it out loud for all I care because it’s true. People dont pay attention and the media knows it! :-O
Joe,
I think you’re giving the Wilpons way too much credit. They just aren’t that savvy. Back in mid-November, RA had just won the Cy Young and his feel good story was at its height. Since the winter meetings, the Grienke signing, and the Rays-Royals deal, the price for premium pitching has gone up. I think most Met fans realize Alderson has a real shot at filling some holes. The bottom line will be the return. I am a big RA fan, a will be one even if he is dealt. Thge bottom line is that if the get back D’Arnaud plus, I will be happy. If D’Arnaud is not in the deal, I will be pissed.
Amen, Joe. Well stated.
I definitely had a change of heart, I’ll admit. Maybe it was the rumors about Dickey because I did get a little upset about the things he said that day. But I think when I started to hear some of the names that were being ofered Wil Myers, Mike Olt, etc. I started to consider the option of trading him. I think it was combination of both.
Another reason why I dislike said ownership.
Spot on!
We needed to trade him. Whatever works, lol.
I’ve wanted them to trade Dickey since the day the season ended. I cannot understand all of you who want to keep him. He will never ever have as good of a year as last year and the Mets won what 72 games. If we get anything at all for him we win this trade. Seriously I don’t get it he has been on this team 3 years why do you think paying him $26 million will magically turn this team around? Ridiculous!
CaliMets,
Pitching wins, and RA is a fabulous one and also the sort of leader needed to mold the inexperienced into well balanced major league pitchers, a process that typically takes years at the major league level.
There’s also no reason to believe R.A. won’t continue pitching well for years to come whether he replicates 2012 performance or not.
One problem with all this research Joe. You used MetsBlog as your poll data. If you spent any time perusing the comment threads there, I’m certain you may have opted to use them as the smoking gun to your case. That said, this was a great read.
Should read opted not to use them.
Off topic but you need to have an edit comment function.
Very interesting research, and I’m sure there’s some validity to your position, but its very difficult to measure given Cerrone’s surveys are flawed, simply don’t pass the smell test with it’s limited and very narrowly defined options that leave no room for real world, common sense answers, nor knowledge whether the same people or households are voting multiple times
Insofar as Mets shenanigans, they hurt franchise image more than any gain accrued by deceiving the gullable amongst the fan base.
Ultimately, if they expect to win, they’re going to need quality experienced free agents along with the youngsters and will struggle to sign the good ones who don’t want to later become victim of this team’s lies when they try to trade that same vet the following year. I don’t know why any free agent would want to play for the Mets right now or in the future under this regime. The way Reyes and RA Dickey have been treated, presumably does not go unnoticed by the players.
LFT agreed. If this was an ESPN poll it would have had much more credibility and the results would be more valid.
Hodges14,
Yes, exactly!
I also think Cerrone’s polls are sometimes used for purposes other than it seems such as roughly gauging visitor usage and/or interest beyond mere page views. Lord knows they rarely reads the comments which often point out the many mistakes that website makes that are not corrected despite rampant user criticism on daily basis.
I think the main reason people see still go to that website is the belief they have access to good sources. and quickly. Quality of product and analysis doesn’t seem to concern Cerrone. and it shows.
I have to disagree with you re: Metsblog’s polls. I think they’re about the only thing left on that site that still has credibility. For one thing, they usually get thousands of votes, and most them are from Mets fans. So they have a good amount of validity in reflecting the true pulse and sentiments of the fanbase. Second, I doubt the numbers are ever falsified or tweaked in any way. Whatever you think of Cerrone, I don’t think he is dishonest. And a fan can’t vote multiple times on them unless they go through hoops. And even if a single fan decided to do that, it wouldn’t impact the results enough to make a difference in the outcome.
If you’ve ever voted on one of those polls early, and then checked the results periodically in the next few hours, you’ll notice that after there are a certain amount of votes — say 1,000 or so — then the results don’t change much. For example, a poll asking fans if they approve of the direction of the franchise may hit about 60% YES after a thousand votes and will stay more or less in that neighborhood till the end of the polling. That tells me that they have hit a valid sample size and that the results are fairly valid. This what happens with scientific polling outside of sports too.
As for the recent flip-flop in the poll results on Dickey, I think the Christmas party comments played only a small part in that. I think as the hot stove season wore on — and fans kept seeing other teams make trades or sign free agents while the Mets did nothing — then they gradually changed their mind on trading Dickey, thinking that may be the best route to improve the club. Personally I voted both times to keep Dickey as I really enjoy watching him pitch and feel he can be effective for at least a few more years. But now that I see Alderson may be getting back d’Arnaud and Syndergaard for him, I’ve changed my mind. If that deal goes through it will be another great trade for Alderson. I’ll miss Dickey but the return is worth it.
A few other interesting things about Metsblog polls —
1) Most of the time they surely don’t reflect Metsblog’s own comment sections. The sentiment in the polls and that in the comment section are often 180 degrees apart. Some may say that makes the polls invalid, but to the contrary, the comment section there is a thing unto itself and is not indicative of the majority of Mets fans. The comment section is simply a noisier and more frustrated sub-section of the Mets fan base.
2) During the season, the polls asking fans if they approve of the direction of the franchise vary wildly according to how well the team is doing on the field at that particular point in the season. So at least during the season, it is more a poll asking fans how they feel about that particular team at that particular moment — as opposed to the general (long term) direction of the franchise which is what the poll is supposed to measure. This just says to me that fans are fickle and during the season can’t divorce their feelings about how the team is currently playing from the larger issue of how the team is being run.
So, those Metsblog poll are the only thing left on that site that I still like. And the tweet page is very handy for getting news.
After they signed Wright, most likely against Alderson’s wishes. Trading Dickey was Sandy’s sweet reward, and swaying the masses became a necessary evil.
How is trading Dickey a reward?
I love R A and I wish they wouldn’t trade him but at this point I think he deserves to go to a team that treats him with respect. This organization is despicable.
Remember when they were saying some of the exact same things about Ike at the end of the summer…prepping us to trade him. The Wilpons are truly despicable.
I don’t blame any player who would want to leave this team.
Screw MetsBlog.
Correction. Screw Metsblog and the Wilpons, joined at the hip!
Correction Screw SNYblog formerly Metsblog & the Wilponzis
Correction. Screw MetsPravda formerly MetsBlog and the Wilponzis.
What a great article, Joe. You completely summed up my thoughts. Spot on, my friend.
Question:
And I dont want to put anyone down but is the Mets fanbase this stupid to buy into what the Wildersons/Alderpons are selling?
It’s true, they discredit and defame the character of players. But if we fall in line like mindless little sheep, what does that say about us?
I don’t mean to offend anyone and my apologies if I do, but It may say there are perhaps a lot of younger fans who don’t have enough experience to recognize the more subtle nuances of deception and manipulation.by this one or that.
Dont trust any Met fan under 40.
Hey now LOL
Make that under 60.
I dont think its an age thing have you heard Mets fans on these radio stations most are over age 40….gullible young people grow up to be gullible old people
Every Black Friday people are lined up 12midnight to get sales on crap they dont need…crap that isnt as discounted as one might think….holidays arent days where we celebrate those are days where we go out in MASS to spend money!!!
Most fans dont make connections with team execs, they make them with players. I want to trade Dickey and always have, but I respect all those who didn’t because Dickey is a once in a lifetime kind of player. Most Mets fans under 30 never saw three years like Dickey gave the Mets. How can I disparage them for wanting to keep him? I can’t. This is just going to be contentious no matter what happens because most fans are not even keeled and only see in black and white. Nice piece of writing Joe.
This.
I agree I wanted to trade Dickey because I felt we were rebuilding and needed to stockpile young talent…Dickeys value was sky high and able to potentially bring back multiple top prospects that would help us rebuild. And we werent going to be competitive so holding onto Dickey would just be for sentimental reasons.
Re-signing Dickey and not spending money to add a supporting cast IMO didnt make sense.
Longtime Fan,
I’m in no way arguing pitching is important or that Dickey isn’t a great leader, person or teammate. However this team as much as I love them is and has been bad for a few years. Keeping Dickey 3 or more years can only produce more of the same. Maybe this trade makes them much worse but keeping the team as is IMO can not and will not make it better.
Hey Dickey, Escape From New York is playing now on BBC.
Good luck, dude.
Hi Joe,
I wouldn’t doubt the Mets with that propaganda machine going. But I also think what they have accomplished is making us resigned to the fact that they are going to dump R.A. One can only be punched in the stomach so much before yelling enough already, go ahead.
What I do want to know is how one can speak with such a certainty that a proven player like R.A – who is at the top of his game and being a knuckle ball pitcher can still have many quality years ahead of him – it is all downhill from now while on the other hand, a prospect who has yet to prove anything is already going to be a key element in leading us to the promised land. Possibility? That is fine. Worth the chance? OK too. But don’t put it in terms of certainty.
Please….!!! Smear campaigns? Come on Joe. If you want to go after the Wilpons for anything, how about being soooo screwed up in debt that this trade HAS to happen or else the mets are screwed!
Look how the off season has gone. It’s so obvious when the mets can’t even afford Ryan Ludwick, that they have zero financial ability to compete with the rest of the league. That’s why this had to happen and MOST mets fans are smart enough to understand that. That they aren’t winning this year, they can’t with this team as is and without any cash.
That’s why the poll shifted so much. Do you really think anyone, other then yourself, really got mad at Dickey over his comments at a party a d decided he had to go? That’s ridiculous and a pretty poor attempt to mask how wrong you were about Dickey’s market value.
Why not just say this had to happen and Alderson played the whole situation perfectly?
“… how about being soooo screwed up in debt that this trade HAS to happen”
Agreed. That’s the really sad part about the Dickey trade. That as a big market team, the Mets couldn’t find a way to both keep a popular and accomplished pitcher such as Dickey and improve the team sufficiently at the same time.
The onus is on the Wilpons for the financial end of things. It’s also on Omar for his failure to establish a well-rounded and more successful farm system and the wasted contracts that have bled the team in recent years. Because of that, Dickey is being traded. So it’s ironic. Dickey is arguably Omar’s best acquisition, but Omar’s other actions or inactions are causing him to be taken away. What Omar giveth, Omar taketh away!
LMAO
And you are still blaming Omar??
bwahahahahahahaha
Really, you think Omar did a great job with the farm system? You don’t think his bad contracts bled the team?
LMAO and bwahahahaha, indeed!
Ike Davis
Daniel Murphy
Ruben Tejada
Matt Harvey
Wilmer Flores
Omar was able to quickly turn around a horrible product on the field, turning a 79 win team into a 96 win team in 2 years….with nothing coming from the farm….then restocking the farm with the names mentioned above.
With the exception of Harvey and maybe davis, every team has those guys. they aren’t special.
So ya, when he had a bottomless wallet and a division in flux, he had one good year.
Why couldn’t the Mets repeat any of that?
One good year?
2007 + 2008 according to your lord and savior Sandy Alderson were actually good years
thats 3 good years out of 6
your lord and savior has not had a good year as a GM since Bush Sr was President
No, 2007 and 2008 were not good years. In fact, 2008 should have been the year whatever plan Minaya had came together.
Unfortunately his 5 year plan arrived 3 years early and the Mets essentially had to scrap the rebuild in exchange for a win-now philosophy.
Can you imagine after 2006, if Minaya or any GM would have taken the never-mind-what-just-happened-we’re-still-rebuilding approach and started trading quality MLB players for prospects as Alderson has done?
No GM would have done that. It would have been Game-On after a season like 2006. And still, he was able to draft players like Harvey, Parnell and, Ike while balancing the win-now approach.
“Can you imagine after 2006, if Minaya or any GM would have taken the never-mind-what-just-happened-we’re-still-rebuilding approach and started trading quality MLB players for prospects as Alderson has done?”
That’s the problem. No one stopped and honestly assessed the situation. No one realized how old the team actually was or how fragile the rotation was. We all got caught up in the emotion of the unexpected (and you can’t stress that point enough) playoff run.
But what are execs paid for? Isn’t a GM supposed to be the grown up in the room?
Ike Davis — very good player, has the potential for stardom. Has to put together 1-2 solid seasons to prove it.
Daniel Murphy — good player, but a type that most systems can produce.
Ruben Tejada — same as Murph, so far
Matt Harvey — unknown
Wilmer Flores — unknown
In Omar’s favor, I would add in Niese. He’s a valuable asset and at least a middle-rotation starter. He has the potential to be a #2.
So all we got out of Omar’s 6 years as GM + perhaps the biggest budgets in the history of the franchise are 2 players (Niese and Ike) of high value — and the rest either unproven at this point (Harvey, Flores) or of good yet mediocre value (Murphy, Tejada). Meanwhile there is an absolute black hole in this farm system when it comes to catchers and outfielders.
Omar was able to quickly turn around a horrible product on the field because he was given a ginormous wallet — and he spent to match it like a drunken sailor! It worked for a time, but Omar’s penchant for making horrible contracts and leaning on over-the-hill veterans meant too many wasted dollars and too many injured players on the DL.
Rating Omar as a GM on a scale of 1-10, I’d give him a 5.
The ginormous wallet had a 96 million dollar payroll in 2006…
the wallet was so ginormous that they couldnt afford to bring in relievers in 2008…
so ginormous that they went after Alou on a 1 year 7 mil contract with a 1 year option and turned down Manny Ramirez because Boston wanted them to take on the rest of his contract
so ginormous that they offered Derek Lowe a 3 year 36 mil contract….after he signed for 5/60, they gave the same contract to Ollie…just about every free-agent SP that year that signed sucked….( with the exception of CC )
the wallet was so ginormous that they went after Matt Holliday….o wait…no they didnt, they went after the 2nd best player on the market after he signed…Jason Bay…
we can go on and on and never end on how the mets forever signed a big fish ( to sell tickets and hopefully fix a leak ) then tightened their wallets when it came to actually fixing other leaks. thats not a ginormous wallet, thats putting marketing above production ( see resigning David Wright to a 8 year / 138 mil deal ) and then not going after any OF’s or relievers when at least 5 good OF’s are available
same sh*t, same toilet
Anything that Omar couldn’t afford was his fault. He’s given a budget. And if he exceeds that or spends close to the limit, of course, he can’t afford something.
Here’s the facts about the Mets budgets during Omar’s time, and any sane GM would call them ginormous, except for Cashman:
2005 — 101 million – #1 in NL
2006 — 101 million – #1 in NL
2007 — 115 million – #2 in NL
2008 — 138 million – #1 in NL
2009 — 149 million – #1 in NL
2010 — 134 million – #3 in NL
So every year he was GM except 2007 and 2010, Omar had the top payroll in the NL, and in 2007 it was #2 and in 2010 it was #3. That is ginormous.
No amount of attempts at obfuscation can hide the fact that Omar was given riches and didn’t make the best use of them, pissing away precious dollars on duds like Castillo, El Duque, Alou, Bay, and Ollie.
You also forget that Omar inherited one of the highest paid SP in the NL ( Wagner ), the highest paid Catcher in baseball ( Piazza ), a completely useless Braden Looper ( also a highly paid closer ), the highest paid 2B in the NL ( Kaz Matsui ), one of the highest paid LF in baseball…and one of the highest paid CF in all of baseball
but yeah, dont let that get in the way of your analysis on Omar’s 2005-2006 budget !
Omar was able to do everything Sandy did with 1 arm tied behind his back
that SP was Glavine, not Wagner
Nope, didn’t forget that Piazza was there. But so what? He came off the books after just 1 year, freeing up money for Omar. Contrast that with the multiple years left on the wasted contracts that Alderson inherited.
And how in the world was Glavine one of the highest paid pitchers in the NL? He made just 9/10 million a year. Heck, Ollie was given a contract shortly after that was worth more! In addition, he was mostly productive during his time in NY. So it wasn’t a wasted contract.
Looper made just $800,000 in 2005, and was off the books after 2005. Matsui was about the only contract that was a waste and lasted more than 1 year.
So, are you serious? Alderson can only dream the baggage he inherited when he took over was so light! The money that Omar had to spend every winter compared to what Alderson has had to spend has been night and day. Ginormous vs. peanuts.
When Omar inherited the mets
at the tender age of 39, Glavine made 11 mil in 2005 – was one of the highest paid SP’s in baseball
Again, Omar also inherited the highest paid LF in the NL ( Cliff Floyd ), who still had 2 years left on his contract ( sounds familiar huh )
also inherited a grossly overpaid CF with 3 years left on his contract
not to mention one of the highest paid 2B in baseball ( Kaz Matsui ) with 2 years left on his contract
Do you remember that Matsui started off 2006 with the mets and appeared in 36 games…the same way we trotted out Bay and refused to eat salary until the last year, the same thing we did with Matsui…
Let’s not forget the great Victor Zambrano…and the great Kris Benson !
Met fans go on and on about Castillo ( 6 mil ) and Perez ( 12 mil ) but forget how crappy the 2002-2004 Mets that Omar inherited were
you go from that to being one hit away from a WS + rebuilding the minors AT THE SAME TIME
Omar’s 2005-2008 >>>> The fake rebuilding job Sandy is doing
If the mantra is to rebuild and not compete Anyone can take assets they inherit and trade them for prospects, your bar for excellence is super high with Omar and really low for Sandy
Despite the typo of Wagner for Glavine, good points, Just.
What was the Met payroll in 2002+2003 + 2004 and where did it rank in the NL ?
LMAO
Why don’t you look it up? What’s your point?
2003 payroll New York Mets $117,084,163 1st in NL
2004 payroll New York Mets $100,629,303 1st in NL
2005 payroll New York Mets $104,770,139 1st in NL
2006 payroll New York Mets $101,084,963 1st in NL
Omar had a completely different mission than the lawyer we have pretending to be a GM
he had to sell tickets in the last few years at Shea by building a winner.
Sandy has not had to build a winning ball-club since 1991
and as GM of the Mets, he still does not have to do that, his job is to make sure the team doesnt go under and is profitable.
this is why he said he had to cut Castillo. Not because of production, but b/c of perception.
this is why he changed the dimensions at the stadium, because of the “entertainment” factor
Sandy is as concerned with fielding a WS winner as I am in polar bear mating science
Hi Just,
Be careful about comments like a lawyer trying to be a general manager – the Lone Ranger might be watching.
Talking about the Lone Ranger, anybody notice that he still hasn’t responded to my question as to why nobody else but him accuses me of making up things, lying and referring to webpages that don’t exist – which is different than simply saying I’m wrong coming to the conclusions I have.
Still love that Bill Rigney jab, Jessup. Was a good one and I know said out of respect and not attack.
You’re wrong. Omar said on many occasions that when he came to the Mets, he had to convince the Wilpons to spend money. He was the one who talked the Mets into spending money. He was the one who decided to go for the quick fixes and/or the reckless contracts. So, no, he wasn’t given a mission.
And the seats at Shea for the last few years sold themselves. No one had to promote them. Just like at the old Yankee Stadium, everyone wanted to get in on the last years.
And of course Sandy has tried to build a winning ballclub every year since he’s been here. But there’s just so much you can do with only bread crumbs to spend every year. That’s not his fault. Again, as I said, it’s mostly the Wilpons’ fault, with a good assist from Omar.
Sandy very much wants to build a WS winner — so I guess that means you are an expert in polar bear mating science!
I did respond. Why don’t you go back and read. Nobody else wants to get into a 3 month debate with you that’s why I’m the only on that calls out your BS tactics. If you’re that simple to believe the shit you come up with then it’s basically useless for anybody else to get into it with you. Besides when people call you out go runnng to mama in tears. I could tell your bothered by it cause you keep mentioning it only don’t have the balls to say my name. You really are pathetic. Go make up another story, it’s about that time. Hey how bout that Beltran trade?
Can you provide one link that showed Omar had to convince ownership to open up those wallets….
and lets not pretend that fielding a very good team that won alot of games had nothing to do with the attendance in 2005 ( increased from 2004 ), 2006 ( increased from 2005 ) and 2007 ( increased from 2006 ).
Empty Stadiums and Sucky Teams are par for the course with your lord and savior Sandy Alderson
Outside of a good 3 year stretch, the bulk of his career has looked like that
Oh, without even a question if a doubt you lie and make things up. I didn’t realize that was up for debate. It’s well documented and widely known.
Hi Metro,
One does have to have to think twice as to how much Sandy is concerned about building a world series winner as he is the business of making money or reducing the financial bleeding for his employees. Remember, he is the one who said making trades anymore doesn’t deal with talent when referring to why he traded McGwire from Oakland – who was leading the majors in home runs and challenging Roger Maris (he finished with 59) – for prospects that never amounted to anything.
The Oakland financial situation was no better than the one Sandy faces now with the Mets.
San Diego didn’t hide the fact that they needed to downsize as well. These are the teams that hired Sandy. Those without financial problems did not seek out his services according to the available information which includes Sandy himself never mentioning talks he might have had with others when discussing his career as a baseball executive.
It does
here we go
“Can you provide one link that showed Omar had to convince ownership to open up those wallets….”
I heard/read it many times. I believe Omar’s words were something like this: “I had to convince Fred Wilpon to open up the wallet.” I will look for it but at my convenience.
“and lets not pretend that fielding a very good team that won alot of games had nothing to do with the attendance in 2005 ( increased from 2004 ), 2006 ( increased from 2005 ) and 2007 ( increased from 2006 )”
Of course, winning almost always increases attendance for a NY team. As their winning totals increased, so did attendance.
“Empty Stadiums and Sucky Teams are par for the course with your lord and savior Sandy Alderson”
Thanks to the Wilpons and their financial mess, as well as Omar’s bad contracts, all of which Alderson inherited. No GM could have succeeded under these conditions.
“Outside of a good 3 year stretch, the bulk of his career has looked like that”
Who are you talking about, lol. (Joe D, can you get a system that can quote a post you’re replying to???)
Joey D — of course Alderson wants to win a WS here and is trying to. Not saying his method will be successful, but those are his aims.
Not sure how the Oakland situation is relevant to now.
Alderson has said that when he came here he was shocked at how locked in the payroll was the first year and how little leeway he had. So that shows you that his state of mind was NOT to come in and cut payroll and downsize. Those who say it is are wrong. Also keep in mind that the Madoff lawsuit had yet to be filed in court when Alderson came aboard and that further restricted spending by the Mets.
When Alderson took the job, he said one of the reasons is because he would finally have a large payroll and resources to work with. That should further show you his intentions and state of mind. Why people ignore this I don’t know. People have their own agendas and twist or invent the facts to fit it.
Hi Metro,
I do not doubt Sandy wants to win a world series. I do not doubt the Wilpons want that too. I do not doubt that M. Donald Grant wanted more than one world series ring as well.
That is not the point. There is the business. When one is making money, they can be more frugal with their spending. When one might not yet be making money but has the capital reserve to absorb short-term losses in lieu of projected long-term financial success, they too can be liberal with their spending habits. When one is losing money and has no capital to fall back on and is facing possible financial ruin due to long-term debt that they possibly cannot meet, they have to be concerned about at least stopping the bleeding.
To dismiss what Sandy said and did in his role as an executive in Oakland and San Diego as irrelevant today, taking into account his legal and financial background and the situation facing the current ownership that twice had to be bailed out from selling the team, I believe, ignores the reality of what is going on in Flushing. Others in the Wilpon situation would have had no choice but to sell the team – i.e, Los Angeles, Texas and Montreal. It is not even the same set of circumstances facing small market clubs like Kansas City, Oakland and Pittsburgh that don’t have the revenue that one would think would be necessary to keep them in business – for, like Texas, Los Angeles, Montreal and now with the Mets, they also don’t have the bottomless pit of debt with no water in the well facing them on top of that.
That is what Sandy Alderson is here to prevent. Building a championship caliber organization, something everybody involved wants, is not the main priority at this time. A few have said that a team cannot compete and rebuild at the same time like R.A. alluded to last summer could be. While I think R.A. is right – it is certainly impossible for one to invest in fielding a competitive team while having to resolve the tremendous financial burdens as well. Again, without the unprecedented steps taken by their friend Bud Selig, the Wilpons would have had to file for bankruptcy.
With his legal and financial expertise, that is something that Sandy to this point has been successful in preventing. He can’t do both at the same time not just because of the financial circumstances but because he is not a baseball person. He is a baseball executive more adept to the business of the game.
Joey D — I guess I’m not understanding what you’re trying to say. Alderson’s role may have changed somewhat between the time he accepted the job and the time he found out just how limited his budget would be because of existing contracts, but that had more to do with the Madoff lawsuit filed AFTER Alderson took the job and with the Wilpon’s deteriorating financial situation as a result of that suit and other factors. So, of course, given the financial situation he now found himself in, I’m sure he had to switch gears mentally and it was a big disappointment for him. He no longer had the resources to work with that he thought he would have when he accepted the job. He said he ONLY took the job because he thought finally he now had the opportunity to work with resources. He said this upon accepting the job and before he actually arrived. So that was his mindset upon accepting the job. Not downsizing. Or saving a franchise. If he had to switch gears, it was not by choice or inclination.
Do we agree on this?
If not, then what’s your point?
Joey D — Or are you trying to say the Wilpons purposely duped Alderson, luring him to the job by telling him he’d have typical NY resources to work with? But knowing at the time that he’d only have very limited resources to work with?
LOL, do I hear violins playing? Now you’re trying to use age to garner sympathy for Omar?
Glavine made 10.7 mill in both 2004 and 2005. That was a far cry from the highest salaries being paid to starting pitchers at the time. Moreover, after his contract expired, they brought him back! So he is actually an example of where Omar got lucky — he inherited a starting pitching at a reasonable salary who was actually productive at the time! Glavine actually works against your argument.
The CFer and LFer he inherited were both productive and had trade value (cameron) so no biggie.
Benson was easily dispensed with by a trade.
So really, the only one who seemed to be a dead contract who was eating up significant salary and was signed beyond 1 year was Matsui. Alderson would have done anyting for such a situation when he took over the Mets.
The point you completely miss or gloss over is that every winter, Omar had gazillions in play money to work with. I’m estimating probably 30-40 million on average, maybe more some years. That dwarfs the money Alderson has had to work with.
Sure, anyone can take assets and trade them for prospects but 1) not everyone gets blue chippers back and 2) not everyone can utilize those prospects in a cohesive strategy to build a successful team. Now Alderson hasn’t done that yet. But if he does, that’s so much better than what Omar did.
My bar for excellence is the same for both Omar and Alderson — build a strong team with a strong farm system as the foundation for sustained success. In the meantime, *minimize* the stupid trades and wasted contracts. Omar did a poor-mediocre job of this. Alderson’s grade is incomplete at this point in time.
LMAO
Floyd hit .244 with 11 HR in 2006
please explain to me how that was “productive”
in 3 years that he was here…he had 1 good year
You do realize the 2004 mets had the highest payroll in the NL and sucked donkey balls right?
Omar and Sandy had 2 different missions.
A glorified monkey can do what Sandy is doing, and do it for cheaper
your lord and savior is nothing but a empty suit
“Benson was easily dispensed with by a trade.”
So was K-Rod…
and may i remind you…Omar inherited a worse 2B with MORE MONEY left on his contract
“But if he does, that’s so much better than what Omar did.”
and if he doesnt…you can still blame Omar !!!
lmaoo
LMAO, indeed! Floyd had 34 HRs and 98 RBIs for Omar’s first year as GM! The second year he tailed off, but by that time Omar had spent the big bucks to get Beltran. Alderson would have killed to have an OF as productive as that.
And Omar had Floyd for just 2 years, not 3.
What’s your point about 2004? I don’t know how 2004 is relevant to Omar. Omar wasn’t GM in 2004.
If Omar had a different mission from Sandy, it’s one he created himself. LOL. He was the one who talked the Wilpons into financing his mission.
I never called Alderson a lord and savour. That’s pretty silly. But so far I like his approach much better than Omar’s. That could change if his 2013 plans don’t work out. But so far he is on the right track.
““Benson was easily dispensed with by a trade.”
So was K-Rod…
and may i remind you…Omar inherited a worse 2B with MORE MONEY left on his contract”
_________________________
Still can’t compare to the wasted contracts Alderson was saddled with when he took over. Night and day. Just like the amounts of spending money each GM has had each winter, regadrless of existing underperforming contracts — a point you continue to ignore.
“But if he does, that’s so much better than what Omar did.”
and if he doesnt…you can still blame Omar !!!
lmaoo
_________________________________
Nope, if Alderson fails then that’s on Alderson!
And that sure don’t look like a shrinking wallet to me!
I was enthusiastic as soon as he won the Cy Young about trading Dickey. Think they should have checked into what they could have got for Wright as well. But I guess it’s hard to get a third baseman like Wright and he will be best Met ever and end his career here. But it was obvious they had to move Dickey for more pieces. I can see Duda, Murphy, and Parnell the next ones to go.
I may have flipped if I even voted. I seriously doubt that I did; however, my position has slightley changed from a resounding no to a OK but only for a real return. The reason has nothing to do with the Wilpons childish games but does have to do with them and the FO. They did nothing to net an outfielder. This is a serious need and most of the decent CF’rs are off the market now. Trading RA is about the only hope. I know about the impending deal and honestly I don’t like it. I don’t trust the kids knee and he is a minor league catcher. I became resigned to an RA trade when I thought an outfielder was coming back now I’m just irritated. D’ may become a great catcher but he did not fill one of the two huge holes in the outfield. He may replace Thole but who knows how the kid is gonna hold up over a season with a recent serious knee injury. I will miss Dickey if he is traded and in some respects I turned on him, I should be ashamed of myself.
The Shields to KC deal certainly changed the market.
If you´re suddenly able to add an elite prospect and a very good prospect you can control longterm and that fit structurally, you make a deal.
Getting D´Arnaud + seemed unrealistic in mid November, so at that point, keeping Dickey seemed preferable. With the market shifting – and considering where the Mets stand, i.e. probably not as a 2013 contender – trading Dickey, i.e. a 38-year-old pitcher for high ceiling elite prospect(s) makes too much sense to pass.
Now, it doesn´t mean those smear campaigns – if they are really intended – are helpful or achieve anything positive.
One thing that would be nice for everybody involved is to use a “rational” approach to things. Leaving emotions aside, trading Dickey and extending Wright made and still makes a ton of sense:
- Mets are very deep in young pitching but thin in young hitting in the upper minors, so odds that a frontline SP can be replaced from within are a lot higher than for a frontline bat over the next 3+ years
- Dickey is 38, Wright turns 30 these days: Most top 3bmen of recent years have aged pretty well and performed at a high level well into their mid 30s. Dickey is so unique that we have no idea how long the experation date of a hard-throwing knuckleballer will be. It could be Wakefieldesque anyway but it could also be a lot shorter.
- looking at future free agent classes, there won´t be a hitter as good as Wright available over the next couple of years in all likelihood, so if you lose him now, you may not have a suitable replacement any time soon
So, in case someone offers you a really good package for Dickey, you have to jump at it – even if it rips a large hole into your shortterm plans.
And unless the “mystery” prospect heading to Toronto comes close to equalizing the value of Syndergaard (i.e. one of Nimmo, Flores, Tapia, Fulmer, Familia, Montero and Mejia), this haul will be of at least very similar if not higher quality to the haul TB received for Shields & Wade Davis, obviously also depending on who the “mystery” prospect going to the Mets is going to be.
It does turn me into a Toronto Blue Jay fan for 2013 (besides rooting for the Mets to stun the world and reach .500) and I really hope this is something that will work for both TOR and the Mets.
Most top 3bmen of recent years have aged pretty well and performed at a high level well into their mid 30s.
Most TOP 3B dont post really bad 2nd half numbers for 4 seasons straight
I remember the Grant and Dick Young smear campaign of Seaver well.
This week it was Jeff Wilpon and Ken Davidoff.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I’ll spare you my take – once again – on all things Wilpons.
This article is a great example of twisting data to suit an authors needs. Mets fans were still in love with RA because he had just won the Cy Young. After the Winter Meetings fans started to realize that the team needs players. There are only two ways to get new players: over pay (look how well that worked for the Marlins last year) or trade for players. RA is a good guy but he isn’t a long term solution for the mets. The team is smart to try toget the most in trade for a guy who has only a few good years left in him. Mets fans just need to stop whining.
Two polls, one opinion about results, and a Wilpon/Post smear campaign in the middle. Where is the twisting? Met fans need to stop whining yes, whining about differing opinions.
I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in internet polls. They are self identifying and mostly do little to authenticate the people answering the questions. Hell, the questions themselves often aren’t very good. They often leave a lot of room for interpretation that can’t be explained through 1 out of 4 choices. Hardly scientific.
I’m willing to bet the fanbase will maintain overwhelmingly warm feelings for Dickey, despite what some hack writes in the Post.
I still think whatever shifts in attitude many might have deal with the time dragging on so much that they are tired of the argument and feel if one is going to do it, do it. There is only so much energy one can spend defending even a great guy and a valuable player like R.A. before they give into the bashing. Isn’t that what politicians count on during the winding down of the campaign – melting down the opposition.
There is also, at least in the back of my mind, the unpopularity of the Geo Gonzalez deal last winter in Oakland and then what transpired this past season. That only adds to one being so tired that they might give into supporting such a move on our part. But does lightning strike twice in a bottle?
I do think that if the deal is made, the backlash will return once reality sets in. We will see it as the money move as it was with Beltran, Reyes, KRod, Pagan and all the inexpensive players Sandy admitted he signed. Another reason I believe it’s more about money (not the $5 million coming up but the two years after that) is what Sandy stated in the past when in Oakland with McGwire – that trades aren’t based anymore on talent.
With that mindset, isn’t it at least understandable why many of us to suspect it’s less about what is good for the the team as it is what is good for the Wilpons treasure chest that is required to pay off those overwhelming debts – even with R.A. extending that olive branch?
Well Joe, it’s no so much that they are good at manipulating the Media….
It’s just that there is so much media here that it is easy to find a patsy who is willing to sell his sole to break out of the pack, rise to the fore and do thier bidding hoping he gets more access and better information in the future to report on.
As for the MetsBlog polling….
As a guy who runs a website I don’t have to tell you how easy it is to make poll data say whatever you want it to.
It’s as easy as loading PHPAdmin and changing a number in one column of the MySql database that all these sites and polls run on and save thier data.
Hi Metsie,
Since you are in the business, you no doubt know how marketing firms created, funded and run by an industry try to come across as independent research companies with not so scientific polling (geared in such a way as to get the slanted responses they want) just to promote a picture that doesn’t exist. It’s Madison Avenue and nothing more.
Remember 3D television and how it was the next hot item in the consumer electronics market that people couldn’t wait to get – and willing to throw out their recently purchased high definition sets to do so?
You can make a poll say anything you want it to simply by phrasing the question the way you want the answer to be made….
It’s the oldest trick in the book.
As for 3D TVs thats what happens when the manufacturers tell you what you want and force a product down your throat and charge a premium for a feature you don’t want, don’t use but HAVE to buy because you can’t find a cheaper model without the feature.
“I did respond. Why don’t you go back and read. Nobody else wants to get into a 3 month debate with you that’s why I’m the only on that calls out your BS tactics. If you’re that simple to believe the shit you come up with then it’s basically useless for anybody else to get into it with you. Besides when people call you out go runnng to mama in tears. I could tell your bothered by it cause you keep mentioning it only don’t have the balls to say my name. You really are pathetic. Go make up another story, it’s about that time. Hey how bout that Beltran trade?”
Hi Lone Ranger,
Oh, I see, you are the only one who calls out my ‘BS tactics” as you call them because nobody else posts responses in disagreement with my point of view.
As far as running to moma in tears, though I do not wish to appear presumptuous, I also recall the many nice words said about me at the time and how many hoped I would return unlike others who just stopped participating in MMO. I am also touched by the many nice things still said by many others today when not so kind personal remarks are aimed at me – citing how respectful and considerate I am – offered, by the way, by many who disagree with me on many a point. If that makes one pathetic, then I hope it continues.
All I recall about you is being told to rise yourself out of the sewer. Oh yes, I purposely did not mention you by name so to underscore exactly who I was referring to. It was not for a lack of courage – it was to over-emphasize the name of the individual I am sure everyone knew I was referring to in response to the personal attacks.
I know Joe D. has asked on numerous occasions for readers to please refrain from such personal attacking and has banned some because he had no other recall. My apologies to Joe for being guilty of this myself at times.
Hi Metro,
I do believe Sandy knew what he was getting into because he was privy to information that was confidential within the offices of the commissioner and if one was being urged to take a job he was not at all interested in, one would ask why he is being pushed so hard for it.
In addition, Sandy is an astute lawyer and business person and can read between the lines of these situations much better than we can. With all the information already being reported Sandy no doubt could anticipate the problems to a fair extent down the road. As a lawyer, there is no doubt one of those scenarios he anticipated had to be the possibility of the Wilpons being sued for the profits they made from Madoff – which happened about a month after Sandy came on board.
Now the relevancy to Oakland and San Diego? My point is that Sandy dealt with the fiscal issues of both those clubs and helped alleviate a lot of the financial burden they were facing. That is why his presence was so necessitated with the Mets. The ownership needed someone with the legal and financial mind like Sandy to take over the strings. And that he didn’t want the job does credibly infer how much power and authority he had to be given in order to take it – Sandy said he was very happy with what he was doing at the time.
Joey — OK this is where we disagree.
For one thing, Alderson likely did not have access to confidential information in the commissioner’s office. He was simply Selig’s specially appointed representative to the DR — assigned to help clean up the PEDs problems down there. From what I can gather, he was also working mostly down there, and not at actual MLB offices. So he wasn’t even privy to normal office gossip!
Second, who said he was pushed “hard” into taking the position? From what I read, he was “urged” to interview for and take the position, but he wasn’t pushed into taking it, and Selig did not “push” the Wilpons to hire him.
Third, since he specifically said at the time he was hired that the reason he took the job was because he finally had resources to spend … and shortly saying thereafter that he was surprised when he got here to find out how little room in the budget there was to maneuver due to existing contracts … well then if what you are saying is true, then he is an incredibly good actor and liar. I don’t believe for one second what he was saying was all just an act. He truly expected and believed he’d have big resources to work with right off the bat.
I also disagree that he might have anticipated a lawsuit. Frankly, I don’t think he even followed the Mets or their issues prior to taking the job. He was essentially out of baseball, with just a tangential role at the time. Moreover, it was reported at the time that the mets had lost tons of money with Madoff. Based on that information alone, one would logically surmise they might be in line for reimbursements or restitution — rather than be sued for money.
“And that he didn’t want the job …”
That’s not accurate. He said he wasn’t going to interview for the job — and that he didn’t need it. But that Selig “urged’ him to interview for it. Once offered the job, he was glad to take it because it gave him the opportunity to have resources to work with. He said he wouldn’t have taken the job if it was just an ordinary GM situation (from a resources perspective) — but this is one opportunity he couldn’t pass up — because of the money he would have to work with! Everything he said at the time flies directly in the face of what you are saying. Little did he know that the job would actually turn into an ordinary GM situation when he got here!
Now what I think may have happened is that the Wilpons weren’t totally frank with Alderson when he interviewed for the job. Perhaps they sugar coated the financial situation. But since the lawsuit had yet to be filed, maybe even they didn’t think things would get so bad.
Smoke these owners out just like the Payson/DeRoulet/Don Grant regime were driven out… bankrupt them by staying away from Citi Field. You’re not getting a winner with these owners anytime soon. Their money problems (their own fault, by the way) have them on the precipice. Let’s drive them over the edge. You can see the Mets up and down the East Coast or around the country and get in some sightseeing besides. They are as dislikable an ownership group there is in sports.
Hi Metro,
Know we both see things differently so would like to elaborate (once more, I’m afraid LOL) on why I’ve come to a different conclusion.
By Sandy’s own admission, he wasn’t really interested in the position, which is different than saying he didn’t need it:
“Absent [MLB commissioner Bud Selig] asking [me] to go ahead and pursue this, and to some degree urging me to pursue it, I’d still be in Santo Domingo studying Spanish.
Now, though it is speculative on both parts as to what he did and did not know, I cannot believe that one in Sandy’s position would make such a career decision without vetting hard as to why he was being urged to pursue the Mets GM position by his boss. I did not mean to infer that in his capacity working with the Dominican Republic he was privy to that confidential information but as one who was being urged by the Commissioner to take such a job, he was not only privy to but also within his rights requesting such information from his boss. Again, I don’t believe Sandy would take such a position going in blind.
Now to suggest he might not have known the extent of the Mets financial troubles when he took the job in the late Fall, what about what he told the media after being on the job for more than three months:
“And, at this point, I’m not facing any limitations. And, at this point, I don’t expect to. I’m confident I can do anything with any one individual player.”
Does that mean the Wilpons were still pulling the wool over his eyes or that Sandy still did not have enough time to evaluate the extent of their problems thus thinking he still had the resources he wanted at his disposal?
And before that, Sandy said he did not believe the upcoming civil suit would affect the Mets that much, either.
“When I interviewed and took this position, I was of course aware of the pre-existing involvement of the Wilpons and the Mets with Bernie Madoff,” Alderson said Monday. “I wasn’t privy to all of the detail, nor am I or most of us at this point privy to all that detail, and I wouldn’t expect to be. At the same time, none of that has affected what I have done over the last two months and I don’t expect that it will have any impact on what I do over the next several months, including into the 2012 offseason.”
Now, even though Sandy said he was not privy to all the details beforehand and still was not at the time, he has been caught so often contradicting himself that trust in his integrity has to be questioned. So, who can trust him when he then also said that the Madoff situation never came up during his interview? He has only himself to blame for having doubts about his candor and honesty.
Attached are articles in which those statements appear.
http://nymag.com/news/sports/games/sandy-alderson-2011-4/
http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/alderson-says-he-is-not-facing-any-limitations/
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/mets/2011-01-31-alderson-madoff_N.htm
And remember how he was telling us re-signing Jose Reyes was a top priority when he didn’t even sit down with Jose’s agent? Attached that as well.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110929&content_id=25388246&vkey=news_nym&c_id=nym&partnerId=rss_nym
So Metro, even if we disagree I hope you can understand where I’m coming from.
Enjoying this friendly exchange of opinions.
Ciao
Joey –
“By Sandy’s own admission, he wasn’t really interested in the position, which is different than saying he didn’t need it: “
On this point, I think we have mostly a semantical disagreement. You said he didn’t “want” it, which sort of implies he rejected it. But it was more a simple disinterest when initially approached, I feel.
“Now, though it is speculative on both parts as to what he did and did not know, I cannot believe that one in Sandy’s position would make such a career decision without vetting hard as to why he was being urged to pursue the Mets GM position by his boss.”
What was there to vet? At that point there was no madoff lawsuit, and I’m pretty sure the extra loan that MLB gave the Mets wasn’t even made at that point. What problems the Mets had at that point were well known and publicized — ie, the Madoff losses, losing seasons despite high payrolls, the Bernazard fiasco, Omar’s fall from grace etc etc. I’m sure Selig told him in general terms what the financial problems were with the franchise but the worst of them — related to the lawsuite — hadn’t developed yet. And even at that point I don’t believe Selig understood the full extent of the Mets financial issues.
IOW, there was nothing truly extraordinary at that point in time that required vetting — unlike the situation with McCourt at about the time he got into bankruptcy hearings & MLB started to intervene.
Now to suggest he might not have known the extent of the Mets financial troubles when he took the job in the late Fall, what about what he told the media after being on the job for more than three months:
“And, at this point, I’m not facing any limitations. And, at this point, I don’t expect to. I’m confident I can do anything with any one individual player.”
Does that mean the Wilpons were still pulling the wool over his eyes or that Sandy still did not have enough time to evaluate the extent of their problems thus thinking he still had the resources he wanted at his disposal
Isn’t he talking there specifically in the context of extending Reyes? But in general, the financial situation continued to get worse during 2011 and through the early part of 2012 as the lawsuit wound its way through court and the losses from both the 2010 season and 2011 season resounded on the team’s balance sheet (and before the minority investors were found). t was an evolving situation during Aldersons first year with the Mets. As proof, through the early part of the 2011 season (or thereabouts) I recall him telling reporters the budget for 2012 would be roughly 120-130 million. Well at some point during the 2011 season it all of a sudden became 100 million. The reporters asked him what happed. And he said something like “when ownership pushes back, well then we have to change our plans.” So that shows his expectations for spending were initially high when he took the job.
Now, even though Sandy said he was not privy to all the details beforehand and still was not at the time, he has been caught so often contradicting himself that trust in his integrity has to be questioned. So, who can trust him when he then also said that the Madoff situation never came up during his interview?
What? Are we even using the same language here, LOL. Where has he been caught contradicting himself when it didn’t involve a changing budget due to the changing financial situation? Be specific. When did he say the Madoff situation was never discussed in the interview? And when did he or anyone say later that it was? (I haven’t read anything on this either way).
You have just made a statement regarding Alderson that is not supported by anything you have written up to now. Huh? It comes out of the blue.
And remember how he was telling us re-signing Jose Reyes was a top priority when he didn’t even sit down with Jose’s agent? Attached that as well.
Huh? He was in phone contact with Reyes’ agent right up to the day Reyes agreed to go to the Marlins. He said Reyes’ agent was aware of the parameters of a deal the Mets were willing to offer (it was roughly 100 million in total value, though some part was not guaranteed). Are you seriously making an issue over the fact Alderson talked with Reyes’ agent by phone and not in person??? Please, tell me you’re not. If you are, well then I can honestly say I don’t even understanding where you are coming from!
Hi Metro
Guess at this point we are going to have to agree to disagree. I will only use one example of what we have been discussing to point out what I mean is a contradiction:
“And, at this point, I’m not facing any limitations. And, at this point, I don’t expect to. I’m confident I can do anything with any one individual player.”
Why is that itself not a contradiction and a big one at that? For less than three months ago he referred to the previous players he had signed as “inexpensive” and that one could not win with those type of players. Why sign those to begin with if he was “not facing any limitations”? And talking about being able to do anything with any one individual player means just that – ANY one individual player, not just one.
Just finished watching the memorial service from Connecticut. Kind of makes talking about this at all this seem so unreal, doesn’t it? Guess we really need it as an escape from the real world behind us.
Joey — Again, that specific quote has to do with extending Reyes at the end of the 2011 season. Read the article you linked to once again. It says:
“The issue of whether the potential financial vulnerability of the team’s owners, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, might inhibit Alderson was raised in reference to the possibility of extending the contract of shortstop Jose Reyes, who could become a free agent after the 2011 season.”
Moreover, as I mentioned, the financial situation kept evolving throughout 2011. Alderson gave that quote mid-February 2011, early in the year! So of course the evolving financial situation is going to impact his budget and, as I mentioned in my previous post, Alderson even referenced how his projected 2012 budget had changed due to the Wilpons “pushing back” (or something similar to that).
What I don’t understand is how fans can hold someone like Alderson (or anyone) to their words when they are working under such volatile conditions. Situations change all the time which will impact what a team does.
Even the Yankees make course corrections. They’ve always said that they will do everything possible to ensure a winner and get the best players. Well this winter it looks like they are retrenching (for them) and they’ve barely done a thing — while their rivals are acquiring pricey players left and right.
I think Alderson overall has been taken aback by how little he’s had to spend. He never realized it would be this tight when he accepted the job, and he’s likely disappointed by that. It is what it is. But he’d rather be the GM of a team that could spend more freely.
As he said and you acknowledged, he didn’t need this job at all, I understand you think he took it just to be a hatchet man and totally at Selig’s bidding, but I don’t think that’s the case at all. That would be a thankless job going in. He was looking for more glory and one last chance to be GM of a club. Anyone can be a hatchet man. Heck, they could have just kept Omar and demanded that he slash the payroll by 20-30 million. They didn’t need to hire Alderson — with his expensive entourage of 2 other ex-GMs — just to slash the payroll. In fact it makes zero sense to more than double your front office expenses (remember, they were still paying Omar at the time) just to slash team payroll.
Hi Metro,
One thing to keep in mind however, you are not quoting Sandy Alderson but rather the author of that article.
That is why I did not quote any words other than those said by Sandy himself. To do otherwise would be only quoting a third party explaining how he or she sees things and that assessment could easily be wrong or unintentionally mis-informative – just like it could be with either of us too.
And, yeah, the Newton incident is horrific. They need to enact stricter gun control covering semi-automatic firearms. One of the relatives said the mother of the shooter had those weapons in her house for self-defense. Well what exactly was she defending against that required such rapid-fire weapons? A literal army? Just ludicrous.
Not for nothing but Conneticut has the strictest gun control laws outside of NY….
Crap like this never happens in places like Texas you know why?
They ALL have guns and would have shot the bastard the second he raised the gun towards the school!
sorry…but the amount of gun-related crimes in most states that are lenient FAR OUTWEIGHS CT
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
DC has the highest and it has even stricter laws than us!
Here is more info…
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Weapons sales have skyrocketed yet murder by gun has gone down and do you know why?
1.5 Million incidents involving guns were in Self Defense, Meaning the criminal pulled a weapon and got shot for it!
Thats why murders are going down because they know a lot of people are packing heat and they no longer have the advantage of you just whimpering and handing him your wallet!
Virginia, Florida and Texas have some of the most lax Gun laws in the country yet they only had 5 more deaths per 100K than NY or CT
And the guns used in CT were obtained legally so even stricter laws are not going to help you.
The answer isn’t to control the gun but to control the people and the magazines that go in the guns.
No reason to have a 20 shot clip for any reason. Then maybe a licensed gun owner gets a shot off at him while he reloads.
1.5 million incidents involved self-defense?
and in how many of these cases did innocent by-standers get shot?
how many of these cases were the perps even human.
Yes, if I shoot my gun at an animal in self-defense, by law, it is considered “self-defense”
and who is going to shoot at a perp in a kindergarten school?
do you really want every k-12 school armed to the teeth?
or should the kids just come to school like Tupac in Juice and pack their own heat
None….
You see peple who legally have a gun actually aim as opposed to trying to look cool while they empty thier magazine holding the gun sideways where the sights are useless.
“how many of these cases were the perps even human”
Did you get mugged by a dog when you were a kid or something?
“and who is going to shoot at a perp in a kindergarten school?”
How about the security guard that should be posted at every entrance to protect our kids not just from shootings but kidnapping and child molesters as well?
“or should the kids just come to school like Tupac in Juice and pack their own heat”
What that doesn’t happen now?
Metsie — Did you not just contradict yourself? First you say that stricter gun control laws would make no difference. The next breath you say that high-capacity magazines such as the one used in Newtown should be more restricted. Well, the restricting of high-capacity magazines falls UNDER gun control.
What they need to do at the very least is restrict ANY method/hardware that enables rapid fire high-capacity shooting. Whether it is the gun or the magazine, It doesn’t matter. Whatever enables this inane firepower needs to be very tightly controlled. F’k the NRA.
No not a contradiction….
Criminals don’t care what the law is thats why we call them criminals.
Stricter gun laws are not going to influence the number of crimes committed with guns….
Just the numbers of Self Defense uses of guns meaning more crime with little to no affect on the amount of deaths due to criminals. Might reduce the number of deaths OF criminals since people who follow the law will be denied a gun to protect themselves.
Try it another way….
We all know using a Nuclear weapon is a very bad thing as it can kill miilions in a second.
We even have a non proliferation policy towards them to try and stop bad actors from getting them…..
Has it worked?
Would anyone listen to that law if we didn’t have our own nukes to retaliate with?
You want criminals to stop using guns then the best way is to stop those who get the illegally because those are the ones committing crimes with them.
LEGAL gun sales have gone up in NY, Crime has gone down, Violent crime has gone down as well despite little change to the strict gun laws we have in NYC and why?
Stop and Frisk!
The program that worked so well is being attacked on the basis of racism.
And while statistics show there is some truth to that the fact is the reason why it appears that way is because thats where the high crime and gun usage is going on.
Most of those folks picked up are committing Black on Black crime or Drug lords fighting for turf.
And none of them get a gun legally at all!
So no matter what law you pass will have no affect on the gun crime.
You might stop these lone nuts but nuts are different because without a gun they will just move to a machette instead….Nuts don’t really care what they use just that they act on thier psychosis.
Metsie — You DID contradict yourself when you first said stricter control won’t have any impact and then later down said “The answer isn’t to control the gun but to control the people and the magazines that go in the guns.”Controlling magazines is a part of gun control.
Stricter gun laws are not going to influence the number of crimes committed with guns….
Have a good link that proves that? One that is not an NRA-sponsored study?”
We even have a non proliferation policy towards them to try and stop bad actors from getting them…..
Has it worked?
Would anyone listen to that law if we didn’t have our own nukes to retaliate with?
Looks like it’s working to me. AFAIK, no one has died of a nuclear weapon in my lifetime. Too bad guns aren’t as hard to get as a nuclear weapon.
You want criminals to stop using guns then the best way is to stop those who get the illegally because those are the ones committing crimes with them.
The best way to stop criminals who use guns is tighter gun control AND a better effort to stop illegal gun sales. You need to fight on both fronts.
LEGAL gun sales have gone up in NY, Crime has gone down, Violent crime has gone down as well despite little change to the strict gun laws we have in NYC and why?
Crime rates are a function of changing demographics and socio-economic conditions. Crime rates have been falling nationwide for years. NYC is just following the national trend. Not sure how general crime rates – that aren’t even broken down by types of crime — are relevant to a discussion on gun control.
So no matter what law you pass will have no affect on the gun crime.
That’s total nonsense. The problem is that you need stricter gun control on a federallevel. What good is having a hodge podge of gun control at the local level when people can just get guns illegally from another locality?
And you need stricter gun control for ANYTHING that enables high-capacity rapid fire shooting — on a national level. The idea that restricting such weapons won’t matter is totally nonsensical. If the Newtown shooter did not have access to the high capacity firearms he used, the death toll might at least have been much much smaller. Same can be said for the shooting in the Colorado theatre.
You might stop these lone nuts but nuts are different because without a gun they will just move to a machette instead
Are you kidding? A nut with a machete is much less lethal than a nut with semi-automatic firearms. Which is the whole point of strict gun control aimed at semi-automatic weapons.
A nut with a machete can be more easily subdued and stopped than a nut with semi-automatic firearms. Go ask the Newtown parents if it would have been preferable if Lanza only had access to just knives and machetes. I think you know what their answer would be.
One is GUN control….the other is PEOPLE control….And the magazines is Ammunition control, not the gun itself!
Just because CONTROL is involved doesn’t mean I am suggesting control of the same things.
In regards to your link
Yes I posted it somewhere else here….
FBI Study….
We all know gun sales have skyrocketed the last 5 years yet FBI says violent crime using guns has gone down!
No. One is gun control which includes firearms, ammunication and all assorted accessories. Two is people control.
Can you post the FBI link again?
And you are totally in the dark about the argument of gun control advocates. Of course gun control won’t stop killing. Of course gun control won’t stop a psychotic person from finding a way to kill. What gun control is meant to do is make killing harder to accomplish. It’s supposed to stop the Lanza psychotic from EASILY killing off 236 people in an elementary school.
As for nuclear weapons, the reason no country uses them is because it is a last resort weapon that can lead to self-destruction. Your analogy with nuclear weapons is really pretty stupid. Apples and oranges here.
Guns without ammunition can’t kill unless used as a club….
We have seperate aws for ammunition, we don’t allow teflon jacketed (armor piercing) bullts to be sold….
Does that law stop criminals from getting them? NO!
The link is above just scroll up and maybe read it since it started this whole line of commentary and you obviously are only interested in dismissing evidence you don’t WANT to read because you want your beliefs to be true even if they are not!
The biggest myth your playing on us here is that LAWS affecxt criminals in any way shape or form…
Robbery has been against the law since before the nation was born and it hasn’t stopped robberies one bit!
Neither will more strict gun laws restrict the use of guns except by LAW ABIDING people….
And I did make a mistake I said Sweden and I meant Switzerland….
They don’t have more GUNS per capita what they all havre is machine guns as everyone is conscripted to be in the army and defend the nation at a moments notice…
Yet they have one of the lowest murder rates on the planet!
Tell us why is that?
Tell me something….
is it the GUN that makes a psychotic pshycotic?
If someone wants to kill someone badly enough does he need to get a gun to do it?
If not then there goes your entire arguement!
Does a criminal who decides to break the law care that Guns are illegal?
So who are you stopping by these stricter controls?
The ones who would use it legally to defend themselves!
“no one has died of a nuclear weapon in my lifetime”
Yeah has it stopped Iran and North Korea from getting them?
Why have they not used them because there is a law against thier use or because we have our OWN nukes to make them pay if they do?
The reason a Nuke has not been used since you were born is because of all those missile silos in the west and middle america being pointed at those who would use them if they didn’t know they would suffer worse than anyone they attacked with Nukes!
See reply right above.
I just wish people would wake up and realize taking the gun out of the house isn’t what would stop the violence, but taking the 30 magazine ammunition out of the house would.
if you like to go and shoot guns, buy your ammo at the range and return what you don’t use. you don’t need an assault rifle to protect your home.
if the only ammo in the house was a few rounds for a handgun, he would have been out of ammo by the time he broke into the school.
the problem isn’t that his mom collected guns. it’s that she collected ammunition.
Metro see above, nothing you said makes any sense since LAWS DO NOT AFFECT CRIMINALS!
DETERRENCE DOES!
They only use guns because they feel it gives them an advantage against those who FOLLOW the law and can’t get a gun!
If they knew they had a good chance at facing another gun they think twice and crime gets reduced.
And Jessup no the answer is to post ARMED GUARDS that can stop these guys from getting near a place a nutjob can do damage.
I agree there is no reason for any normal person to have a 30 shot clip…
But again banning them only hurts those who will comply with the law….
Something criminals and crazies will pay no attention to.
That nutjob should have been diagnosed and committed long before he ever got near his mother’s guns.
And his Mother should never have been allowed t have them knowing there was an unstable individual living with her!
There ARE laws that could have prevented this such as a requirement that all guns have trigger locks to be locked at all times unless in an area where their use is permitted, Gun range or on a hunting trip.
This obviously was a law she didn’t comply with and as a result she should be prosecuted with her son so that the next idiot who decides to have guns in the same house as thier nutjob kid the kid can’t go off and play rambo with it!
I wish that people will one day wake up and realize that making something illegal doesn’t make it go away. Even if you make certain types of guns and ammunition illegal, criminals will obtain them on the black market if they want them.
THAT’S the hole in your argument. The guns and ammo you want banned(or have stricter laws against), will not disappear of the face of the earth. They will still exist, but just not legally. All that’s going to happen is that good law abiding citizens won’t have them, but dangerous criminals and sickos will.
Funny how people think the solution to ALL thier problems involves a LAW….
The War on Drugs has spent billions trying to enforce drug policy yet not only are drugs more readily available they have gotten cheaper than they were before the war started!
We once banned alcohol because it was said to lead to violence and poverty and what did we get by banning it? A nationwide Organized crime Syndicate who made millions making, importing and serving Alcohol and the St Valentines Day massacre as well as three or four Mafia Wars….
Laws are not the solution to crime, Most create MORE crime by making things that people want illegal and giving criminals a Monopoly on supply to finance all thier other violent activities.
Enforcement of the laws we already have is the answer…
Trigger locks should be required…
Prosectute Mom for not having them and I guarantee you the next nut job won’t be able to take mom or dad’s gun out for kidergarten target practice.
Stop and Frisk more…So you get frisked big deal as it’s far better than getting shot by someone who did not get frisked.
This notion that you pass a law that it will have any affect on crime is just rediculous because criminals by nature ignore the laws, thats why they are criminal.
In my opinion whenever something devastating like this happens everyone screams ban guns and wants to ban guns….
Its not the gun its the people holding the guns who should get the blame…Im not an NRA nut or a gun totter but…
I know that if anyone premeditates killing a massive amount of people and plans it they are gonna wreak havoc regardless of what method they choose they dont need a gun. Just ask those suicide bombers, or those fools who mailed anthrax…
And the more you restrict something the more people want it and they will get it legally or illegally….
You cant have it both ways and say the military has big guns for protection to defend America…Citizens of America will say the same they have guns for protection to protect their families at home….
GUNS are what built America to what it is today good or bad…They were used to trade for African slaves and they were used to Invade and destroy Native Americans. America is a gun culture like it or not.
One guy tries to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb…the entire nation has to take off their shoes before they get on a plane
32 incidents since Colombine and not one piece of legislation to protect kids in school
Me thinks Big Money >>>> Safety
Some guy tried to blow up his underwear….
Should we start stripping to our uhnderwear to get through airport security….
These things are not effective they just serve to make you FEEL safer without safer actually being present.
They used to take lighters away from you at security in the airport because you could light a bomb….
But what good was it as the second you got past Security you could go to the nearest hudson news and buy a new one!
Strict laws are just a security blanket what is important is enforcing the laws that already exist.
nope, but its not a coincidence that we have to pass through x-ray scanners now and get cavity checks just to take a flight
A gun in the house for self-defense is one thing but 1.5 million shooting to protect their own self – does that mean the gun laws we have on the books now actually saved 1.5 million lives?
Guns are outlawed in most every western country but this one and nobody has a murder rate like we do – and I’m sure in those countries one wanting to get a gun illegally could do so – if they were available.
There is no easy answer to resolve the problem but all I know is if there weren’t any guns for that kid to get his hands on at all, those 20 children and six teachers would still be with us today.
Well saved 1.5 Mil INNOCENT lives….
Not sure how many criminals got killed because they ran across a person who was packing as much heat as they did….
Here is a little note to ponder….
Sweden has more guns per capita than us and they aren’t even CLOSE to us as far as crime rate.
Crime rate has nothing to dow with the amount of guns….We have seen a reduction in crime in the US accross the board yet gun sales have skyrocketed in the same time period.
Crime rate is all about poverty and economy…
They use guns because most criminals need an advantage over thier victims…
When thier victim has a gun, no advantage and 1.5 Mil cases of Self Defense ensue!
Metsie, do you work for the NRA? Because Sweden does NOT have more guns per capita than the U.S.
And gun control can certainly impact crime rates — or at least the rate of fatal crimes. While socio-economic conditions and demographics are the biggest factor in overall crime rates, the availability of guns impacts the types of crimes committed and the number of fatalities.
And the easy availability of semi-automatic weapons certainly makes the tragedies like Newtown possible.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
I suggest you read some of the studies instead of the liberal cliff notes provided to you by politicos that wish to make gun control the issue instead of the constituents they rely on to get elected.
If there is a relevant study or section in that pdf that supports your position, point it out and give the page and I’ll read it. Otherwise I’m not going to read an entire pdf.
And you’re still wrong about Sweden. Which still makes me wonder if you work for the NRA.
Either read it and see the truth or don’t….
I don’t care if you insist on staying ignorant and only learning via cliff notes…
Truth is the research shows no correlation between more guns and more violence in fact it shows less crime in general.
2nd Amendment was included to protect new citizens from ever being defenseless against a tyrannical govt.
The worst school related deaths was in the early part of century, 1900′s, when a losing candidate decided to blow a school house with dynamite, so those bent on harming children or others will always find a way to kill or hurt.
Whether you agree with people like Mayor Bloomberg who doesn’t let any killing go by w/o spouting his anti-gun agenda while surrounded by gun toting security, easy to want others to be defenseless while you are protected by the same guns you wanted outlawed/restricted, or are pro gun the theory is that guns in the hands of citizens for their protection isn’t the problem.
The problem has been the suing by the ACLU the courts, mental institutions, etc when they try to put away persons that could cause harm to themselves or others.
How many of our homeless/incarcerated persons are really suffering with mental disease and they can’t get help because of the stigma plus society not wanting to “judge” others while parents have limited resources especially in single parent homes.
I also would like the false narrative out there about “assault” guns to be challenged.
ASSAULT applies to an action committed by people, a gun can’;t be an assault weapon just cause you call it that.
This term is used to put fear in the minds of those who don’t bother to check facts.
Semi-automatic applies to ANY gun that shoots one round at a time, same as shot gun, squirrel/rabbit gun or any deer, lion, etc hunting rifle out there.
Automatic applies to any gun shooting multiple rounds at once, THESE ARE OUTLAWED, have been since the early part of 1900′s.
The politicians who run around on TV spouting false narratives about machine guns, military type weapons are talking to the low information voters out there who don’t check things out and believe all they hear on TV.
The only reason for the out cry is because the AR 15 type guns have rails that military use to attach sights, lights, lasers, etc to help with use; this alone does not make a “semi automatic” gun any different than .308 or a .22 rifle; they only shoot one round at a time.
Just because something looks scary, doesn’t make it scary but these days if you say it enough and then wait till a tragedy like Sandy Hook to promote your agenda, guess what, you get the front pages,and TV interviews.
I know that this is a Mets blog site but we all as interested in our Mets as we are have to be careful how many of our rights we give up for the sake of safety.
Really how much security does baseball have at parks and events, police, most times they are there after events, that is why they are called 1st responder’s along with para medics, etc.
We as a society have to decide whether we trust our government to the point of allowing them to restrict, deny, or curtail the rights outlined in Bill of Rights.
I for one feel the “threat” of a well armed “militia” citizenry will always work in favor of maintaining our basic God given rights.
How many countries around the world have taken, outlawed rights in favor of strong govn’t control against the people?
Ask the many legal immigrants that have come here from Russia, Middle East, Socialist countries who value our rights and would be proud to be able to protect their families that they weren’t able to do in their original country.
Let’s give things a few days and ask for the grand standing by people like Bloomber and Feinstein, who never a a gun control law they didn’t support, to stop reflect on the kids killed and emotionally ruined before making a play for the front pages.
Lets Go Mets!
Metsie — I’m going to consolidate all my answers/questions down here to simplify things:
1) Yes, I know that guns without ammo can’t kill (duh!) and I know that there are separate laws for ammo (but they are under GUN CONTROL laws) … And of course that doesn’t stop criminals from getting certain type of ammo, but what’s your point? Gun laws are not meant to STOP crime completely. They are meant to make it harder to commit using crime. Further, as I said, unless the laws are NATIONAL, the laws are ineffective. Because all one has to do is go on the web or someplace else to find a source for what they want.
2) Please explain how the link to the FBI page you supplied supports your claim that “Stricter gun laws are not going to influence the number of crimes committed with guns” … I don’t see it.
3) ” …and you obviously are only interested in dismissing evidence you don’t WANT to read because you want your beliefs to be true even if they are not!” Huh? I’ll read ANYTHING but first point out the speciic page or section.
4) “The biggest myth your playing on us here is that LAWS affecxt criminals in any way shape or form…Robbery has been against the law since before the nation was born and it hasn’t stopped robberies one bit!” No that’s not a myth. The biggest myth you’re trying to pass off here is that laws have NO impact whatsoever. Which is totally false. You think if there were NO robbery laws that robberies wouldn’t be higher? No one is arguing here (or any other place I’m aware of) that a criminal law of any kind is going to totally prevent the act which it prohibits. That is inane to think it might.
5) “And I did make a mistake I said Sweden and I meant Switzerland….They don’t have more GUNS per capita what they all havre is machine guns as everyone is conscripted to be in the army and defend the nation at a moments notice…” OK, that’s it. You must work for the NRA. So now you’re changing the country from Sweden to Switzerland, and you’re changing the issue from guns per capita to machine guns owned by those in the army? LOL. As for the Swiss, first, semi-automatic weapons are NOT issued to all the conscripts. Second, they are NOT allowed to have ammo at home. Only rapid deployment units and the military police can have that. So your argument fails.
You need to do better research, Metsie. You are flunking here!
You admit it doesn’t stop criminals from getting guns and then in the next sentence say the laws you want will reduce criminals from getting them….
Well which is it?
I showed you the FBI report where the guns have been MORE prevalent and violent crime went down…
You refuse to accept that then all anyone can conclude is you REFUSE to ACCEPT the truth and wish to continue down this myth path contrived by Liberal Democrats who see Gun control helping thier POOR CRIMINAL constituency by giving them an easy path to revenue by ripping off the people who work for a living because they can’t get a gun!
Like you said all the gun control laws is not going to stop criminals from having them just the victims will comply with your law…
Conneticut has some of the strongest Gun laws outside of NY, did it stop this shooting from happening?
NO!
Poof goes your suggestion that Strong Gun laws stop these things.
Metsie — No law is ever going to stop completely what it is designed to stop. It will only reduce it. Just because it can’t stop something completely, it doesn’t mean you dispense with the law or don’t make it stronger. This goes for guns and anything else. The stronger you make the law, the more likely it is to reduce something. Not sure why you have so much trouble understanding this concept.
The FBI report you linked to simply shows that OVERALL murders fell from 2007 to 2011 but the percentage of murders by guns remained the same — around 68%. It doesn’t prove anything about guns and guns control. Just shows that murder by guns continues to be a big part of homicides.
You refuse to accept that then all anyone can conclude is you REFUSE to ACCEPT the truth and wish to continue down this myth path contrived by Liberal Democrats who see Gun control helping thier POOR CRIMINAL constituency by giving them an easy path to revenue by ripping off the people who work for a living because they can’t get a gun!
What? Maybe you can rephrase that more simply. Not sure what you just said has to do with more stringent control to reduce availability of semi-automatic guns (and related ammo/magazines) of the kind used in Newtown.
The laws in Connecticut are not only not enough, but irrelevant at this point. Because as I already said, we need NATIONAL regulation that is uniform in every state limiting rapid-fire high capacity firepower. If the country had that, you better believe the Newtown incident might not have happened. Not sure how the kid would have gotten the weapons he used then.
Again, a gun law can’t completely eradicate anything. It will only reduce the likelihood something will happen.
Oh Metro please Stop with the rediculous assumption as it will not reduce a damn thing…
Criminals don’t go to the local Gun Store to buy thier weapons only the Law Abiding do!
The only thing your going to reduce is the Self Defense Statistics nothing else crime will go on and RISE due to the fact they know anyone who follows the law is easy pickens as long as you have a gun!
The FBI statistics prove that!
So did the Harvard Research you refuse to read….
Has the laws against Robbery reduced Robberies?
NOPE!
Will restricting who can get a LEGAL gun reduce the number of ILLEGAL GUNS? NOPE!
Anyone who thinks it will is just dumb!
Criminals ignore the LAWS only the VICTIMS will comply!
Oh Metsie — the only ones making ridiculous assumptions are those who think stricter gun laws won’t make a difference. Of course they will.
LOL at your idea that criminals never get guns from legal sources. Of course they do. They get them from both legal and illegal sources. As do people who up that point have been law abiding citizens.
And Adam Lanza was NOT a criminal LMAO.
The FBI stats only prove that guns continue to be a big cause of homicides in this country. The Harvard study proves nothing of relevance. You point out anything in that Harvard study that is relevant to this discussion. The fact that you haven’t shows it’s a bunch of crock. Because you can’t find anything. It’s a just a big propaganda piece of the NRA.
And LOL at your idea that laws don’t work. You really think if there were no robbery laws that robberies won’t go through the roof? Wow.
Will restricting who can get a LEGAL or ILLEGAL assault firearms reduce the number of deaths by assault firearms. YUP.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is inane. Totally inane.
Well if you read the research you would know stricter gun laws have only ONE affect….
Law abiding folks can’t get them Criminal will have a monopoly on getting them and crime will go us as a result.
Maybe if you could point out exactly where in that pile of propaganda it is proven what you say, you might seem more credible. But time and time again, you simply refuse to. LOL.
You have zero credibility.
Maybe if you could read no one would have to point it out to you….
I have zero credibility ok….
And YOUR ILLITERATE!
Hahaha. You can’t even follow the bouncing ball in this simple discussion. And then you say
“your illiterate” LMAO!
Metsie — Part II …
6) “If they knew they had a good chance at facing another gun they think twice and crime gets reduced.” As you yourself admitted, if a criminal wants to commit a crime, they are likely going to do it. The only question is what weapons they have to use. So just because a homeowner has a gun to protect themselves, it’s not going to stop the criminal from attempting the crime. It will only stop them from completing it.
7) “ARMED GUARDS that can stop these guys from getting near a place a nutjob can do damage.” Really? You think it’s practical, desirable and feasible to put armed guards at every kindergarten, elementary school, and high school around the country? That’s your answer????
8) “That nutjob should have been diagnosed and committed long before he ever got near his mother’s guns.” As far as we know right now, he had never shown instances of mental illness that required professional intervention. Moreover, there are too many mentally ill people in this society that you simply can’t identify and help all of them.
9) “This obviously was a law she didn’t comply with and as a result she should be prosecuted with her son “ Huh? According to reports, Lanza was in compliance with all gun laws in that state.
#6 They will still have GUNS because they won’t follow your law only the victim will! You have just given Criminals a REASON to carry guns and mug people because they know the will not face a gun!
#7 Practical? For the price of 50K a year and health benefits you could have saved all those kids….Making a law would not have however because they HAD those laws in CT and they failed didn’t they?
#8 You should try reading more…The kid was taken out of public school and was home schooled instead….RED FLAG!
#9 Were there trigger locks on those guns? Locks that only the registered owner of those guns had access to?
Metsie –
6) No. I haven’t. A homeowner can still have a gun. They just wouldn’t be allowed to have rapid-fire high capacity firearms.
7) No. They did NOT have these laws in CT. Not the laws I am advocating. If they had these laws on the federal level, the crime would have been less likely to happen.
8) Yes, he had LEARNING disabilities. That’s why he was home schooled. You should think more. Are you really advocating locking kids up with learning disabilities in mental hospitals? Really?????
9) It was reported that the mother had followed all relevant gun laws. So whatever the gun law was in CT, she was in compliance.
You refuse to get the point that more Assault rifles are available on the street than at the local gun store….
Criminals have had them for YEARS!
So all your going to do is get some sicko to buy it there and what did you solve? NOTHING!
They most certainly had the laws that would have prevented this they were not followed by the owner….
Stopping people from buying Assualt Rifles in stores just means if they want to do it they will find other places to get them…it will NOT prevent these incidents and they could just as easily use a Glock handgun with multiple clips and get the same damn affect…
Yep and LEARNING disabilities should require Gun Safes to keep guns away from those who have difficulty learning you know thing like Right and Wrong and Fantasy and Reality!
If she followed all CT law then they need to enact a trigger lock law not ban guns from those who are responsible enough to lock them up from kids with learning disabilities.
You refuse to get the point that more Assault rifles are available on the street than at the local gun store….
Criminals have had them for YEARS!
So all your going to do is get some sicko to buy it there and what did you solve? NOTHING!‘
Nonsense. More assault rifles are available at stores than on the street. But that’s pointless anyway. They need FEDERAL restrictions on these weapons so that they would be restricted everywhere. The fact that they are available some places is what allows quantities to leak out onto the street illegally. This country doesn’t need these guns at all. And blanket laws would make them harder to get everywhere, thus reducing instances like Newtown.
They most certainly had the laws that would have prevented this they were not followed by the owner….
That is 100% incorrect. According to what is known as of this date, Adam Lanza’s mother was in compliance of ALL gun laws in that state.
Stopping people from buying Assualt Rifles in stores just means if they want to do it they will find other places to get them…it will NOT prevent these incidents and they could just as easily use a Glock handgun with multiple clips and get the same damn affect…
You don’t get it — if you ban or severely restrict ALL rapid-fire high-capacity firearms, then no one could use a Glock with multiple clips and get the same damn effect.
Yep and LEARNING disabilities should require Gun Safes to keep guns away from those who have difficulty learning you know thing like Right and Wrong and Fantasy and Reality!
It was reported his mother DID lock up the guns. Just because a kid has a learning disability doesn’t mean they are stupid. This kid wasn’t stupid.
A trigger lock law would not have helped in this case since the kid got into the locked case with the guns anyway.
You naieve and need to step out from behind your picket fence if you really think there aren’t more assault rifles and FULLY AUTO machineguns on the street than in Gun stores…
Tell you what…You go down to the nearest drug corner with a revolver and get them to leave and then tell me what they throw at you in response….
You will be BEGGING for an Assault rifle after that I guarantee it!
Metsie, the only ones who are naive in this issue are those who insist that assault firearms should be allowed to be owned by ordinary citizens.
More assault guns are available through legal means than in stores. But you know what? It’s irrelevant. Because if federal laws were around that banned them, they would be unavailable AT stores everywhere and less available illegally.
There is no “nearest drug corner” near me that I know of. I would have to go miles out of my way to find one. If I even knew what to look for. It might take me days to find a drug corner. But I can find a legal source of guns in 10 minutes.
There is no drug corner near you…
You think a law banning Assault Rifles will stop people from getting them….
And I’m the Naive one here….
Lets be real….
No, there is no drug corner near me where one could get an assault rifle. There was no drug corner near Adam Lanza where he could find an assault rifle. You are the uninformed and naive one. Yes, let’s be real and stick to facts.
You go right on believing that my poor closed minded and Wishfull thinking friend….
Just because YOU don’t know where it is does not mean it isn’t there!
Come out from under that rock you been hiding under and witness the world as it is!
But that’s the whole point, Metsie, If I don’t know where it is, and Lanza doesn’t know where it is, then it is not an option. Capiche?
And I can tell you most definitely there are no drug corners in my immediate neighborhood where I can find an assault weapon.
Drug dealing on corners is highly dependent on the neighborhood in which you live. You have no idea what neighborhood I live in now. You have no idea what world I live in. You’re making stupid assumptions, as usual, here.
Notg knowing where it s does not stopa motivated nut from FINDING where it is….
Your Kids may not know where the Drug Corner is yet but if they decide they want to do drugs I Guarantee you they will find it!
Thinking like yours is just naive and dumb…
Go walk onto a train track and close your eyes….
You won’t know that train is coming so it obviously won’t kill you!
Again, Metsie, try to follow the bouncing ball here.
Your argument is that if Adam Lanza can’t find a gun legally, he can just go to the nearest drug corner to find one. Well, the point is, he likely has no clue where the nearest drug corner that would sell guns is. You obviously have no clue that he lived in a very sheltered world and in an upscale community.
And finding illegal drugs vs finding a drug corner where someone is selling assault rifles are two different things. But leave it up to Metsie to blur distinctions. One can easily find drugs in this county .,.. but illegal assault weapons are harder to find.
And if my thinking is dumb and naive, yours is positively stupifying and inane.
Just because your ignorant doesn’t mean he is too….
Thats the HOLE your trying to sew up with imaginary thread…
the LIKELY is not ensured is it?
Ahhh, silly and illogical speculation. That’s all you really have after all this. And your continued harping on illegal guns is irrelevant when 1) that is not really the crux of the issue here and 2) it’s likely this kid knew of no way to get a gun illegally, seeing how sheltered he was. If he had, he likely would have gotten one after having been turned away at the store, right? Try to use logic for once.
But if you want to continue to spout off illogical nonsense, that’s your choice.
Yep Facts and Studies suck and are just mere speculation….
Yep thats right….
Whatever you say loser!
Yup, facts and studies are great when you have legitimate ones. You don’t.
And lol, “loser?” Really? How old are you Metsie? 10?
About the only thing you seem to know how to do well is name calling!
Yeah Harvard is not legitimate…
only crap that comes out of your ass is legitimate…
Bye Bye loser you got nothing here!
Except your own ass handed to you!
Sure, Harvard is legitimate. But not that piece of woeful propaganda garbage you posted. What’s so apparent is that you can’t even cite a specific page in that study that supports a key point in this discussion. You’ve been asked to time and again. It’s hilarious. You probably didn’t even read it. Maybe you can’t even read it which wouldn’t surprise me! You really flunked, Metsie. Go back to the drawing board. You’ve been exposed as such a phony!
>>That nutjob should have been diagnosed and committed long before he ever got near his mother’s guns.” As far as we know right now, he had never shown instances of mental illness that required professional intervention. Moreover, there are too many mentally ill people in this society that you simply can’t identify and help all of them.
I guess you missed the report yesterday that said Lanza’s mother was working to have him committed to an institution and that investigators are working to discover if that was the trigger that sent him on his killing spree.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/
He hasmissedevery report out there Boomer he is just talking ut of his ass for most of this….
Boomer — I said “as far as we know” and at the time I wrote that, the report you linked to was not out. Moreover, Adam Lanza had been treated by psychologists in the past and all had concluded he was not a danger to himself or others.
So at the time I wrote that, it was totally accurate. I don’t pull things out of my azz like Metsie does!
Yes it was. Check the time line. It came out yesterday afternoon.
Your argument that he was interviewed by other psychologists and they didn’t think he was a danger to himself or others goes to the heart of the problem I brought up. It’s not guns that kill people, its crazy people and a system that has been so badly twisted by lefties that we now bend over backwards to pretend that crazy people aren’t crazy so we don’t infringe on their rights.
This all started years ago when we started closing down mental institutions and making almost impossible to have dangerous people committed. Jared Loughner, the nut in Colorado who thought he was Batman, this loon in CT, are indeed extremely dangerous and these psychologists and psychiatrists who think they are just poor souls who need “understand” are far more dangerous to public safety than any weapon.
It’s way past time we stopped pretending that we don’t have severely disturbed people running around in our society. Not just in the US but everywhere as the massacre in Norway and the recent knife attacks in China help demonstrate.
Ban crazy people before we start looking to rewrite the Constitution.
Boomer — NO … It wasn’t. I made the comment on the 17th. Check the time stamp on my original comment. Yesterday was the 18th! So that article had not come out yet when I made my comment.
Further, according to the article, she had merely petitioned the state to commit him. As far as we know right now — he has yet to be analyzed by any mental health professionals who have declared him a danger to himself or others. Petitioning is just the first stage. They would have needed to then examine him. That had yet to be done.
Again, it would nearly be impossible to identify and lock up all the crazy people in this society. That’s an impossible task.
There’s another point about the gun issue that is overlooked. The shootings in Connecticut, Colorado, Arizona and West Virginia were not carried out by criminals but crazed individuals. So the argument about criminals can still find ways to get guns and citizens and store owners need pistols to protect themselves out of necessity while valid, is not the issue when it comes to these mass shootings in our schools, movie theaters, shopping malls or political rallies. It also has little to do with all the domestic violence murders we unfortunately are too familiar with as well.
All I know is that we have so much blood on our hands doing it this way. There has to be another way for this way is not working. Again, the argument about criminals getting their hands on these weapons is a cop out when we talk about mass murdering and domestic violence.
Yup, Joey, you are exactly right. The primary issue at this point in time is to reduce the availability of rapid-fire high capacity firearms so that incidents such as Newtown and Aurora are less likely to happen. No one needs those types of guns in their homes.
Moreover, even if you had an armed security guard at every school in the country — which in itself is a dumb and impractical solution — then that guard is at a disadvantage against the crazy Adam Lanzas of the world who have rapid-fire guns. Or maybe the NRA would like us to put tanks outside of each school, lol. Yeah, that will work!
Hi Metro,
And what about that U.S. Senator (Utah, I believe) who said he was crying because the teachers were not armed to protect those children? Totally absurd. As might have mentioned before, those like him would probably blame the parents for not being protective enough of their children by not sending them off to school carrying a .35 caliber pistol.
And I can tell you from personal experience that having a gun to protect one’s self might actually lead to more bloodshed instead of just letting one rob you of money, etc. My wife was a secretary for an insurance broker who worked in a store front. One day two hoodlums came in, went to see her boss in the back room, and pulled out a gun. He gave them all the money he had. If he had a gun, then gunshots would have been fired and there would be a good chance that I would be a widow today – and even just the thought of that has me crying right now.
Wow. I didn’t hear that comment by the Senator. It’s ridiculous. And even if you had an armed guard at every school, you would need multiples ones instead to cover multiple school entrances and areas. One armed guard per school is probably not enough to provide real protection,. And what about other gathering places? Are we supposed to put armed guards at every church, hospital, shopping mall, store, movie theatre, etc etc. I think half the country would then be employed as an armed guard! Also, the atmosphere for children in a school would then be chilling having all these armed guards around. They just need to do something about more effective gun control. That’s the best way. I’m glad your wife never got hurt in that incident.
Hi Metro,
Thanks for the kind words about my wife. It’s still scary and I’m glad her boss just gave them the money.
It was actually a Congressman from Texas who has made such statements and you will from the attached this was not the first time he voiced such an opinion.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/16/texas-congressman-principal-should-have-been-armed-for-self-defense/comment-page-1/
Joey — Wow, that congressman is incredibly inane. I love this comment someone from Maine left under the article:
“Texas Congressman gives best reason President Obama should grant the peition of Texans and send them on their way. Either that or build a fence around the state and call it the Lone Brain Cell State.”
LOL
Yep and once banned he goes to the nearest Crack Dealer and buys a Tec9 which is just as deadly….
You seem to think that Assault rifles are the only ones that are dangerous….
ANY GUN could have killed as many as was killed in CT and you know why?
No one else had a gun to stop him!
Metsie — Very unlikely someone like Adam Lanza even knew how to find a crack dealer. No, if he didn’t have access to those assault guns, chances are he doesn’t go on that spree or the death toll is minimized.
And who said assault rifles are the only ones that are dangerous? Where did I say that?
What you seem to not understand is that criminals with handguns are easier to take down and stop than criminals with assault rifles. If Adam Lanza just had a handgun or knife or machete then it’s likely he could have been stopped sooner — even by someone without a gun.
Well Metro I guess you haven’t really read the story or you would have kown this:
He tried to get a regular long barreled Hunting rifle (non Assault non semi auto Variety) but he couldn’t because he didn’t want to wait the 14 days to get one and then went and used Mom’s instead….
So there you go Gun Control at work….
Psychos find a way to kill no matter how hard you think your making it!
And your law won’t stop all those who already have them like this guy’s mother which means this would have happened anyway even if you passed your law a Month ago!
Well Metsie, it’s clear YOU aren’t paying attention to what you even say because he did NOT try to get the rifle from a “CRACK DEALER” which is the scenario you presented.
The fact that he tried to get another gun legally on top of what his mother already had at home is irrelevant. I’m not sure why you even bring it up.
The point is his Mother was in compliance of all gun laws and he nevertheless was given the tools to kill 26 people. Gun control does NOT work. You go tell a Newtown parent that gun control works and they’ll spit in your face.
Sure psychos will kill. But why give them the means to easily kill in mass numbers?
And, wow, just because a law won’t stop those who already have what is outlawed, that means you make no attempt to prevent future incidents? That’s illogical.
Well which if the two of us refused to read the research on the subject here and demanded Cliff Notes instead because he has NO RESEARCH to show his idea will work?
Don’t reply again until you have read the Research paper or can explain the data in the FBI link I posted….
Cause it’s obvious from your replies that you haven’t read or looked at either which shows your opinion is UNEDUCATED, IGNORANT and NAIVE!
I explained the data on the FBI link. I can’t help it if you want to fantasize and believe it means something it doesn’t. That’s your problem.
As for the PDF, lol, that is just an NRA propaganda piece. Until you can explain how and where in the piece there is specific content which supports your position here, then you’re just blowing smoke.
You explained NOTHING regarding the FBI link…..
Gun Sales went sky high and crime declined….
Harvard University is not the NRA….
This reply just shows how the truth means nothing to you only your gun control propaganda….
Made up by democrats so thier poor and criminal constituents have a way to subsidize thier government handouts without risk of facing Self Defense injuries!
Sure I did. Murders declined overall during those years BUT the amount of homicides committed with firearms REMAINED THE SAME. Don’t you get it? Overall crime declined because of socio-economic and demographic conditions.
And, LOL, what you showed was NOT a Harvard study. It was a non peer-reviewed article written in a conservative law review publication, edited by right-wring law students. IOW, an NRA propaganda piece.
The truth evidently means nothing to you. All you’re interested in is right-wing propaganda crap!
Ahh the weapons were more but crime STAYED THE SAME!
Which means even if you reduce guns the CRIME STAYS THE SAME!
You accomplished nothing and you premise is proven wrong because MORE GUNS did not INCREASE crime and less guns will do nothing to REDUCE THEM!
Because LAWS don’t affect Criminals, a point you REFUSE to believe!
We are done here you keep replying if you want but it’s obvious you couldn’t see the truth if it stared you in the face at the end of a gun barrel!
Oh lord, Metsie, reading issues again? Follow the bouncing ball for once …
The FBI report showed LESS murders but showed that firearms as a cause of murders remained the same. And there is less crime overall not because of any gun ownership or because of any gun laws, but simply because of socio-economic conditions. And your FBI page, as mentioned, is irrelevant to this discussion which is about banning assault weapons. You keep diverting the discussion to pointless stats and propaganda reports without even explaining why they are relevant.
You believe what you want in your NRA-induced haze of ignorance. Hopefully no one you know will ever be a victim of those mass murders which could be greatly curtailed if this country adopted more sensible gun control laws covering assault weapons.
“The FBI report showed LESS murders but showed that firearms as a cause of murders remained the same”
Yes and you claim they SHOULD have gone up if you also believe reduced guns would make LESS gun crimes….
But when there were LESS GUNS there were not LESS CRIMES were there….
This is why you lost this argument….
When there WERE less guns Crime wasthe same as it wa with MORE GUNS….
So reducing Guns will have ZERO AFFECT…Here endith the lesson!
Yes and you claim they SHOULD have gone up if you also believe reduced guns would make LESS gun crimes….
No, didn’t say that. Gun homicides as a percentage of total homicides might only go up IF gun laws were loosened or didn’t exist and the percentage of gun ownership increased sharply.
But when there were LESS GUNS there were not LESS CRIMES were there….
HUH? that report doesn’t mention the amount of gun ownership at all. Put on your reading glasses, Metsie!
This is why YOU LOST the argument. Because you have no clue how to read that page, LMAO! One cannot even deduce the amount of gun ownership from that page. It is merely the percentage of murders committed by guns.
YAWN….
Gun sales DID go up and crime didn’t so what you just said is a lie!
Double yawn. No where on that page does it say gun sales went up. Are you on LSD with your frequent hallucinations? Guns and LSD are a dangerous mix. Better be careful, Metsie!
Then show us proof gun sales declined over that time…
Don’t bothering to reply until you find it and can post it…
Sorry for you but you WILL have to read to accomplish that….
You’re the one who claimed it increased. So prove your claim first. And, yeah, don’t bother replying until you can post a link to a specific page. Sorry for you but you will have to use your brain for once to find it.
Read the Hrvard Paper or shut the hell up!
You lost this argument yesterday by refusing to read it!
Point out a single relevant page that supports your argument or you shut up. C’mon, Metsie, exercise a brain cell for once.
You lost the argument long before you tried to pass off that pile of propaganda #$@ as a relevant study. You can’t discuss anything intelligently without getting over emotional and throwing around personal insults. You’ve been exposed as a fraud.
ALL OF THEM!
Haveyou read it?
Enuf said see ya loser!
Nonsense. It’s apparent you haven’t even read it. Or if you did, you can’t understand it. You just parrot the NRA spiel inside of it.
Again, point out a section or page that’s relevant to the issue of assault firearms as they pertain to Newtown. Can you do that, Metsie?
If I am a loser, you’ve never had anything to begin with. That is clear.
So you haven’t read it which is why you lose!
So you can’t point out a page that is relevant to this discussion. So YOU lose.
Can you point to a page that proves the NRA made that?
If not you LOSE!
the ENTIRE DOCUMENT proves my point….
Did you read it?
I never said the NRA “MADE” that. It was “MADE” by right wing NRA-sympathizers at Harvard and was NOT a Harvard-sponsored study. It’s NRA propaganda.
Your inability to read and comprehend standard English is stunning! As such, you LOSE!
You probably don’t even understand that “study” as it pertains to these specific Newtown issues.
“at Harvard and was NOT a Harvard-sponsored study. It’s NRA propaganda”
PROVE THAT!
If not your lose…bye bye!
You are living proof, Metsie. You, an NRA sympathizer, tried to pass of this pdf as support of your opinions. Yet you apparently didn’t even read and can’t understand the propaganda document yourself. You’ve been asked at least 20 times to point out a page that had specific relevancy to the Newtown issues and you haven’t been able to.
You lose. Big time. And I won’t laughingly say “bye-bye” because I know you’ll be back with some empty comment.
PROVE IT….
or
YOU LOSE
You prove you understand the document and point out specific relevancy to a specific issue of Newtown or you lose. L-O-S-E-R — that’s you!
of course I understand it you cretin after all I posted it didn’t I?
You are the one claiming it is not from Harvard and some NRA propaganda piece…
PROVE IT….
or
YOU LOSE
Just because you posted it doesn’t mean you understand it. That’s pretty apparent from your inability to point out a particular page/section that has relevancy to the Newtown issues. Despite being asked, oh, maybe a hundred times!
Though the study was edited by right-wing Harvard law students, and printed in a conservative Harvard law review, it is not peer-reviewed and was not sponsored by Harvard. Can you understand the differences, Metsie? Or is that too much to comprehend by your tiny brain?
As for “cretin” LMAO. C’mon, Metsie, can’t you do any better than that?
Point out the specific relevancy to Newtown or you lose!
Of cou I understand it and I now it makes my case otherwise you wouldn’t be spending all your efforts into discrediting it or WOULD have showed the proof TO discredit it….
Your own insistence that it’s a bogus document is all the proof I need to show not only did I read it, I understand it (and you do too) but it makes my case and you have nothing to disprove or discredit it and that bothers the hell out of you because you know you lost and simply won’t accept that!
If you think it is bogus here is what you do….
PROVE IT….
or
YOU LOSE
Again, for the umpteenth time — point out a specific page/section of the study and describe how it is relevant to the gun control issues surrounding the Newtown shooting.
I know once again you won’t be able to. So thanks for proving my point. You barely understand the document, likely didn’t read it, and just threw it around here without any regard to its relevancy as a piece of NRA-garbage propaganda.
You already LOST the minute you posted a link to a document you barely understood.
And for the umpteenth time the ENTIRE DOCUMENT IS RELEVANT!
Now you go ahead and prove whats in it is not true or bogus….
Ball is in your court so don’t strike out now…..
PROVE IT….
or
YOU LOSE
If the entire document is relevant, then it should be easy for you choose a page that has particular relevancy to the gun control issues of Newtown and explain it in YOUR OWN WORDS, right?
But, for the UMPTEENTH TIME, METSIE FAILS ONCE AGAIN.
LOL, the document is such a pile of crap that even Metsie won’t attempt to explain it!
Is the first page of a Dictionary more relevant than the last?
Is the first page of a text book more relevant to it’s subject than the middle page or the last?
NOPE!
You can’t disprove it and lose!
Your problem to disprove something in the document and you can’t which is why we are playing this Kindergarten game of yours….
It’s ALL relative to Gun Control!
Because your desired TOUGH guns laws in CT FAILED to stop it!
You can’t disprove my document and since you have none of your own….
YOU LOSE
Hey you should write to Fonzie and ask him how well your tactic works on me….
Depends on what you need to look up. Context. That’s a concept you obviously have extreme difficulty with. You just throw up a bunch of poorly put together NRA-endorsed propaganda crap and can’t even link it to the relevancy of the Newtown incident.
Still waiting for you top point out a specific page/portion of the pdf that has relevancy to this discussion and you can’t or won’t. SO YOU LOSE!!
Because your desired TOUGH guns laws in CT FAILED to stop it!
Wow, wow, wow. LMAO … You can’t even follow the bouncing ball. I’ve been arguing all along that the CT laws aren’t enough LOL … I’ve been saying all along that current laws both in CT and federally failed (at least we agree on that). After all this, you can’t even get the parameters of this little debate correct. You are really lost. I feel sorry for you.
YOU LOSE.
Who the heck is fonzie? Ahhh, more irrelevancy from the Metsie!
Why are you talking about Elgardo Alfonzo? Are you currently on acid? Can’t you take a break long enough from your LSD to write coherently in this discussion?
“You just throw up a bunch of poorly put together NRA-endorsed propaganda crap”
You have yet to prove that is what it is yet….
PROVE IT….
or
YOU LOSE
Metsie, do you now the difference between endorsed, sponsored, and “made by?” Obviously not. Sigh … you don’t belong in this discussion. It’s way above your head.
In your last post you argued one of my own points! LOL (CT laws are not tough enough and failed which I’ve been arguing all along) … and now you can’t distinguish between those simple words.
You are beyond losing. It’s like taking candy from a baby.
PROVE IT….
or
YOU LOSE
Until you can prove what you just said your $#!T out of luck here….
Prove what exactly, Metsie? You’re so confused about the words endorsed, sponsored, and “made by” that you don’t even have a clue what I really said.
You’re so confused about EVERYTHING that you even started to argue MY position right above, LMAO.
When you can think straight, come back and try again.
prove te research s bogus and from the NRA….
PROVE IT….
or
YOU LOSE
LOL. I never said it “from the NRA”
Poor Metsie. So confused, doesn’t know who said what or what anything means.
You lost the moment you got into this discussion. Stick to things you can understand.
And YOU LOST
The second you tried to bull$#!T your way through it, tried to claim it was from the NRA and even refused to read it….
I called you on it and
YOU FAILED therefore YOU LOSE
Have a great night and try harder next time!
LOL, your last name must be LOST because you’re perpetually lost. You really have no clue, do you? I never said it was was FROM the NRA.
Again, there is a big difference between sponsored by, endorsed by, and made by … but your simple mind can’t handle something as basic as that.
From the very beginning I called you out on your phony report. And you had no answer.
I would tell you to try harder next time also, however that’s evidently impossible for you. But have a nice night anyway. Hopefully you can do that!
Well you claimed it wasn’t from Harvard…So PROVE IT already and if you can’t Game Over you lose End of Story and now that this has JoeDs attention it will all go where this attempt at childish banter belongs….
IN THE GARBAGE!
You have failed to prove any point you made in this entire thread!
LOL, no I said it wasn’t SPONSORED by Harvard. Do you understand what that word means, little Metsie? Can you try to look it up? Or is it too difficult for you?
You prove that it has direct relevancy to the Newtown killings or shut up.
You have totally failed to make any sense in this discussion. LOL, you even start arguing my position at one point. What a hoot!
You’re a total phony, Metsie. The game was OVER for you as soon as you tried to tackle a topic that was too much for you.
No they just wrote it so they didn’t need to sponsor it at all!
Thats what your hanging your feeble little argument on?
OK…PROVE they didn’t sponsor it then….
LOL, I suggest you invest in a dictionary. You really need one badly. That piece of propaganda crap you posted was NOT WRITTEN, SPONSORED OR ENDORSED by Harvard,. You apparently don’t understand what a law review journal is.
And LMAO, one can’t prove a negative. But leave it up to little Metsie to think it’s possible.
I asked you to prove from the beginning how that propaganda crap was relevant to Newtown. You PROVE that first. I am still waiting.
PROVE IT….
or
YOU LOSE
PROVE IT….
or
YOU LOSE
LMAO, you’re so out of ideas, little Metsie. It’s pathetic.
yep I’m out of Ideas…
And you never had any to begin with…..
Prove it’s not a Harvard sponsored document or shut up and give up….
LIttle Metsie, one can’t prove a negative. It’s up to you to prove that it is “SPONSORED” by Harvard or shut up. You LOSE.
Well if you can’t prove what your saying then YOU LOST!
Metsie, do you understand what a law review journal is?
If so, explain it.
If you can’t, you LOSE.
Yes is a journal where Legal Papers and research are published
Medical Review Journals do the same thing for medicine….
Scientific Review Journals do the same for Science Research papers and Discoveries
Doesn’t mean the research isn’t valid UNTIL disproven!
Can you do that Slappy?
NOPE!
YOU LOSE
By WHOM, Metsie??? Speaking specifically of the publication that ran that study.
Answer that or you LOSE.
The Harvard Law Review of course!
Guess that settles it I WIN YOU LOSE!
If you intend on making any more replies tonite you won’t have to wait for your answer here it is….
PROVE IT….
or
YOU LOSE
Thank you for proving me right and proving what a loser you are.
It is NOT published by Harvard University. Nor is it published by the Harvard Law Review.
It is published by this right-wing group of Harvard law students that is independent of the university:
http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/about/
And even if it were published by the Harvard Law Review (your first wild guess), they are independent of Harvard University too.
YOU LOST!
They go to Harvard…..They are HARVARD RESEARCHERS!
Which is why you lost because you not smart enough to disprove thier findings….
You are 1000% wrong and you know it. They do NOT do research under or for Harvard University. They are totally INDEPENDENT.
Not only did you LOSE big time, but you’re not even decent enough to admit it.
As for the content of the dung heap, you first point out where it has specific relevance to the Newtown issues and I’ll address. Your continued failure to do so combined with you having zero clue who put that out only confirms you have no clue what that study is really about.
You didn’t go to College did you?
ALL RESEARCH is independent from the college as the work of the author and they are all Harvard Papers if it comes from someone who attends or is employed by Harvard!
Colleges don’t make thier own research their students and professors do!
INDEPENDENT of the Dean and all the other faculty….
If you had a degree you would understand this but I’m dealing with an idiot who probably didn’t get past High School!
Of course I graduated from college. Apparently you did not because you have such severe reading and comprehension issues.
No matter how hard you try to spin things, that conservative student group and their publication is NOT sponsored by Harvard U. It is totally independent from them. It is disingenuous of you to try to say otherwise or you’re just terribly naive.
C”mon. Be a man/woman. Admit you lost. Badly!
Doesn’t matter WHO sponsored it if you can’t dispute what it says you LOSE!
Did that get through to you finally?
Doesn’t matter if the bum on 34st street wrote it if the data and arguments made can not be disputed by FACT then you lose the argument!
Now you go and find something that says the data about Norway and Russia is an out and out lie….
You go and prove the survey done (not by Students mind you) with Felons who said They thought twice about approaching someone in a high Carry Permit city was lying…
Until you can do that YOU LOSE!
No matter WHAT or WHERE the research came from….
You only brought up WHO ITS FROM because you know you have no way of disputing whats in it at all!
That’s a totally moronic statement. It ALWAYS matters where something is coming from.
And I said I will address the specific piece of propaganda you pointed out tomorrow. Since I’ve said this before but you can’t absorb it, how many times do you want me to repeat it for you?????
You already lost on this in terms of where the study came from. You were so stupid in saying it came from Harvard U.
Really? It Does?
Ok Cite your credited and educated sources for all that bullshit you been spouting?
Don’t have any?
We Are Done….YOU LOSE
Really. It does.
I will post the links tomorrow. This is the first time you are asking me for additional material. So you can wait till tomorrow. And since you need to read things multiple times till it sinks in, I will repeat this paragraph a few times.
I will post the links tomorrow. This is the first time you are asking me for additional material. So you can wait till tomorrow. And since you need to read things multiple times till it sinks in, I will repeat this paragraph a few times.
I will post the links tomorrow. This is the first time you are asking me for additional material. So you can wait till tomorrow. And since you need to read things multiple times till it sinks in, I will repeat this paragraph a few times.
YOU’VE ALREADY LOST A MILLION TIMES IN THIS DISCUSSION!
Well, I don’t think they are going to move the post out of moderation so I’ll split it up here.
Metsie – Here’s a reply to the section of your propaganda report you posted yesterday. Moreover, you asked me for links (for the first time yesterday), so I’ll also give you plenty of them concerning gun control.
In most of the cases, these reports and articles have little or no relation to Newtown (including your pdf) but since you wanted to get into a general gun control debate – instead of sticking to the assault weapons issues specific to Newtown – I’ll oblige.
The last part of the material you posted was simply the conclusion/opinions of Kates and Mauser based on flawed data. So instead of addressing their opinions, I’ll concentrate on the specific data arguments they were making.
FAULTY DATA
First, one of the biggest problems with the Kates and Mauser study is the reliability of the data. For example, they have Luxembourg’s homicide rate at 9.01/100,000 in Table1 on page 4. It has been pointed out by many already that the number is grossly incorrect and, on face value, illogical. All other sources of data (including the one right below) for Luxembourg have its homicide rate at roughly 2.5/100,000 where it’s hovered more or less for the last few decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
It is common knowledge that the only Western nation that has had a homicide rate close to that 9.01 figure is the U.S.
The gross error in their data brings up two questions:
1) Were the authors dishonest, playing loose and fancy with the data in order to make it fit their opinions?
2) Or, were they just sloppy and incompetent? How thoroughly did they check their data? (THIS IS WHERE PEER-REVIEW WOULD REALLY HAVE HELPED). And how competent are they to begin with when they couldn’t even spot this blatantly anomalous outlier? That figure should have raised a big red flag that something was wrong with the data.
The point being … if they can put out a study with such a large error one has to question the entire validity of the piece, especially since this study was NOT peer reviewed.
“There has to be another way for this way is not working”
Yep it’s called the BEAT COP!
We got rid of them years ago due to some Union Negotiation…
You CAN’T put beat cops everywhere. Especially not in schools. Armed guards at schools are also not practical or desirable. It’s not just the cost that makes that idea ridiculous, but you don’t want our children having to learn in an atmosphere that resembles a prison or war zone. And one armed guard at a single school is not going to help much. You’d need multiple ones.
What are we going to do about knife attacks?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-attacks-22-kids-knife-china-school-article-1.1220230
>>No motive was given for the stabbings, which echo a string of similar assaults against schoolchildren in 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50. The most recent such attack took place in August, when a knife-wielding man broke into a middle school in the southern city of Nanchang and stabbed two students before fleeing.
How about the attack in Norway in 2011 where 85 people, mostly kids, were killed.
There are reports like this that come in from all over the world all the time including places like Germany that have very strict gun regulations. You know what all of them have in common? No, not guns. Mental illness.
Maybe we should start focusing on the source of the problem instead of the tools that are used to carry out the crimes.
Well now, how can you ban an everyday tool like a knife? Are we to cut our meat with our fingernails? Or just tear it apart like a wild dog with our teeth?
Exactly. Then perhaps instead of pretending that guns are the problem we should focus on the real source of the problem, the fact that some of our government officials have made it nearly impossible to get people who are mentally ill off the streets.
Every time one of these tragedies happens people rush to ban guns but the fact is that crazy people will always find a way. No guns were used in Oklahoma City but lots of people including many children died. Should we ban fertilizer?
Until we get serious about dealing with mental illness and stop with the touchy feeling crap about letting nuts run around on our streets we will see this kind of violence. Gun bans or no gun bans.
What do you mean by “exactly?” A knife is used in everyday activities. It’s main purpose is not to maim and kill. But a gun does not have everyday utility,. It’s main purpose is to maim and kill. So that’s why there is a need for severe restrictions on guns, and not for knives.
As for mental illness, it is the hardest thing to treat and control. Take the case of Adam Lanza. He was judged to have learning and emotional disabilities, but he was also judged not to be dangerous to himself or others. So are you saying we should lock up and commit all the Adam Lanzas of the world? I don’t think they can build enough mental hospitals to hold people who simply have mental issues but who are not demonstrably dangerous. And simply diagnosing mental illness is extremely difficult. Some of the head doctors get it wrong a lot of the time.
“how can you ban an everyday tool like a knife?”
Showing your ignorance again….
Knives are also controlled and you are not allowed to carry a knife over a certain length yet stabbings with those knives has never been reduced as a result.
a FINE example of the failure of your thinking on how control reduces anyone but LAW ABIDING citizens.
Sure knives are controlled. Who said they were not? Reading, again, Metsie. You need to read more carefully.
The point is, you can’t ban knives the way you can ban assault firearms.
This is a FINE example of your failure to read well, or is it intentional obfuscation and attempt to divert the real issues?
Sure you can your just lying you way through this discussion….
Nope. You can’t. You’re just pulling things out of your azz. Just like the NRA .
Yea Harvard University is located in my ass….
And the FBI is not in Quantico but my Colon….
These are YOUR facts…..
Too bad your Liberal Heroes at the ACLU will be your enemy here,,,
Again, just showing your ignorance here … that is NOT a peer-reviewed Harvard U. study. It was NOT even sponsored by Harvard U. in any way shape or form. It was published in a conservative journal and edited by right-wing law students.
And of course the FBI page had facts but you are totally clueless as to how to read them.
The ACLU will be my friend and YOURS too … if those nut jobs at the NRA ever get some sense knocked into them.
Sure it was, your problem is you can’t accept the truth….
No it wasn’t. Your problem is you have no clue what the truth looks like.
Yes it looks like a University research paper you can’t read because your stupid!
Nah, you’ve clearly cornered the market on “stupid.”
You sure can put cops everywhere Metro….
We did it in the 40′s and 50′s in case you didn’t know…
Maybe we can hire all those folks who are currently on Food Stamps to walk a beat so they work no longer need government assitance and all our kids will be protected not just from lone nuts with mommy’s gun but all those pedophiles and drug dealers who hang out in the schoolyard as well.
Nope, Metsie. Cops were not “everywhere” in the 40s and 50s. They were not in our schools then and they are not there now.
Oh, that’s right. Let’s give folks who are on food stamps guns and turn them into quasi-cops. That’ll really fix things, reduce crime, and make the incidents like Newtown go away. That’s the most ridiculous idea. It’s worthy of the NRA and that psycho congressman from Texas.
Oh please now you even going to deny Beat Cops existed….
Come back to reality and then we can talk further….
Oh please. I never said that. Try to read more carefully and then we can discuss further.
“Cops were not “everywhere” in the 40s and 50s. They were not in our schools then and they are not there now. ”
They most certainly were by the schools on thier beatand by the movie theaters as well….
They would patrol the entire neighborhood and spot these guys before they even got CLOSE to those locations.
You just have this issue with the truth because it doesn’t fit your Gun Control Agenda….
Nope. They were NOT everywhere then. Talk about being naive. Wow.
You think a cop in a patrol car would have prevented Adam Lanza. LOL. Wow. Naivety to the extreme!
You can’t just can’t keep making things up as you go along like the NRA does!
Ok it’s Official!
Your an ignorant blowhard….
What about a BEAT COP says Patrol car Huh?
You are just talking out of your A$$ now and totally talking bullshit to try and get out from under the position all the research shows you are WRONG about!
We are done here….Good Luck with your legislation, when the next School ghets attacked anyway they should prosecute you for thinking you solve the problem….
How sad, Metsie. When you’re shown up to have no credible response, you resort to endless personal insults.
Whether it is patrol by car or foot, how the hell would that have stopped Adam Lanza?? You can’t figure that one out. Maybe we should put a cop at the driveway of every house in America. One who could check on everyone leaving their home to make sure they are not armed? LOL, Wow, we’ll solve the unemployment crisis! We’ll hire a billion new cops and live in a armored society. I”m sure you’ll love that.
You are the biggest BSer here. Giving a link to a big propaganda piece that’s poorly researched, poorly put together, and has no relevance to the discussion here. Then refusing to point out any relevant aspects. You know why? Because you know there aren’t any.
Your rhetoric is too funny. Good luck turning our elementary schools into armed fortresses and putting a cop at the end of every driveway in America! The NRA loves your type.
Like I said…we done here YOU have no facts and refuse the ones (refuse to even read them) that have been provided….
Your just going to lie and swear to what isn’t true…
How would they have stopped him?
By seeing him walking around with the guns before he got close to the school….
By KNOWING the guy because he lives nearby and knowing he should not be carrying a Gun around…
BY SHOOTING HIM WITH A GUN you think A LAW ABIDING PERSON should not have….
How cute, Metsie. You say you are done but keep coming back, lol. But even funnier is how YOU are the one making up things left and right. That so-called “Harvard” study is just a garbage dump of right-wing skewed data and analysis. Moreover, what it is claiming to prove is not even very relevant to this discussion. Proved time and time again by your utter failure to point out one part of that study that is inherently germane to this discussion.
Now how would they have stopped Lanza? Where exactly should these cops have positioned themselves? At his house? At the school parking lot? Inside the school entrance? Where? Everywhere? Well cops can’t be everywhere. An obvious fact which you gun nuts simply ignore.
The only practical solution is to severely restrict or outright ban ANY assault firearms such as the type used in this atrocity. Ordinary citizens don’t need them.
yeah I firged the FBI site and the Harvard papers….Yep thats it….
You got me!
WHAT AN ASS
Gee Metsie, you really need to step away from that mirror!
Yeah and you need to stop dropping that acid you keep using to think Fantasy is actual reality…
Now why would I steal your acid that you always take. Nah, I leave the hallucinations up to you!
Hi Metro,
Do Connecticut rules and regulations call for the investigation of the mental health of other family members who also reside within the home where those weapons are going to be stored?
According to what we know from her brother and others, it was no secret that the kid had emotional problems. In a house where one such as Lanza resides, having weapons readily available is like issuing him or her a gun permit directly. It turns a poor soul dealing with monsters eating him up on the inside into a monster on the outside.
Joey — I’m not aware of any gun laws in this country at any level that cover the mental health of family members of gun owners. And I’m not sure such laws would be practical or enforceable anyway. There’s such a wide variety of mental illnesses and so many degrees of severity that how can the law ever determine what type of illness demands special precautions?
It’s up to each gun owner to keep guns away from any family member who does have mental problems. Better yet, in the case of assault firearms, just ban them. Totally.
I truly urge everyone who didn’t catch it this evening to record the repeat broadcast of Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN which will be aired at 12:00 PM midnight (eastern time).
It addresses the issues from all sides – and the falsifications as well. But what struck out most was a point raised by Mayor Cory Booker of Newark regarding the argument that criminals are going to be able to get guns no matter what. He said all but ONE of the murders in his city last year came from a legally purchased weapon.
One argued that there was little we can do to stop the violence so all we could do is to protect ourselves and that would include allowing more to carry weapons. A police officer who happened to be off duty in a church shot and killed a crazed gunman before he could kill more people. She said she was a trained professional skilled to handle sudden, deadly situations that occur totally out of nowhere. She said a teacher should concentrate on teaching. Only the trained police can react properly. Letting others handle that would only lead to even more lives lost in the confusion and chaos.
But it was what Booker said that to me was the focal point of the issue. All but one of the murders occurred with legally acquired weapons.
Joey — Thanks for the heads up on Piers. I didn’t know he was covering the topic so thoroughly and intelligently. As usual, the gun lobbyists look like lunatics with no real answers but inane suggestions to arm everyone. It’s so transparently ludicrous and laughable. Hopefully there is new federal legislation soon on the federal which starts to put a noose around the ridiculous proliferation and ownership of assault weapons.
Hi Metro,
I am truly so glad that you were able to catch it and hope some others did as well.
Piers admits his bias and how that shortcoming could be affecting his objectivity. Which shows he is is trying to see both sides.
But the people he had on knew what they were talking about. No statistics (or advanced saber metrics on crime LOL) but rather that police woman who said teachers are equipped to teach, not police, or Mayor Booker, who talked about the murders in his City all but one being the result of legally purchased handguns and especially those who lost loved ones due to mass murders and yet still legally own handguns – all coming out for the ban of assault weapons and stricter gun control.
And was it Piers who said that second amendment was written at a time when it took how many minutes to load gunpowder and a bullet into a musket that usually missed the target anyway – not where one can shoot six bullets a second.
Probably the best suggestion of all was to allow people to own these assault rifles but make it very difficult for them to purchase ammunition. I like the idea of maybe less gun control and much more bullet control because it is true, guns don’t kill – it’s the bullets that do.
Notice the picture of that car parked outside the school and the impact of the bullet hole – which came from a shot fired inside the building and ricocheted out? All those who were in the military said those weapons are not meant for defense, they are weapons of mass destruction.
Those who advocate that we need less control and that statistics showed no decrease in gun violence where stricter laws were enforced were put down and deserved so by others who used those stats and showed that they were ignoring others (like the guy citing the first year a law was enacted and not the big drops in shootings that followed in subsequent years).
And one other said there was nothing one could do to stop the violence so more people should be allowed to carry guns – including those teachers (that is when the police woman came on and talked about the difference between a highly trained police officer reacting to a gunman as compared to somebody not equipped to do so)
I hope more caught that program tonight – and Anderson Cooper that followed. If things weren’t heartbreaking enough, what CNN found out last night from a father of one the victims was that scams were already appearing on the internet trying to make money off of this tragedy. It was probably the most dispictable act outside the actual murders itself.
Joey — I’ve never been a Piers Morgan fan and never watch his show. But I liked the way he handles this gun debate and enjoyed him on the program (though I didn’t’ catch all of it). The gun lobbyists had me literally LOLing with their ludicrous answers and evasiveness.
I don’t really care if they do it by banning the actual gun, the magazines, the ammo or a combination of all 3. They just need to make it virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to have such destructive weapons. There is no need for them. They need to make it very hard for someone like Adam Lanza to go on such a destructive killing spree.
Metsie and Metro, I may regret asking this, but what the heck are you two arguing about for the last 150 comments?
Metros inability to read a document posted and his attempts to claim the NRA wrote a paper for Harvard…..
This is your typical Your a Liar PROVE it argument that Fonzie is most known for having…I even suspect this is Fonzie using a pseudonym….
I see that all the times I exposed you has left you with long term scars. You still feel the need to mention my name even though I’m not the one exposing you anymore. Seek professional help Metsie.
Hi Joe D.
Don’t mind us. We’re just having a friendly discussion about gun control. ; )
Since there have been no major new player acquisitions, what else is there to talk about. ; )
Good night.
LOL, and a good night to you.
273 and counting…
Holy hell.
Ahhh, to correct the record, it’s Metsie who posted a pdf and then couldn’t even point out its relevancy to a discussion about Newtown when asked to.
I never said the NRA “wrote” the paper for Harvard. Metsie evidently has severe reading and/or comprehension issues. She doesn’t understand the difference between “endorsing,” “sponsoring” and creating something.
Well then since the NRA has nothing to do with the research I guess your screwed and must now read it (as opposed to your attempt at dismissing it as NRA propaganda) to find some way to disprove it’s findings….
Otherwise It’s my Exhibit A into why your wrong and since you have failed to cross examine it and/or offer your own study that disproves it I guess you lose the case!
Pay the Bailiff on your way out the door!
GoodNite!
No, Metsie. Now try to understand. I’ll go slowly to match the speed of your thinking, OK? What you posted is NRA propaganda in that it is endorsed by the NRA and NRA wackos like you! It was not endorsed OR sponsored by Harvard. It was simply published in a conservative Harvard law review journal and edited by right-wing Harvard law students. Capiche?
Is that really too hard for you to understand? TRY. C’mon. Exercise that single brain cell of yours!
But you just sad it was not from the NRA….
Which is it slappy?
“I never said the NRA “wrote” the paper for Harvard.”
“What you posted is NRA propaganda”
No what I posted was a paper from Harvard!
Not the NRA and therefore can not be thier propaganda!
Now go on and prove all those allegations….or….YOU LOSE
Wow, you really don’t understand what ENDORSED means, do you? I don’t know what to say little Metsie other than you should go buy a dictionary.
Just because something is endorsed by someone doesn’t mean that person creates it in any way shape or form. And just because someone uses something for propaganda doesn’t mean they create it. The KKK uses mein kampf for propaganda but of course they didn’t write it. C’mon little Metsie. Try harder, LOL. Exercise that single brain cell of yours!!
Is English your second language? That would explain it.
Prove it’s not endorsed and prove it needs to be to be called a Harvard Study….
or
YOU LOSE
Your attempts to twist english by making unproven statements is not working for you so I suggest you try bringing some evidence here or you lost!
You go ahead and call it a “Harvard study” if it makes you feel better, but it is not written, sponsored or endorsed by Harvard. Do a little research and try to understand what a law review journal is.
Your attempt to try to wade through this discussion without tripping yourself has been laughable and entertaining. Especially when you all of a sudden started arguing my position. LMAO. Priceless!
Thanks for the laughs.
PS. You lost long time ago.
“but it is not written, sponsored or endorsed by Harvard”
PROVE IT….
or
YOU LOSE
Define the law review journal including exactly WHO puts it out (in the case of the propaganda crap piece).
Do or you LOSE.
Harvard….I WIN!
Nope. You LOST. Sorry. Try again one day when you’ve grown up.
Iol who put it out…Harvard….
If you wish to say otherwise then you know my response
PROVE IT….
or
YOU LOSE
NOPE. YOU’RE WRONG. YOU LOST.
IT’S PUT OUT BY A GROUP OF LAW STUDENTS.
LIKE A STUDENT NEWSPAPER! LMAO.
PROVE IT….
or
YOU LOSE
But I will add this….
Are those students registered at Harvard?
Does that not make what their research a HARVARD EDUCATED Research paper?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
You just got your a$$ handed to you troll….
Nighty Night time to put the baby down….
I don’t have kids I was referring to you!
Here’s irrefutable proof of what a phony you are, Metsie. You throw out this propaganda piece and expect people to believe it and have no clue who published it
It is NOT put out by Harvard University, or the Harvard Law Review.
It is actually put out by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, a group of CONSERVATIVE LAW STUDENTS!
LMAO. You LOST. PERIOD!
Here … because you’re too stupid to do any research of your own:
http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/about/
But it is written by Harvard Law School educated Students isn’t it?
So It is from Harvard (Which is ALL I ever said) and the folks who made it go to or have been educated AT Harvard which leaves you only one way to win this argument…..
PROVE WHAT THEY WROTE IS WRONG!
Can you?
If you could you would have already as opposed to this simpleton attempt at discrediting the reaseach as propaganda.
That’s total BULLSHIT. That’s like saying Dickey’s book was put out by the Mets.
That’s disingenuous of you and you know full well you were trying to pass of that propaganda crap as coming from Harvard University.
You lost big time on this, you lazy fool. Next time do your own research. Try to come to a discussion with some facts instead of utter confusion.
Further, as I said for the millionth time, point out a section of that propaganda dung you feel is relevant to Newtown and I’ll be happy to refute it.
PROVE THAT DUNG HEAP HAS ANY RELEVANCE TO THIS DISCUSSION.
If you could you would have done so before instead of just acting like a five-year-old with your laughable YOU LOSE over and over again.
If it was not approved by Harvard they would not be allowed to use the Harvard name at all!
Bottomline is they are Harvard Students, Go to Harvard, Work at Harvard, and were TAUGHT at Harvard which is all that is required to be called a HARVARD Study!
Now I did you a favor and posted the relevant info in the study…
You can either show thier statistics and relations are wrong and less guns equal less violence and crimes
or you can roll over and play dead because people smarter than YOU say your WRONG!
Metsie, BUY A DICTIONARY.
You have no clue what INDEPENDENT means.
That group is not under or supervised by Harvard U. in any way.
Learn a thing or two for once instead of always trying to twist the truth.
The Authors of it are….They are students at Harvard!
Obvious people much smarter than you since they came up with research you can’t disprove or offer an alternative opinion that disputes it.
LMAO. Now that you’ve been proven wrong you’re trying to change the subject. If they are smarter than me, well then they are mountains smarter than you. But that is totally irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains they are independent of Harvard University.
OK I’ll play your little game just a bit more…..
IF Harvard SPONSORED a Study who would be the ones making it and writing it?
ANSWER THIER STUDENTS!!!!!
Your the one who has spent a day and a half trying to change the subject of what the research said to something about who SPONSORED it and what thier OFFICIAL status is….
SO now we have established that the SAME FOLKS who wrote that research are the same people who would have written it even if there WAS such a thing as HARVARD SPONSORED RESEARCH, you are still left with the problem of disputing thier conclusions and data….
If you can’t you LOSE!
If Harvard U. sponsored a study it would be paid for, supervised and reviewed by faculty or management at Harvard U. It could be written by almost anyone — students or non-students. Professors or non-professors. Civilians. Military. Anyone!
And Harvard would never sponsor a blatantly conservative journal like that.
You really are clueless. Again, you need to buy a dictionary. And do some research on our own, You lost and are coming off like the biggest fool.
Sorry bt there is no such thing as a Harvard Sponsored Study….
There are plenty of Studies that come out of college and all of them are by Students….
If a professor is involved it’s not a study or research it is a FINDING!
Go get some college education before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Wrong again Metsie. You are batting .000 — worse than Mike Nickeas!
There are studies that are put out under the aegis of one of the education departments or policy centers at the Harvard University. These are actual PEER-REVIEWED studies, which gives them legitimacy. These departments/center are PART of Harvard University. Not an independent student organization.
Stop making things up. You are making a fool of yourself.
And created by the same folks who brought this!
Going to take on the research and the data or keep circle jerking around on who the source was?
Nope. This was put out by a group of students and is NOT peer-reviewed. Big difference.
Little Metsie, I’ll ask the same question I asked above — Do you understand what a law review journal is?
If yes, explain it.
If no, then you LOSE.
I did the first time you asked….
YOU LOSE
Nope you never did.
YOU LOST.
Oh I didn’t? More Liesfrom the infant?
What was this then?
Metsie December 21, 2012 at 3:22 am .
Yes is a journal where Legal Papers and research are published
Medical Review Journals do the same thing for medicine….
Scientific Review Journals do the same for Science Research papers and Discoveries
Doesn’t mean the research isn’t valid UNTIL disproven!
Can you do that Slappy?
NOPE!
YOU LOSE
WHO put it out in this case. C’mon little Metsie. Think.
If you can’t answer then you LOST.
HARVARD…..I WIN!
NOPE. YOU LOST. TRY AGAIN ONE DAY WHEN YOU’VE GROWN UP!!!
My Final on this before I go to bed….
From section 4 of the research
Denmark has roughly half the gun ownership rate of Norway, but a
50% higher murder rate, while Russia has only one‐ninth Norway’s gun ownership rate but a murder rate 2500% higher.
National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates
find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim
might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes.
“[T]he felons most frightened ‘about confronting an armed
victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative
number of privately owned firearms.” Conversely, robbery
is highest in states that most restrict gun ownership
Thus both sides of the gun prohibition debate are likely
wrong in viewing the availability of guns as a major factor in
the incidence of murder in any particular society. Though
many people may still cling to that belief, the historical, geographic,
and demographic evidence explored in this Article
provides a clear admonishment. Whether gun availability is
viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term
macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely
throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or
declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent
international pattern is that more guns equal less murder
and other violent crime. Even if one is inclined to think
that gun availability is an important factor, the available international
data cannot be squared with the mantra that
more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less
death. Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data
consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns
equal less violent crime.
Chew on that and you can STILL be a loser in the morning…
Nighty Night.
You know it’s one thing to be a proven loser like you, it’s quite another for you to be so dishonorable that you won’t admit it when the truth slaps you in the face.
I’ll address that piece of garbage from that propaganda dung heap tomorrow.
Nitey nite. Hope you can generate a few new brain cells in your sleep. You really need them.
it is dishonorable to not own up to losing which makes you look very bad right about now…..
They did research that says your wrong…Do you have any research that says otherwise or are we just going to hope insistence without proof is going to carry the day for you?
And, again, since you have such severe reading problems — I WILL ADDRESS THE SPECIFICS OF THAT PIECE OF DUNG PROPAGANDA in the morning.
Try to grow up in the meantime. You really lost on this thing. What a sham you are!
You couldn’t read the piece and I’m the one accused of having reading problems?
You know your sounding just like the kind of guy who should not get an Assault Rifle because he might shoot up a school!
CRAAAAAAAZZZZZZZEEEEEEEEEE!
Wow, Metsie, I told you 4-5 days ago I wasn’t going to read that piece of propaganda crap. But I said if you pointed out a particular page I would read it and address it.
Do you have memory issues too? How sad. You can read. You can’t comprehend. And now memory issues!
nd tts why you lose because you wouldhave had to READ IT in order to dispute it….
Since you wouldn’t read it you could NOT dispute it and thats why you lost!
Nope. You already lost.
LMAO. I haven’t even tried to dispute its content yet. Wowza. Try to read for once Metsie.
I told you already I wasn’t going to read that dung heap of a paper until you pointed out a specific section that was relevant to the discussion. It took you 4-5 days to do it. So you can wait awhile longer for me to address that section.
“I haven’t even tried to dispute its content yet”
Yep which is why your losing your shirt on this….
You do realize that you have to MAKE an argument before you can claim to win it right?
Nope you’ve already lost on this. I proved you wrong.
I already successfully argued other elements of the gun control issues as it pertained to Newtown and you lost on those things to. I just wasn’t going to wade through a propaganda dung heap until you were more specific.
Tons of ARGUMENTS were already made in this thread regarding Newtown. But since you evidently don’t understand the definition of that word either, that’s your next bit of homework. Go to you dictionary and look it up.
You have not brought up a SINGLE FACT toback up the arguments you made…NOT ONE…
And all you have done since then is avoid the one piece of research that HAS been presented because it says everything you have said about newton to date is unsubstantiated BULLSHIT!
Oh, I’ve brought up plenty of facts already. I’ve had to correct so much of the false information that you tried to pass off in this discussion.
Like the fact that the mother was in compliance with ALL CT gun laws. You said she was not. Or the fact that the son had been analyzed by professionals already and deemed to NOT be dangerous to himself or others.
I even had to correct you on that FBI study you linked to, LOL., You erroneously interpreted it!
All you’ve tried to do is use misinformation. Tsk-tsk. You’ve been exposed.
Nope all you have brought up is opinions with no data to support those opinions…
And since it was not SPONSORED by Harvard or even someone who goes there it’s even less valid than what I submitted but you refuse to read (because you KNOW your lost and can’t dispute what is in it!)
So I Win!
Nite Nite loser!
I can read but you have proven time and time again that English is not your native language. Your mis-reading comprehension is hysterical!
YOU’VE ALREADY LOST A MILLION TIMES IN THIS DISCUSSION.
Yes you know what my only error was?
Thinking you were capable of making an argument and backing it up and/or capable of disputing an argument made by Harvard Law Students…..
But on that score I was wrong cause your not even capable of keeping your own argument straight….
NRA, Not NRA, PEER-REVIEWED REQUIRED except when you try and make a point….
Really kid you are just looking and playing the fool and I’m playing the fool by entertaining the mentally disturbed and ignorant!
Wow, you’ve been just so confused during this whole conversation., Let me count the ways —
**Had to correct you on the FBI study you yourself misinterpreted
**Had to straighten you out as to who published that NRA propaganda piece
**Had to straighten you out as to the fact the mother was in full compliance with all CT laws
**Had to straighten you out as to the fact the shooter had previously been deemed not dangerous to himself and others,
You are totally clueless, illiterate, and unethical to boot.
YOU’VE ALREADY LOST A MILLION TIMES IN THIS DISCUSSION!
You’re the one that lost this, Metsie. I proved it and you know you were wrong. Be a real man/woman now and admit it.
You look like such a fool. A lazy confused fool.
HAHAHAHA You refused to read it…..Asked me to give you Cliff Notes…Then when I do you have nothing to back up and dispute whats in it….
And I’m the Lazy Loser….
They have pills for those delusions your having….
See you tomorrow maybe a good nights sleep will help you DREAM of an actual FACT you can cite that says the research was based on wrong data or something….
READ AGAIN, Metsie. I will look at that piece of dung tomorrow and address it. Capiche?
It took you 4-5 days to point out a part of the study you thought was relevant to Newtown, So you can wait for an answer.
In the meantime, try to come to terms with the fact that you lost.
It took me 4 days to point it out because in 4 days you couldn’t read the table of contents that would have told you exactly where to start reading!
I expect a REASONABLE INTELLIGENT PERSON would have just read the damn thing and then tried to dispute it’s findings not play this “I’m a lazy Bastard and don’t want to read it so give me the cliff notes version instead” like you did….
And then when you got called on that went onto say Harvard Education has NOTHING to do with a paper written by HARVARD STUDENTS as if Professors write research papers instead of publish FINDINGS which is all Professors do when they are not grading THESE TYPES OF RESEARCH PAPERS….
You played this like a petulant little kid and have not brought a single fact regarding Gun Control, Violence and their correlation.
Gun sales have gone up the last 5 years (EVERYONE AGREES EVEN YOUR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT) and FBI link shows Crime went down during that period….
So go to sleep….it won’t help unless you break out the google and do a little research of your own….
Total non-sequitur there, little Metsie.
It took you 4 days to point out something because you were too lazy and stupid to do it before.
All you wanted to do was try to argue that the study was endorsed or sponsored by Harvard U. and it is not. I proved that to you. But now that you’ve lost that argument you are trying to go off on tangents.
You are really pathetic. I will not only address that specific section tomorrow, but I will give you some links to read so you can better educate yourself on the issues. You need help bad.
Yah the guy who refused to read is not the Lazy one…..
Get over yourself already, Calling the guy who found the research lazy not the guy who was too lazy to read it….
Claiming Victory for an argument you have yet to make….
And basically playing circle jerk about source just to avoid having to find data that could dispute the argument that WAS made….
No your not the lazy one here….
If you worked as hard as reading the paper so you could respond with your own data as you did on AVOIDING having to read it because you were too lazy we could have wrapped this argument up the day it started….
But you my little lazy boy dragged out your homework assignment over 4 days to avoid facing what you know is going to happen…..
Your going to get a failing grade because you got NOTHIN but bulshit to offer.
I’m not going to read YOUR NRA propaganda. I’m willing to read small targeted parts but not the whole piece of dung. You are the lazy one. if you throw out a study you should know where it comes from and you should be willing to be specific about how it relates to the discussion. You were too damn lazy to do that.
Again, I will give you all the data/links you want tomorrow.that are relevant to this issue.
“I’m not going to read YOUR NRA propaganda.”
Then you LOSE!
You already admitted it’s not from the NRA so any mention of them now is admitting DEFEAT!
C’mon Metsie, try to move that single brain cell of yours. Try to read a little better. I said I wasn’t going to read the NPR propaganda but I would read a section if you pointed it out. It took you 4 days to do so, LOL. So you LOSE.
But I will address that section you pointed out tomorrow. Now read this 100 times because you don’t seem to be able to understand it. Should I write it in all caps?
TRY READING…..PERIOD!
We Are Done….YOU LOSE
Was every thing you claimed but did not substantiate peer reviewed?
Didn’t think so…..
My source at least goes to Harvard!
We Are Done….YOU LOSE
You know, you’ve never once before now asked me for additional information. But I will tomorrow. And it is peer-reviewed! Unlike your propaganda crap!
YOU’VE ALREADY LOST A MILLION TIMES IN THIS DISCUSSION!
So now we e onto the Metro just spout complete bullshit part of this game?
I asked you to PROVE just about all the crap you have spounted and not a single shred of evidence has been presented by you yet!
But you WINNING! TIGER BLOOD right?
Ok for the sake of JoeD and the rest I’m going to just ignore anything you say for the rest of this month…..
We Are Done….YOU LOSE
WTF? Now you are just plain lying. Point out a previous post where you asked me to post a link to some information. Tonight is the first time you have asked.
It’s one thing to be so thick headed and illiterate as you, but you are terribly dishonest and can’t admit when I proved you wrong.
I sincerely hope we are not done as I was looking forward to tearing apart your NRA crap tomorrow.
YOU’VE ALREADY LOST A MILLION TIMES IN THIS DISCUSSION!
And of course I’m referring to a previous request of yours prior to today. Being the blockhead that you are, you’d probably try to point out something from earlier today.
Metsie – Here’s a reply to the section of your propaganda report you posted yesterday. Moreover, you asked me for links (for the first time yesterday), so I’ll also give you plenty of them concerning gun control.
In most of the cases, these reports and articles have little or no relation to Newtown (including your pdf) but since you wanted to get into a general gun control debate – instead of sticking to the assault weapons issues specific to Newtown – I’ll oblige.
The last part of the material you posted was simply the conclusion/opinions of Kates and Mauser based on flawed data. So instead of addressing their opinions, I’ll concentrate on the specific data arguments they were making.
FAULTY DATA
First, one of the biggest problems with the Kates and Mauser study is the reliability of the data. For example, they have Luxembourg’s homicide rate at 9.01/100,000 in Table1 on page 4. It has been pointed out by many already that the number is grossly incorrect and, on face value, illogical. All other sources of data (including the one right below) for Luxembourg have its homicide rate at roughly 2.5/100,000 where it’s hovered more or less for the last few decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
It is common knowledge that the only Western nation that has had a homicide rate close to that 9.01 figure is the U.S.
The gross error in their data brings up two questions:
1) Were the authors dishonest, playing loose and fancy with the data in order to make it fit their opinions?
2) Or, were they just sloppy and incompetent? How thoroughly did they check their data? (THIS IS WHERE PEER-REVIEW WOULD REALLY HAVE HELPED). And how competent are they to begin with when they couldn’t even spot this blatantly anomalous outlier? That figure should have raised a big red flag that something was wrong with the data.
The point being … if they can put out a study with such a large error one has to question the entire validity of the piece, especially since this study was NOT peer reviewed.
Now on to the question of “More Guns, Less Crime?”
The part of the report you quoted says: “Denmark has roughly half the gun ownership rate of Norway, but a 50% higher murder rate, while Russia has only one‐ninth Norway’s gun ownership rate but a murder rate 2500% higher.” Here are the problems with that:
• Newtown – This has little relevancy to Newtown issues, which primarily center around severely restricting assault type firearms so that deranged people cannot go on killing sprees.
• Any analysis that seeks to use Russia as a model for comparison is very flawed. Russia is not comparable to Western Europe. It isn’t even comparable to half of Eastern Europe anymore. It’s like trying to use the old Wild West in the U.S.as a sample set for modern crime patterns in this country. The only countries applicable to the U.S. are Western countries with similar lifestyles and socio-economic conditions, because we all know that plays the biggest part in overall crime.
• The data for Denmark and Norway as presented in Table 1 is also questionable (not just the Luxembourg data). It doesn’t mesh with the following study which puts the murder rate at 0.9 and 0.6/100,000. Those numbers are essentially equal. Since Mauser and Kates got the Luxembourg number wrong, I tend to discount their Norway and Denmark numbers as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
• And here are links to some studies that show a correlation between gun ownership and homicides, contrary to the propaganda piece you posted These are neutral peer reviewed studies, not published by a political group with a blatant bias such as The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:
o http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/pdf/cmaj00266-0071.pdf
o http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
o http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf
• Finally here is REAL Harvard University peer-reviewed, non-biased research from the Harvard School of Public Health that states gun ownership is correlated with homicides … A quotes from the research:
“Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”
Link: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
Regarding survey of prison inmates –
• This is NOT at all relevant to Newtown. Adam Lanza was not a crininal but a mentally ill individual for whom the consequences of confronting an armed victim would likely never entered his mind.
• But the worst part of this bit is that it is just anecdotal in nature. Mauser-Kates didn’t even include any numbers, LOL. How do we know that a vast majority of those interviewed didn’t say they weren’t frightened at all by armed victims? This is very shoddy to leave out the percentage results.
Finally, here is some additional reading material for you …
A report showing how gun ownership and homicides in the U.S. have both declined in tandem (using FBI data):
Link: http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/07/21/the-declining-culture-of-guns-and-violence-in-the-united-states/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+themonkeycagefeed+%28The+Monkey+Cage%29
And here is a report that shows states with tighter gun control laws have fewer deaths by guns:
Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
Any questions, just ask. I won’t take 4 days to cite relative specifics either.
Metsie, I just posted a reply to the section of the report you posted , but it says the comment is in moderation. It may be because it has a lot links in it.
If they don’t take it out of moderation by late-afternoon, I will repost the content but split up into separate posts to see if that makes it through.
It had 0 to do with the Holiday party and all to do with cooling down from the Cy Young celebration and knowing that there was a legit chance we could get the best catching prospect in baseball for him.
Metsie – Here’s a reply to the section of your propaganda report you posted yesterday. Moreover, you asked me for links (for the first time yesterday), so I’ll also give you plenty of them concerning gun control.
In most of the cases, these reports & articles have little or no relation to Newtown (including your pdf) but since you wanted to get into a general gun control debate – instead of sticking to the assault weapons issues specific to Newtown – I’ll oblige.
The last part of the material you posted was simply the conclusion/opinions of Kates and Mauser based on flawed data. So instead of addressing their opinions, I’ll concentrate on the specific data arguments they were making.
FAULTY DATA
First, one of the biggest problems with the Kates and Mauser study is the reliability of the data. For example, they have Luxembourg’s homicide rate at 9.01/100,000 in Table1 on page 4. It has been pointed out by many already that the number is grossly incorrect and, on face value, illogical. All other sources of data (including the one right below) for Luxembourg have its homicide rate at roughly 2.5/100,000 where it’s hovered more or less for the last few decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
It is common knowledge that the only Western nation that has had a homicide rate close to that 9.01 figure is the U.S.
The gross error in their data brings up two questions:
1) Were the authors dishonest, playing loose and fancy with the data in order to make it fit their opinions?
2) Or, were they just sloppy and incompetent? How thoroughly did they check their data? (THIS IS WHERE PEER-REVIEW WOULD REALLY HAVE HELPED). And how competent are they to begin with when they couldn’t even spot this blatantly anomalous outlier? That figure should have raised a big red flag that something was wrong with the data.
The point being … if they can put out a study with such a large error one has to question the entire validity of the piece, especially since this study was NOT peer reviewed.
cont’d … Part II
Now on to the question of “More Guns, Less Crime?”
The part of the report you quoted says: “Denmark has roughly half the gun ownership rate of Norway, but a 50% higher murder rate, while Russia has only one‐ninth Norway’s gun ownership rate but a murder rate 2500% higher.” Here are the problems with that:
• Newtown – This has little relevancy to Newtown issues, which primarily center around severely restricting assault type firearms so that deranged people cannot go on killing sprees.
• Any analysis that seeks to use Russia as a model for comparison is very flawed. Russia is not comparable to Western Europe. It isn’t even comparable to half of Eastern Europe anymore. It’s like trying to use the old Wild West in the U.S.as a sample set for modern crime patterns in this country. The only countries applicable to the U.S. are Western countries with similar lifestyles and socio-economic conditions, because we all know that plays the biggest part in overall crime.
• The data for Denmark and Norway as presented in Table 1 is also questionable (not just the Luxembourg data). It doesn’t mesh with the following study which puts the murder rate at 0.9 and 0.6/100,000. Those numbers are essentially equal. Since Mauser and Kates got the Luxembourg number wrong, I tend to discount their Norway and Denmark numbers as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
• And here are links to some studies that show a correlation between gun ownership and homicides, contrary to the propaganda piece you posted These are neutral peer reviewed studies, not published by a political group with a blatant bias such as The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:
o http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/pdf/cmaj00266-0071.pdf
o http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
o http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf
• Finally here is REAL Harvard University peer-reviewed, non-biased research from the Harvard School of Public Health that states gun ownership is correlated with homicides … A quotes from the research:
“Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”
Link: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
cont’d … Part II
Now on to the question of “More Guns, Less Crime?”
The part of the report you quoted says: “Denmark has roughly half the gun ownership rate of Norway, but a 50% higher murder rate, while Russia has only one‐ninth Norway’s gun ownership rate but a murder rate 2500% higher.” Here are the problems with that:
• Newtown – This has little relevancy to Newtown issues, which primarily center around severely restricting assault type firearms so that deranged people cannot go on killing sprees.
• Any analysis that seeks to use Russia as a model for comparison is very flawed. Russia is not comparable to Western Europe. It isn’t even comparable to half of Eastern Europe anymore. It’s like trying to use the old Wild West in the U.S.as a sample set for modern crime patterns in this country. The only countries applicable to the U.S. are Western countries with similar lifestyles and socio-economic conditions, because we all know that plays the biggest part in overall crime.
• The data for Denmark and Norway as presented in Table 1 is also questionable (not just the Luxembourg data). It doesn’t mesh with the following study which puts the murder rate at 0.9 and 0.6/100,000. Those numbers are essentially equal. Since Mauser and Kates got the Luxembourg number wrong, I tend to discount their Norway and Denmark numbers as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
• And here are links to some studies that show a correlation between gun ownership and homicides, contrary to the propaganda piece you posted These are neutral peer reviewed studies, not published by a political group with a blatant bias such as The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:
o http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/pdf/cmaj00266-0071.pdf
o http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
o http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf
cont’d … Part III
• Finally here is REAL Harvard University peer-reviewed, non-biased research from the Harvard School of Public Health that states gun ownership is correlated with homicides … A quotes from the research:
“Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”
Link: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
Regarding survey of prison inmates –
• This is NOT at all relevant to Newtown. Adam Lanza was not a crininal but a mentally ill individual for whom the consequences of confronting an armed victim would likely never entered his mind.
• But the worst part of this bit is that it is just anecdotal in nature. Mauser-Kates didn’t even include any numbers, LOL. How do we know that a vast majority of those interviewed didn’t say they weren’t frightened at all by armed victims? This is very shoddy to leave out the percentage results.
Finally, here is some additional reading material for you …
A report showing how gun ownership and homicides in the U.S. have both declined in tandem (using FBI data):
Link: http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/07/21/the-declining-culture-of-guns-and-violence-in-the-united-states/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+themonkeycagefeed+%28The+Monkey+Cage%29
And here is a report that shows states with tighter gun control laws have fewer deaths by guns:
Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
Any questions, just ask. I won’t take 4 days to cite relative specifics either.
Hey guys,
You know I like ya both so why not settle this with an old-fashion challenge at sunrise?
Even if that doesn’t settle the argument, we can still sell tickets to the events with all proceeds going to the New York Mets so they can afford to get us some decent players.
Hi Joey D — a challenge would be fine with me …,but NO guns
I hope that some real change comes out of Newtown instead of everyone just forgetting about things after awhile. The NRA gun lobbyists need to just shut up this time. Their excuses sound increasingly laughable and hollow.
If I don’t run into you later on this week, you and your family have a merry x-mas or happy hanukkah, whatever it may be!
Hi Metro,
Actually, I was hoping the aim of both you and Metsie would be so bad that the only injury would be to trees losing some of their barks.
You too with the holiday wishes. Actually, my wife and I celebrate both – me being Jewish we’ve concluded Hanukkah and now with her being Catholic, having her presents underneath a Christmas Tree (of course accompanied by a Menorah).
One of the gifts she got me was the complete collection of Three Stooges shorts, appropro for me, wouldn’t you say? As some here would no doubt add to that, every time I think I weaken the Met nation, Nyuk, Nyuk.
Hey Joey — You’ve got the best of both holidays! Cool. I’m not sure why you would be associated with the Three Stooges, though. Do you look like one of them?
But nice gift. Enjoy them. The old time comedy group I really liked was Abbot and Costello.
As for aim, it’s pretty good, so anyone crossing me better watch out, haha! I’ve actually gone target shooting before. No, I don’t own any guns and never have. A friend of mine had guns and that’s why I went target shooting.
Enjoy the holidays!
Hi Metro,
Watching the stooges are part of that childhood innocence I try to retain when being able to to stop the world for I want to get off. Can’t do that most of the time but when one can, it’s precious.
That kind of explains my disheartening with the Mets. They too gave me time to escape from the world but now the organization represents everything in that world I want to take a break from – not the players (good or bad) – but the front office, ownership and the way Citi Field feels more exclusive than inclusive.
Loved the old A&C television shows more than the movies, Oswald.
Laurel and Hardy probably the all-time best.
Joey — Laurel and Hardy, yes! I forgot about them. March of the Wooden Soldiers is my favorite. Especially around the holidays.
As for the Mets front office, well you know where I stand. I am not as cynical or disillusioned about them as you. Just wait, Joey, things will be better sooner rather than later. I wouldn’t be surprised if 2013 turned out to be the year we all thought 2012 would be up to July. It will depend on the bullpen and how Alderson rounds out the OF and rotation. Though I think the bullpen performance can make the biggest difference for next season.