Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 04-07-2019, 08:42 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.ne...tiffs_-msj.pdf
[shows] ... that there are 2.2 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses by civilians each year. Of those, 340,000 to 400,000 defensive gun uses were situations where defenders believed that they had almost certainly saved a life by using the gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
So in 2017, there were just shy of 40,000 gun deaths, the highest total in half a century.
...
The likelihood that there have been 20 to 25 life-saving DGUs for every homicide - I'm sorry, but that just defies common sense. The notion that there's this huge wave of violence that 'good guys with guns' are quietly thwarting at almost every turn, and that without their courageous intervention, we'd have 350,000 or more homicides per year instead of 16,000 - wow. you guys are the American equivalent of the Dunedain of Middle-Earth, secretly keeping Hobbiton and Bree safe from the minions of the Dark Lord, year after year. Really quite astounding, if true.
Wow. And that doesn't even taken into account the 100,000's of gun deaths that presumably did occur (because victim lacked a gun) but which FBI overlooked in its stats. Wow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
A DGU doesn't necessarily need to be life saving. It would be wrong to think an event only qualifies as a DGU if it saves a life.
You seem to have missed the context of this subthread. As reddened in the quote beginning this post, there were over 2 million DGUs of which "only" 340,000 or more allegedly "almost certainly saved a life."

I wonder if the gun advocates in this thread will have the gumption to admit that those gun wielders perhaps just might have exaggerated the values of their DGUs?

Last edited by septimus; 04-07-2019 at 08:43 AM.
  #252  
Old 04-07-2019, 09:48 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I agree! But let's re-read that quote I was responding to:
I'm skeptical of that figure however it doesn't say that 3-400k lives were saved, rather that that many people believed that to be so.

I think reporting that a DGU took place is more reliable than evaluating the potential outcome. The first can be a certainty while the latter is going to be supposition a great deal of the time.

Last edited by Bone; 04-07-2019 at 09:48 AM.
  #253  
Old 04-07-2019, 11:00 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I'm skeptical of that figure however it doesn't say that 3-400k lives were saved, rather that that many people believed that to be so.
Let's not soft-pedal it: defenders believed that they had almost certainly saved a life by using the gun
Quote:
I think reporting that a DGU took place is more reliable than evaluating the potential outcome. The first can be a certainty while the latter is going to be supposition a great deal of the time.
Why are you expressing your skepticism to me??

I mean, I'm glad that you don't buy into this claim either, but this is DrDeth's cite in support of allegedly amazing positive effects of gun ownership. Your issue is with him.
  #254  
Old 04-07-2019, 11:54 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,037
So I was doing out the math. If the gun violence archive numbers are representative - that is, not ever police shooting, not every defensive gun use, and not ever offensive gun use is in these numbers, but statistically these numbers are representative of the real numbers, then if we add up the number of unintentional shootings, and multiple the suicides by some discount factor (many of the suicides would have occurred anyway, even if no guns, but not all), you would arrive at a ratio.

There's some voids in the data so I can't find the ratio. But say the ratio is 1:1. That is, for every defensive gun shooting, there's an extra suicide or accidental shooting.

Just for the sake of argument. In that case, should no one have guns, since they are not leading to a net benefit? Well, if someone lives in an area where the violent crime rate is (bad shooting: good shooting) times the national average, statistically they will be better off with a gun. (they would be even better off moving to a safer area but may not be able to afford to)

And then I thought about it, and I realized there is one factor of interest that is missing from these numbers.

Open Carry. In areas with a lot of open carry, how often are the gun toters the victims of robberies and rapes and other violent felonies? If it's an area with a lot of criminals, but everyone has a gun plainly visible, wouldn't there be a strong deterrent effect?

How often does someone decide to try to mug or rape or rob a uniformed police officer? Everyone knows that if you threaten a police officer with a weapon, they will draw on you with the intention of killing you, and they will call for backup from their fellow officers.

lose-lose. I would imagine it almost never happens. So how often do people try to hold up a convenience store where the clerk has a visible firearm?
  #255  
Old 04-07-2019, 03:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
So in 2017, there were just shy of 40,000 gun deaths, the highest total in half a century.

60% of these were suicides. That leaves 40%, or ~16,000 gun deaths, that were homicides (37%) or accidents.

The likelihood that there have been 20 to 25 life-saving DGUs for every homicide - I'm sorry, but that just defies common sense. The notion that there's this huge wave of violence that 'good guys with guns' are quietly thwarting at almost every turn, and that without their courageous intervention, we'd have 350,000 or more homicides per year instead of 16,000 - wow. ....)

I will note my cite if from a highly respected senior jurist in a published legal opinion, so that is pretty damn solid. Where's your cite that they didnt happen?
  #256  
Old 04-07-2019, 03:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
A somewhat more fact-based tally of gun use in America, based on actual reports, unlike the paper Dr. Seth keeps referring to. That one starts with the proposition that everyone knows that people won't self-report DGU, so the NCVS is incorrect and needs to be inflated.

So you're citing Gun Violence Archive (GVA), a clearly biased website?
  #257  
Old 04-07-2019, 03:36 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Let's not soft-pedal it: defenders believed that they had almost certainly saved a life by using the gunWhy are you expressing your skepticism to me??

I mean, I'm glad that you don't buy into this claim either, but this is DrDeth's cite in support of allegedly amazing positive effects of gun ownership. Your issue is with him.
Not me, issue is with HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge.
  #258  
Old 04-07-2019, 03:53 PM
eburacum45 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Old York
Posts: 2,790
An argument from authority. Right.
-------------------

The DGU statistic makes no sense whatsoever. 57% of homes in the US do not possess guns. If there were 340,000 DGUs where the possession of a gun "almost certainly saved a life", these must have occurred in the 43% of all households that do possess a gun.
Assuming a random distribution of such life-threatening events, then (57/43 x 340,000) such events should have occurred in homes where no-one has a gun. That's 450,697 events.
Either 450 thousand events have occurred in such homes but have largely gone unreported
or
they haven't.

Bear in mind these are events where a 'gun saved a life'; this should be nearly half a million extra homicides.

I call bullshit.
  #259  
Old 04-07-2019, 05:11 PM
galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So you're citing Gun Violence Archive (GVA), a clearly biased website?
Biased in what way? Show your work, DrDeth.
It's only fair - here's their methodology. What's yours? How are you determining that they are wrong?
  #260  
Old 04-07-2019, 06:00 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
An argument from authority. Right.
-------------------

The DGU statistic makes no sense whatsoever. 57% of homes in the US do not possess guns. If there were 340,000 DGUs where the possession of a gun "almost certainly saved a life", these must have occurred in the 43% of all households that do possess a gun.
Assuming a random distribution of such life-threatening events, then (57/43 x 340,000) such events should have occurred in homes where no-one has a gun. That's 450,697 events.
Either 450 thousand events have occurred in such homes but have largely gone unreported
or
they haven't.

Bear in mind these are events where a 'gun saved a life'; this should be nearly half a million extra homicides.

I call bullshit.
Ah, I see the old Adam Savage from Mythbusters cite: "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

Perfectly Ok to cite a expert as a authority.

The Judge cites a study:

7 See Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature
of Self–Defense with a Gun, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 150, 164, 177 (1995) (cited in
Heller v. D.C. (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244, 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2011)

Which is a peer reviewed study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...3&context=jclc

footnoted and everything.

The other study the judge cited:A Special Report by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics published in 2013, reported that between 2007 and 2011 “there were 235,700
victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender.”8


Do note that there are:In 2017, an estimated 1,247,321 violent crimes occurred nationwide.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s.../violent-crime

If there are 1,247,321 violent crimes a year, then guns preventing a mere 340,000 of them is perfectly possible. Note that pretty much, IMHO any violent crime prevented could be a life saving event. Perhaps they weren't all lifesaving events, but no one claims they were.

But sure, you can reject the reality and call bullshit.

But those figures come from the Justice dept and a peer reviewed article by noted criminologists.
  #261  
Old 04-07-2019, 06:08 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
Biased in what way? Show your work, DrDeth.
It's only fair - here's their methodology. What's yours? How are you determining that they are wrong?

They dont say how they counted them or what their sources are:


What about Unreported Defensive Gun Uses

There are sometimes questions about Defensive Gun Uses which are not reported to police. GVA can ONLY list incidents which can be verified. Our policies do not take into account stories not reported, "I can't believe this happened to me" scenarios or extrapolations from surveys. Our position is that if an incident is significant enough that a responsible gun owner fears for their life and determines a need to threaten lethal force it is significant enough to report to police so law enforcement can stop that perpetrator from harming someone else.


In any case, their numbers are even lower than the much derided Justice Dept survey:

THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY (NCVS)
However consistent the evidence may be concerning the effectiveness of armed victim resistance, there are some who minimize its significance by insisting that it is rare.15 This assertion is invariably based
entirely on a single source of information, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).
Data from the NCVS imply that each year there are only about
68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies,16 or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries.17 These figures are less than one ninth of the
estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have been previously reported.'8
The NGVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households
experience a defensive gun use (DGU) in any one year, compared to
the Mauser survey's estimate of 3.79% of households over a five year
period, or about 0.76% in any one year, assuming an even distribution
over the five year period, and no repeat uses.19
The strongest evidence that a measurement is inaccurate is that it
is inconsistent with many other independent measurements or observations of the same phenomenon; indeed, some would argue that this
is ultimately the only way of knowing that a measurement is wrong.
Therefore, one might suppose that the gross inconsistency of the
NCVS-based estimates with all other known estimates, each derived
from sources with no known flaws even remotely substantial enough
to account for nine-to-one, or more, discrepancies, would be sufficient
to persuade any serious scholar that the NCVS estimates are
unreliable.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...3&context=jclc


Both the Hart survey in 1981 and the
Mauser survey in 1990 were national surveys which asked carefully
worded questions directed at all Rs in their samples. Both surveys excluded uses against animals and occupational uses. The two also
nicely complemented each other in that the Hart survey asked only
about uses of handguns, while the Mauser survey asked about uses of
all gun types. The Hart survey results implied a minimum of about
640,000 annual DGUs involving handguns, while the Mauser results
implied about 700,000 involving any type of gun.3 7 ..... Nevertheless, in a ten state sample of incarcerated felons interviewed in 1982,
34% reported having been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured
by an armed victim. ' 60 From the criminals' standpoint, this experience was not rare.
How could such a serious thing happen so often without becoming common knowledge? This phenomenon, regardless of how widespread it really is, is largely an invisible one as far as governmental
statistics are concerned. Neither the defender/victim nor the criminal ordinarily has much incentive to report this sort of event to the
police, and either or both often have strong reasons not to do so. Consequently, many of these incidents never come to the attention of the
police, while others may be reported but without victims mentioning
their use of a gun. And even when a DGU is reported, it will not
necessarily be recorded by the police, who ordinarily do not keep statistics on matters other than DGUs resulting in a death, since police
record-keeping is largely confined to information helpful in apprehending perpetrators and making a legal case for convicting them.
Because such statistics are not kept, we cannot even be certain that a
large number of DGUs are not reported to the police....Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations
where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by
doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth
of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number
of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number
180 [Vol. 86
ARMED RESISTANCE TO CRIME
of lives taken with guns. It is not possible to know how many lives are
actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants
acted differently than they actually did. But surely this is too serious a
matter to simply assume that practically everyone who says he believes
he saved a life by using a gun was wrong.


and none of these figures are "mine". They are from judges, peer reviewed journals and noted criminologists.

Last edited by DrDeth; 04-07-2019 at 06:10 PM.
  #262  
Old 04-07-2019, 07:37 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
An argument from authority. Right.
-------------------

The DGU statistic makes no sense whatsoever. 57% of homes in the US do not possess guns. If there were 340,000 DGUs where the possession of a gun "almost certainly saved a life", these must have occurred in the 43% of all households that do possess a gun.
Assuming a random distribution of such life-threatening events, then (57/43 x 340,000) such events should have occurred in homes where no-one has a gun. That's 450,697 events.
Either 450 thousand events have occurred in such homes but have largely gone unreported
or
they haven't.

Bear in mind these are events where a 'gun saved a life'; this should be nearly half a million extra homicides.

I call bullshit.
You seem to be making the assumption that DGUs only occur in the home. I don't think that's a fair assessment.

In any event, Kleck gets a lot of attention because the estimate his multiple studies came up with were the highest. But it's not like that's the only data point. From 1976 to 1994, there were at least 13 other studies conducted, and they all came up with DGU figures that were quite high. Different methodologies produced different results, etc. but all the figures produced were in the several hundred thousand events. Even the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) that doesn't even ask about DGU comes up with figures just about 100K.

At this point, anyone claiming that DGU is rare has the burden of proof as far as I'm concerned.
  #263  
Old 04-07-2019, 08:08 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
t this point, anyone claiming that DGU is rare has the burden of proof as far as I'm concerned.
I’d say that anyone claiming that DGU is the only thing preventing the USA from being the country with the highest murder rate in the world has the burden of proof.

I live here.

The US isn’t that much of a shithole. Yes, our actual murder rate is definitely in shithole territory, but we are with the more high class shitholes, the ones with theoretically functioning governments. We are not inherently a country that would have 400,000 murders a year if not for gun toting citizens. Anyone who thinks that is living in a sad, frightening fantasy land.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #264  
Old 04-08-2019, 12:39 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,862
Quote:
Of those, 340,000 to 400,000 defensive gun uses were situations where defenders believed that they had almost certainly saved a life by using the gun.
It sounds like the DGU enthusiasts are backtracking and admitting that their fellow enthusiasts were somewhat too .... enthusiastic ... to claim that they had almost certainly saved a life. No?

For me, the lesson in all this repartee is just that: that gun enthusiasts are overly enthusiastic. And with this evidence — hundreds of thousands of life-savings falsely claimed — why should we trust them further?
  #265  
Old 04-08-2019, 04:18 AM
eburacum45 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Old York
Posts: 2,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
If there are 1,247,321 violent crimes a year, then guns preventing a mere 340,000 of them is perfectly possible. Note that pretty much, IMHO any violent crime prevented could be a life saving event.
No, that doesn't work. You still have 450,000 unprevented crimes that are notionally identical to the 340,000 prevented crimes, but you don't have 450,000 deaths. In fact the homicide rate is about 4% of that.

Quote:
Perhaps they weren't all lifesaving events, but no one claims they were.
These events are claimed to have 'almost certainly' saved a life; it seems that the term 'almost certainly' has a large margin of error.
  #266  
Old 04-08-2019, 05:08 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
If there are 1,247,321 violent crimes a year, then guns preventing a mere 340,000 of them is perfectly possible. Note that pretty much, IMHO any violent crime prevented could be a life saving event. Perhaps they weren't all lifesaving events, but no one claims they were.

But sure, you can reject the reality and call bullshit.

But those figures come from the Justice dept and a peer reviewed article by noted criminologists.
Do you see how the data would cause someone to come to the conclusion that most of them weren't lifesaving events?

Your point is valid, there were a large number of defensive gun uses. But most of them, it seems if a gun hadn't been used, the criminal wouldn't have committed a murder.

Nevertheless, your side of the argument has merit. Maybe it was 1% of these encounters would have ended in a murder. And some of the others, the victim would have been raped or beaten.

It sounds like 400k times, the victim had some agency. They called on Smith and Wesson and they delivered. The problem is the guns also appear to have caused a lot of extra deaths, more than the number of times a criminal would actually commit a murder.

As you might recall, murder is severely punished in all civilized countries, and potential murderers are sometimes at least vaguely aware of the potential consequences and probability of getting caught.
  #267  
Old 04-08-2019, 06:26 AM
eburacum45 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Old York
Posts: 2,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
At this point, anyone claiming that DGU is rare has the burden of proof as far as I'm concerned.
Defensive gun use is vanishingly rare - in my country. Plenty of farmers, hunters and hobbyists have guns- but they would never brandish them against a human without a very good chance of being prosecuted themselves.
-------------------------

More number wrangling.

If there were 1,247,321 violent crimes in a particular year, but only 17,500 homicides, that means the chances of a violent crime turning fatal is 1.3%. If the 340,000 DGUs prevented homicides at this rate, they will have prevented 4420 deaths. Not 340,000 prevented deaths, but even this seems worth doing. It seems that I've made an argument in favour of DGU.

Except.
If the US had the same murder rate as the UK, the number of homicides nationwide wouldn't be 17,500, but 3512. By living in a culture with such a high rate of gun ownership, you are saving 4420 lives, and losing 13738. Per annum.
  #268  
Old 04-08-2019, 11:22 AM
ExTank's Avatar
ExTank is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Creve Coeur, MO
Posts: 6,756
After 5 page of the usual BS, I'll answer the OP's question directly:

1. It goes "bang" even when you have NOT pulled the trigger.

2. It does NOT go "bang" when you pull the trigger.
  #269  
Old 04-12-2019, 06:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Here is proof that no amount gun laws is too many and that they dont work:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...226657929.html

FIREARMS EXCISE TAX
“Although California has the toughest gun laws in the nation, more effort is necessary to curtail gun violence,” Assembly Bill 18, sponsored by Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-Greenbrae, reads in part.

AB 18 “would express the intent of the Legislature” to impose an excise tax on the sale of handguns and semiautomatic rifles, with that revenue going to the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program.

According to the bill language, between 2014 and 2016, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation found that gun homicides in the state increased by 18 percent.


Although California has the toughest gun laws in the nation,=gun homicides in the state increased by 18 percent...

Fail!
  #270  
Old 04-12-2019, 06:51 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Here is proof that no amount gun laws is too many and that they dont work:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...226657929.html

FIREARMS EXCISE TAX
“Although California has the toughest gun laws in the nation, more effort is necessary to curtail gun violence,” Assembly Bill 18, sponsored by Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-Greenbrae, reads in part.

AB 18 “would express the intent of the Legislature” to impose an excise tax on the sale of handguns and semiautomatic rifles, with that revenue going to the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program.

According to the bill language, between 2014 and 2016, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation found that gun homicides in the state increased by 18 percent.


Although California has the toughest gun laws in the nation,=gun homicides in the state increased by 18 percent...

Fail!
I don't trust your source as far as I can throw it, but if you're proposing that we should grab and destroy all the guns, I will commend you on your forward thinking plan.
  #271  
Old 04-12-2019, 06:54 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I don't trust your source as far as I can throw it, but if you're proposing that we should grab and destroy all the guns, I will commend you on your forward thinking plan.
I (fortunately) don't live in California, so I'm unaware: is the Sacramento Bee a right-leaning news source or something?
  #272  
Old 04-12-2019, 06:58 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I (fortunately) don't live in California, so I'm unaware: is the Sacramento Bee a right-leaning news source or something?
I opened the link and the writing style and word choices alone lead me to believe that 1) yes it is, and 2) I would take literally everything said by that article with an entire salt lick.

Don't know nothing about the Sacramento Bee, but that specific article is fail in my opinion.
  #273  
Old 04-12-2019, 07:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I don't trust your source as far as I can throw it, but if you're proposing that we should grab and destroy all the guns, I will commend you on your forward thinking plan.
You dont trust the sacramento bee?

how about the actual site for the state itself?


https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...=201920200AB18
  #274  
Old 04-12-2019, 07:48 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I (fortunately) don't live in California, so I'm unaware: is the Sacramento Bee a right-leaning news source or something?
No, kinda liberal actually, since this IS California.
  #275  
Old 04-13-2019, 04:39 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
Defensive gun use is vanishingly rare - in my country. Plenty of farmers, hunters and hobbyists have guns- but they would never brandish them against a human without a very good chance of being prosecuted themselves.
-------------------------

More number wrangling.

If there were 1,247,321 violent crimes in a particular year, but only 17,500 homicides, that means the chances of a violent crime turning fatal is 1.3%. If the 340,000 DGUs prevented homicides at this rate, they will have prevented 4420 deaths. Not 340,000 prevented deaths, but even this seems worth doing. It seems that I've made an argument in favour of DGU.

Except.
If the US had the same murder rate as the UK, the number of homicides nationwide wouldn't be 17,500, but 3512. By living in a culture with such a high rate of gun ownership, you are saving 4420 lives, and losing 13738. Per annum.
OK, you've watered it down from 340000-400000 lives almost certainly saved, to between 4420 and 5200 lives probably saved. And that's your claim, not that of Kleck & Co.

If you quote this cite in the future, I would highly recommend that you leave out the 340,000-400,000 entirely.
  #276  
Old 04-13-2019, 06:58 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Although California has the toughest gun laws in the nation
, or at least, that's what one state legislator said, so it must be true, amirite?
Quote:
Fail!
Can't argue with you.
  #277  
Old 04-14-2019, 05:31 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,393
My apologies, eburacum45, I thought I was responding to DrDeth. Sorry for any confusion.

Since I was responding to the words of his that you quoted, both of you can take it as a given that I was responding to him.
  #278  
Old 04-14-2019, 05:48 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
, or at least, that's what one state legislator said, so it must be true, amirite? Can't argue with you.
My point here, DrDeth, isn't about whether or not California has the toughest gun control regs in the country.

The point, or rather the points, are:

1) "You dont trust the sacramento bee?" Your authority here wasn't the Sacramento Bee. The Sacramento Bee wasn't making any claim at all; it was just reporting the news.

2) In this case, the SacBee was quoting the words of a particular state legislator, California Assemblyman Marc Levine, who wrote those words into the preamble of a bill he sponsored. He was your source.

You did the same thing earlier when you said, "Not me, issue is with HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge." Once again, he wasn't the source of the information you quoted. He's a judge, not an expert on either guns or statistical surveys. He was citing a survey done by Kleck and Gertz.

You should be able to read your sources sufficiently to know whether they're the original source of the info you're citing, or whether they got it from someone else, because you need to know how good your ultimate cite is.

3) The reason you need to do this is that, presumably at least, the reason you're citing it is that it supports the position you're making in a debate here. If it's a crummy cite, it's your problem because it's your argument that gets the supports kicked out from under it.

Just sayin'.
  #279  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:42 PM
obbn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 2,440
To all those wanting to ban our restrict semi auto firearms, what exactly are you hoping to accomplish? There are by some estimates 200 million to 300 million firearms in the United States. When talking about mass shootings there are what, a handful? (Not that having any is a good thing) How much safer does anyone really believe we'll be if semi auto firearms are banned? Not much as the overwhelming majority of firearm owners are law abiding citizens. Taking their firearms does exactly zero to stop mass shootings as those firearms would never be used that way.

So, what do we have left? We have individual's that are willing to commit mass murder and I just don't see how any law or ban is going to be effective at stopping them. They obviously don't give a rat's ass about laws and have no intention of following them.

I'm all for stopping mass shootings, but taking firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens just isn't going to do it. Finding a way to identify those who are predisposed to violence would be a better use of our resources. Keeping firearms from mentally unstable persons would do more than any ban.

How do we do that? No idea. But as I've said, if you came tomorrow and emptied my gun safe of the 20+ semi automatic firearms in it the world would be zero percent safer. Those firearms will never be used in an unlawful way so eliminating them will do nothing to stop the problem.
  #280  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:50 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,795
One objective starting point might be to simply measure or calculate how much kinetic energy a weapon can put downrange in a given period of time by a skilled operator with unlimited ammunition at its maximum effective rate of fire. We could do empirical tests on it.

It wouldn't be the only criterion to look at, but it would be a way to start tightening up what we mean by "assault weapon" or whatever.
  #281  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:12 PM
mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by obbn View Post
To all those wanting to ban our restrict semi auto firearms, what exactly are you hoping to accomplish?
. . .

I'm all for stopping mass shootings, but taking firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens just isn't going to do it. . . .
Not everyone agrees with you

Quote:
When people in the US were allowed to start buying military-style firearms with high-capacity magazines, the number of people killed in gun massacres (defined as shootings in which at least six people die) shot up.

The number of gun massacres and massacre deaths decreased by 37% and 43% respectively after the 1994 ban on assault weapons went into effect, one researcher found. After it expired in 2004, they shot up by 183% and 239%.
And here's what we're hoping to accomplish

Quote:
Supporters of an assault weapons ban. . . say that the goal of the bans is to prevent horrific mass shooting incidents. . .

“This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets,” Feinstein said in a statement. “Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere.”
  #282  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:33 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
...

1) "You dont trust the sacramento bee?" Your authority here wasn't the Sacramento Bee. The Sacramento Bee wasn't making any claim at all; it was just reporting the news.
...

3) The reason you need to do this is that, presumably at least, the reason you're citing it is that it supports the position you're making in a debate here. If it's a crummy cite, it's your problem because it's your argument that gets the supports kicked out from under it.

...
I was responding to "I don't trust your source as far as I can throw it,..." if you are going to attack my 'source" you have to specify which source you are attacking. If you dont, i am free to assume you are attacking the actual cite, not the sources the cite is based upon.

However, I am pretty sure begbert didnt really have any real issues with the source, since all of that is easily confirmed. Just wanted to throw a little Ad hominem in there. Knowing the poster like I do, I gave his Ad hominem attack all the response it deserved.

In any case, everything in that cite is easily confirmed.
  #283  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:37 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by obbn View Post
To all those wanting to ban our restrict semi auto firearms, what exactly are you hoping to accomplish? There are by some estimates 200 million to 300 million firearms in the United States. When talking about mass shootings there are what, a handful? ...
They dont want to stop mass shootings. They (in a weird backwards way) LIKE mass shootings, since every mass shooting means another surge to ban guns.

Of course most murders are committed with cheap handguns, not assault weapons or "semi-autos"*. But those mass shootings committed with a AR15 clone get so much media attention and so much public demand to "do something" that the "gun grabbers' will cheerfully use that media attention and public ire to pass any sort of gun control they can. ANYthing to harass and annoy legit gun owners- because all gun owners are murderers, dont cha know?



* altho a cheap handgun can certainly be a semi-auto.

Last edited by DrDeth; 04-14-2019 at 02:39 PM.
  #284  
Old 04-14-2019, 02:40 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
One objective starting point might be to simply measure or calculate how much kinetic energy a weapon can put downrange in a given period of time by a skilled operator with unlimited ammunition at its maximum effective rate of fire. We could do empirical tests on it.

It wouldn't be the only criterion to look at, but it would be a way to start tightening up what we mean by "assault weapon" or whatever.
Why? Read obbn excellent post right above yours.

Assault weapons arent the problem. They are maybe responsible for around 2% of gun murders.
  #285  
Old 04-14-2019, 05:02 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
They dont want to stop mass shootings. They (in a weird backwards way) LIKE mass shootings, since every mass shooting means another surge to ban guns.

Of course most murders are committed with cheap handguns, not assault weapons or "semi-autos"*. But those mass shootings committed with a AR15 clone get so much media attention and so much public demand to "do something" that the "gun grabbers' will cheerfully use that media attention and public ire to pass any sort of gun control they can. ANYthing to harass and annoy legit gun owners- because all gun owners are murderers, dont cha know?



* altho a cheap handgun can certainly be a semi-auto.
Certainly the precedent- that at least some classes of guns can be removed entirely from civilian ownership- would set the stage for then moving the goalposts until we're down to Fudd guns and maybe .22 target revolvers.
  #286  
Old 04-14-2019, 06:24 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
They dont want to stop mass shootings. They (in a weird backwards way) LIKE mass shootings, since every mass shooting means another surge to ban guns.
Unlike gun lovers who really hate mass shootings because the bad publicity might make it harder to buy their toys.

Last edited by Cheesesteak; 04-14-2019 at 06:25 PM. Reason: pronoun trouble
  #287  
Old 04-14-2019, 07:36 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Unlike gun lovers who really hate mass shootings because the bad publicity might make it harder to buy their toys.
I've seen a couple of the anti-gun loudmouths on this board exhibit scarcely concealed delight over a mass shooting because it "proved" they were "right." Antis aren't the least bit above climbing atop a pile of corpses to exploit heightened emotions.
  #288  
Old 04-15-2019, 06:22 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Antis aren't the least bit above climbing atop a pile of corpses to exploit heightened emotions.
I'm a bit more concerned with the fact that we have a 'pile of corpses' to begin with.

Does that not concern you?
  #289  
Old 04-15-2019, 03:11 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I'm a bit more concerned with the fact that we have a 'pile of corpses' to begin with.

Does that not concern you?
Sure. So let's repeal the 1st ad so that Mass shooters are no longer encouraged by the media attention they will get. There's a study by a noted sociologist that media attention and
glorification" of the killers at Columbine let the the increase in school shootings.


We know gun control wont work, lets try media control.

Or just accept the fact that these horrors are very rare and a tiny blip on the overall crime statistics.
  #290  
Old 04-15-2019, 03:23 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
SOr just accept the fact that these horrors are very rare and a tiny blip on the overall crime statistics.
While any particular massacre is "rare," the fact is that about 45% of all American deaths in the 15-24 age group are caused by guns.
  #291  
Old 04-15-2019, 03:34 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Or just accept the fact that these horrors are very rare and a tiny blip on the overall crime statistics.
This is more of a statement on our overall crime statistics made possible by your preferred gun laws than it is the magnitude of the mass shooting horrors made possible by your preferred gun laws.

OTOH, you did say out loud that 20 massacred 1st graders is a "tiny blip".

The sad thing is, you're right. It should horrify you that 20 massacred 1st graders is a tiny blip in the sea of murders that our gun culture encourages. Somehow it doesn't, though, does it?


Oh joy, just 5 minutes ago, my company's HR department announced a 4 hour active shooter awareness seminar. I feel so lucky that I get to live in a country where I have the opportunity to learn about active shooters. Thank you all!
  #292  
Old 04-15-2019, 03:39 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
While any particular massacre is "rare," the fact is that about 45% of all American deaths in the 15-24 age group are caused by guns.
Sure, but most are suicides and including suicides as "gun deaths' is bogus. Suicide is a another problem all by itself, not having to do with high crime rates. Japan has virtually no guns and a high suicide rate.

That still leaves around 10,000 murders a year due to guns- which is far too many. However, assault weapons do not make up a significant number of those murders, maybe 2%.

We could wave a magic wand and remove all the privately held 'assault weapons" and you wouldn't note that 10,000 go down.

Most murders are committed by handguns.
  #293  
Old 04-15-2019, 03:44 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
This is more of a statement on our overall crime statistics made possible by your preferred gun laws than it is the magnitude of the mass shooting horrors made possible by your preferred gun laws.

...
"Your"? Why do you attribute gun laws to me?


Within the Constitution, there is no way to significantly reduce gun crime or mass shootings. Sure, we could repeal the 2nd, but we could also repeal the 1st, too.

Or the 5th and other amendments which protect criminals.
  #294  
Old 04-15-2019, 04:17 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I was responding to "I don't trust your source as far as I can throw it,..." if you are going to attack my 'source" you have to specify which source you are attacking. If you dont, i am free to assume you are attacking the actual cite, not the sources the cite is based upon.
Oh, bullshit. You're citing the actual authority, not its transmitter. And what someone else says in response to you doesn't change that.

It seems like every thread where I run into you these days, you're being an example of how not to cite. Do better. If you don't know how, then learn.
  #295  
Old 04-15-2019, 05:16 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Oh, bullshit. You're citing the actual authority, not its transmitter. And what someone else says in response to you doesn't change that.

It seems like every thread where I run into you these days, you're being an example of how not to cite. Do better. If you don't know how, then learn.
It's so easy to attack cites when you dont bother to use any, isnt it?
  #296  
Old 04-15-2019, 05:28 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
OTOH, you did say out loud that 20 massacred 1st graders is a "tiny blip".
I'll say it. As far as risks to the well-being of 1st graders go, gun massacres don't even register. It's certainly not an event to base policy decisions around. At least not rational ones.
  #297  
Old 04-15-2019, 06:04 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
I'll say it. As far as risks to the well-being of 1st graders go, gun massacres don't even register. It's certainly not an event to base policy decisions around. At least not rational ones.
People, even or perhaps especially on this board are really, really bad at risk assessment. Basically, the talking point there was to demonstrate how evil the pro-gun folks are...I mean, they are saying that 20 dead children (think of the CHILDREN) are only a 'blip'...the monsters! But the reality is as you say...it's a blip. 1200 school traffic related deaths occur in the US, on average, annually. Bus's are fairly deaths free, but motor vehicle deaths on school grounds are...well, not common, making up less than .4% of motor vehicle deaths, but 1200 is a lot more deaths than the average for mass shootings at schools (I don't have a percentage, but the average depending on your definition of mass shootings for all ages looks like around 120 per year...and the Las Vegas shooting seems to skew that higher than it really is). Even if we double that it's still far less than most other things that are likely to kill...well, anyone. It's a blip. Even actual shootings, regardless of 'mass' or not are very low probability events, especially considering the number of guns in the US and sheer number of folks who own one. Millions of owners, 100's of millions of guns and we are talking about 11K or so, once we take out suicides. This includes accidents, mass shootings, and criminal activity. It's a staggeringly low number, if folks would engage their brains and really think about what the numbers say.


But this entire subject has gotten so emotional and politically charged that basically people can't think clearly. And I say that about both sides. The pro-gun folks are so worried about a slippery slope that they can't see that their actions are actually shifting the pendulum back the other way against them. The anti-gun folks can't look at gun deaths in any sort of perspective and judge the risk relative to other things that society does that actually have higher risks, if we were indeed talking about deaths and saving lives. But we clearly aren't talking about that, as can be seen in this thread and the endless ones that came before it. Sadly, we COULD do real, practical things that could mitigate the deaths. We've done them for alcohol and tobacco in fact, and we have mitigated the deaths. We've done it for pedestrian safety around schools and in cars with seat belts and even with drivers licenses. We could do similar things with guns. IF...we were actually talking about real, rational and well thought out regulations geared towards mitigation, not towards eventual bans. But we aren't going to do that because both sides are entrenched. This issue is a microcosm of our entire lashed up political system. It's like when I call a vendor on a multi-vendor issue...basically, both sides are pointing their finger squarely at the other. Sometimes with some justification, but really, WHO...THE FUCK...CARES! All I want is to fix the issue. And on this, all I want is for the two sides to fucking figure it out, and figure out how to work together. Clearly, we have a long way to go still...


(and with that, I'll get off my drunk soap box and await the flames)
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #298  
Old 04-16-2019, 01:32 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,862
Note that I am NOT a gun-control advocate. To the contrary, when we see what sort of Potus the gunnists and rednecks have inflicted on us as is, imagine what retribution they will go for if their precious guns are taken away. (Present company excepted of course.)

But the arguments of gunnists are so wrong-headed and self-serving, they deserve rebuttal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Sure. So let's repeal the 1st ad so that Mass shooters are no longer encouraged by the media attention they will get. There's a study by a noted sociologist that media attention and
glorification" of the killers at Columbine let the the increase in school shootings.


We know gun control wont work, lets try media control.

Or just accept the fact that these horrors are very rare and a tiny blip on the overall crime statistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Most murders are committed by handguns.
The vast majority of murders are NOT committed by Smith & Wessons, so there's no sense in banning those. Most murders are NOT by Glocks, so that brand should be exempted also. Sig Sauers? Popular perhaps, but the P365 and P320 can each be individually exempted by the above argument. And let's all agree that it would be foolish to ban Rugers — seldom the murder device of choice.

I thought we had an enlightened society which looks beyond the SINGLE biggest problem, or problems which affect only a majority. Kaposi's sarcoma is rare, but scientists still seek treatments and cures.

Imagine if we said "Gays are a small portion of society — why give them rights?" Only a few hundred innocent black men are shot dead by cowardly cops each year — too small a number to worry about. A thousand asylum-seeking infants separated from their parents? I'll worry when the number tops a million.

The fact is we now have millions of schoolchildren in fear for their lives, roused by stupid statements by Trump et al, doing drills to continually remind them that school is a dangerous place. But we are to ignore their plaints to ensure that punks like Zimmerman have the right to hunt coon?

Quote:
the fact is that about 45% of all American deaths in the 15-24 age group are caused by guns.
Cite? Methinks you've assumed that ALL murders and suicides are by gun.
  #299  
Old 04-16-2019, 05:37 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
"Your"? Why do you attribute gun laws to me?
Are the gun laws we have today the laws you think we should have, or should they be changed in a way that can reasonably be expected to reduce gun deaths?

I say the gun laws you prefer enable criminals to commit tens of thousands of homicides a year and enable sick bastards to commit mass murder.
  #300  
Old 04-16-2019, 07:19 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The fact is we now have millions of schoolchildren in fear for their lives
Roused by irrationality. The same flavor that, when combined with do-something-ism in adults, gives us TSA security theater, the bizarre extremes of stranger danger, GMO labeling laws, and this gem if a thread: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=730719

The solution to irrationality in children is education. For adults it's education and mockery.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017