Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #751  
Old 02-25-2013, 03:07 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
It's simply incorrect to say that "you can collect any data you want." There are scientific, ethical, regulatory and pragmatic concerns that dictate what and how data can be used in answering research questions.

Of course, the people saying this sort of thing are just being flippant and don't actually care about the real world.
  #752  
Old 02-25-2013, 03:10 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post


It's science vs. witchcraft. Science vs. creationism. Science vs. climate deniers. It's all part of the War on Science.
It has happened for centuries; When knowledge contradicts pre-conceived belief, then knowledge must be crushed.

After all, if actual scientific studies were done, then how on earth could folks like Kable continue to post tripe along the lines of "guns are good, because here's a story about a granny that scared a bad man away."
  #753  
Old 02-25-2013, 05:18 PM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,570
Have you ever noticed that when people debate car safety, or pool safety, or ladder safety ... no one ever bring the, "yeah, but what about guns?" side of the argument to the table?
  #754  
Old 02-25-2013, 05:53 PM
Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Batty View Post
Have you ever noticed that when people debate car safety, or pool safety, or ladder safety ... no one ever bring the, "yeah, but what about guns?" side of the argument to the table?
You kidding me? I see it all the time, most recently in the "Should Everclear be banned?" discussion.
  #755  
Old 02-25-2013, 07:39 PM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,570
And you earnestly believe Kable is simply arguing in favor of responsible drinking in that thread?

Last edited by Jack Batty; 02-25-2013 at 07:39 PM.
  #756  
Old 02-25-2013, 07:46 PM
Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,948
I think he's arguing that we should apply the same rules to guns that we do to drinking, just as people keep trying to say that we should apply the same rules to guns that we do to cars, even though they're completely different products. I think the gun rights advocates are starting to get concerned that there might be enough of a ground-swell of interest in lowering the body count a little that the power of the NRA may not be enough to maintain the status quo, and he's trying to deflect as much attention and energy as he can.

That, and, he's a thread-shitting troll.
  #757  
Old 02-26-2013, 03:51 AM
gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,291
I'd be interested in determining whether gun owning women are less likely to be raped (this article reports such a study, but doesn't cite it). I know most rapes are perpetrated by individuals known to the victim, but there are still a considerable number of rapes committed by strangers. Of course, we couldn't determine causation, but surely the gun proponents would be interested in knowing?
  #758  
Old 02-26-2013, 06:13 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,792
A light-hearted look at a gun rights rally: Idaho Gun Fondlers Bravely Resist Tyrant Hussein Obama’s Imaginary Gun Confiscation Orders

WARNING: contains barrelfuls of snark, but is actually relatively kind to the subject matter considering the website.
  #759  
Old 02-26-2013, 06:51 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
How was the intruder able to get into your house? Did he have to defeat any alarms or get past a dog? Or did he slip in unnoticed and startle you as you were sleeping? What would you have done if the intruder was armed and pointing his gun at you when you first noticed him?
My intruder broke down my front door, awakening me in the process. I keep all my doors and windows locked so there is no way I can think of for him to "slip in." If I saw him pointing a gun at me, I would have shot him also. I keep a surefire weapon light on my home defense gun now to make identifying threats easier.

Quote:
Just because something worked doesn't mean it's a good solution. There are other solutions which work better and don't introduce the same risk of lethal accident when the grandkids come over to visit.
In my case I don't have grandkids and I do have a safe. I think alarms and dogs are both great ideas, but I would not trade my gun for either or both. Ideal for some might be all 3, and now that alarms act by cellular technology I'm considering getting one. I do think that people should be able to assess their particular situation and take whatever security precautions they see fit, how about you?
  #760  
Old 02-26-2013, 06:58 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
About what?
Jesus, you are a dumb fuck.

Quote:
You assumed I would, then you couldn't name the difference between that and a normal pistol. Its not my fault you're redundantly naming off the same thing, if they are the same
I assumed correctly, and the uzi pistol is the same as a normal pistol. You thought it should be outlawed because it looked "military" but was just a handgun.

Quote:
Its a good strategy. People should have their guns limited, licensed, and registered, and they should be trained to handle it
I think gun safety is an important issue and think they should teach it to all children in public school. How do you like that idea?
  #761  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:03 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
I think gun safety is an important issue and think they should teach it to all children in public school. How do you like that idea?
I'd love it as an optional course, but I can't imagine schools affording the insurance required.
  #762  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:04 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
It is clear you do not know the difference between data and anecdotes. You are expressing your opinion only, not facts on which others can base an informed decision about gun control.
Sure I know the difference. An anecdote is the Newtown Massacre, data is rifles making up only about 3% of firearm related homicides, and "assault" type rifles making up only a subset of that 3%. That data I just presented you, along with anecdotes from before, are also "facts."
  #763  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:12 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Is firearm ownership by anyone a value we are obliged to protect and promote? Clearly, we would prefer that criminals did not have weapons. But does that mean we have some obligation to encourage "law abiding citizens" to arm themselves? Isn't that why we have armed policemen in the first place?
Home invasions happen in seconds. Even if cops are alerted immediatly, the best they can do is arrive in minutes. In my home invasion the cops were really fast, and only took about 5 minutes to arrive, however everything was over by then. Did you forget about this lady? She was on the line with 911 and the cops were not there in time, which is pretty much what you would expect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1-Kz3vU5DY

Quote:
We defer our right to self-defense to a group of trained professionals, don't we? In a similar manner, we place the responsibility for national defense on trained soldiers, and supply them with the weapons appropriate to their duty. Is there some reason that similar weapons should be available to civilians?
Yes, because some of us don't want to defer our right to self-defense.
  #764  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:14 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
It's science vs. witchcraft. Science vs. creationism. Science vs. climate deniers. It's all part of the War on Science.
I love science!
  #765  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:16 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
After all, if actual scientific studies were done, then how on earth could folks like Kable continue to post tripe along the lines of "guns are good, because here's a story about a granny that scared a bad man away."
Do you deny that people do in fact save their, and others, lives with guns?
  #766  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:22 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I'd love it as an optional course, but I can't imagine schools affording the insurance required.
Not sure why insurance would be a big issue. State run game and fish departments don't seem to have trouble teaching gun safety as big part of their hunter education programs. It could be like their hunter education program...

http://www.azgfd.gov/i_e/edits/hunter_education.shtml

...but just take out all the hunting stuff.
  #767  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:30 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
I do think that people should be able to assess their particular situation and take whatever security precautions they see fit, how about you?
Yes, and people make retarded-ass decisions all the fucking time. If you want to live longer, don't smoke, don't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and don't keep a gun in the house. It's that simple.

And yet, in my state, people are allowed to do all 3! Doesn't stop me from spreading the word that they're all bad ideas.
  #768  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:49 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Yes, and people make retarded-ass decisions all the fucking time. If you want to live longer, don't smoke, don't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and don't keep a gun in the house. It's that simple.
You should add not drinking, not having a pool or trampoline in your backyard, and not riding a motorcycle at all because helmets don't make the risk go away. Should probably stop driving cars too. Should we outlaw all that? I should add that a gun did save my life. My Harley Davidson so far hasn't.

Last edited by Kable; 02-26-2013 at 07:50 AM.
  #769  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:51 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
You should add not drinking, not having a pool or trampoline in your backyard, and not riding a motorcycle at all because helmets don't make the risk go away. Should probably stop driving cars too. Should we outlaw all that?
Who said fuck all about outlawing anything? I'm just talking about public education. But I agree with the trampoline thing and put my foot down on that one. Same with pools, because I have kids. And motorcycles, I won't buy one even though a lot of my friends ride. Driving is a calculated risk because my life would be much worse (and probably shorter) if I couldn't earn a living.
  #770  
Old 02-26-2013, 08:36 AM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
My intruder broke down my front door, awakening me in the process. I keep all my doors and windows locked so there is no way I can think of for him to "slip in." If I saw him pointing a gun at me, I would have shot him also. I keep a surefire weapon light on my home defense gun now to make identifying threats easier.
Lucky for you he made all that noise. But there are ways for him to slip in silently. Maybe you forget to lock a door or window. Maybe the garage door is obstructed and stays open. Or maybe he makes just a little bit of noise breaking a window and you don't wake up. If he did make it into your bedroom before you woke up, how would you manage to reach your gun before he shot you? He's not going to politely stand there and wait for you to get it.

If you had an alarm, likely he would flee as soon as it went off. And if he didn't, you would certainly wake up.

Quote:
In my case I don't have grandkids and I do have a safe. I think alarms and dogs are both great ideas, but I would not trade my gun for either or both. Ideal for some might be all 3, and now that alarms act by cellular technology I'm considering getting one. I do think that people should be able to assess their particular situation and take whatever security precautions they see fit, how about you?
I agree you should take appropriate precautions, but it sounds like you are relying too heavily on the gun. A gun requires you do something with it to be useful. If you're away, sleeping, incapacitated, etc. then the gun doesn't do anything to deter the intruder.

This is the false security you get from guns. You think that since you have a gun, you're safe. You're thinking that you'll always be able to hear the intruder, always be able to get your gun, and always get the jump on the intruder. That's not the case. The benefit from other systems like alarms and dogs is that they work without you having to do anything or put yourself in harms way. From an overall security standpoint, they may be better since they cause the intruder to flee rather than requiring you to face him down in your bedroom.
  #771  
Old 02-26-2013, 09:30 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Do you deny that people do in fact save their, and others, lives with guns?
If you love science, do you know what anecdotal evidence is worth?

Or do you deny that bullets entering a person's body will cause it damage?

Last edited by Euphonious Polemic; 02-26-2013 at 09:31 AM.
  #772  
Old 02-26-2013, 10:23 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
Not if swallowed! Or introduced as a suppository! Its possible, even likely, that such bullets will simply pass out through the Nixon without any damage whatsoever!

Last edited by elucidator; 02-26-2013 at 10:24 AM.
  #773  
Old 02-26-2013, 10:57 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
You should add not drinking, not having a pool or trampoline in your backyard, and not riding a motorcycle at all because helmets don't make the risk go away. Should probably stop driving cars too. Should we outlaw all that? I should add that a gun did save my life. My Harley Davidson so far hasn't.
You remain irretrievably stupid on the question of risk and exposure.

I ask again, have you put your home up for sale yet? You know that 1/3 of all accidents occur within one mile of your home. "You have to get out of there!!!", as Keanu Reeves might tell you.
  #774  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:34 AM
bup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: glenview,il,usa
Posts: 11,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
You should add not drinking, not having a pool or trampoline in your backyard, and not riding a motorcycle at all because helmets don't make the risk go away. Should probably stop driving cars too. Should we outlaw all that? I should add that a gun did save my life. My Harley Davidson so far hasn't.
If my purpose in drinking was to be sober more often, I should not drink.

If my purpose in having a pool was to reduce the risk of drowning, I should not have a pool.

If my purpose in having a trampoline was to reduce the odds of breaking my neck, I should not have a trampoline.

If my purpose in riding a motorcycle was to reduce the odds that I hit highway asphalt at 40 miles an hour, then I should not have a motorcycle.

If my purpose in driving a car was to reduce the odds of dying in a car crash, I should not own a car.

If my purpose in owning a gun is to reduce the odds I die by gunfire, I should not own a gun.
  #775  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:42 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
Why not instead look at solutions which actively impede an intruder.
Yeah, those are good. You know what makes them better? A gun.

Quote:
All of those things would have helped prevent the intruder from ever getting to her in the first place.
Yeah, they would have helped, unless they didn't.

Quote:
Plus, if she doesn't have a gun, she can't accidentally shoot herself or a family member with it.
Well, thats what the licensing procedure is for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Says who? How many home defenses with a gun result in killing, disabling or apprehending an assailant, as opposed to just scaring him away like a dog or an alarm? Oh, that's right, we are not permitted to collect data on gun violence.
Why would you say that? The DOJ does:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...ization_Survey

I don't agree with them but the NRA isn't preventing all studies on gun violence, just ones by the CDC. They don't have problems with the ones from academia, the DoJ, ATF, whatever, but I understand why they are offended by the apparent lack of neutrality from the CDC on this issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
That's not the goal. The goal is to reduce it for everybody. Of course the ones who comply will be hit first, but that's ok, there are other guns available that allows them to defend themselves just fine. The fallacy is assuming that only these guys allow the law-abiding to defend themselves fully.
Wait, are we talking about an AWB again? Dear Lord, I thought we resolved that an AWB was retarded and it was ignorance that caused the gun control side to support an AWB in the first place. Do we have to go through that argument all over again?

There is NO partial weapons ban that will have ANY effect on gun violence. We had a 10 year old assault weapons ban and it had NO effect on gun violence. The only type of weapons ban that will have that sort of effect is a near total nationwide ban on guns, if we can live through the years of rampant criminal violence.

Quote:
You don't need an illegal weapon just because criminals have it.
Thats not the argument. The argument is that that an AWB ban will have ZERO effect on criminal activity. Not in the near term and not even in the mid-long term.

I think part of the problem is that you are operating without the context that there is a second amendment. This doesn't mean that we can't do anything to regulate guns but this does mean that you need to have a good reason to regulate guns and that your regulation has to be tailored to accomplish your goal. We have a ten year history with an AWB and it did nothing. Now you want another bite at the apple to try and make the next ban better (assuring us it will make a difference this time), at this point I think that an AWB would be unconstitutional without a congressional study on the efficacy of an assault weapons ban.

Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
It's science vs. witchcraft. Science vs. creationism. Science vs. climate deniers. It's all part of the War on Science.
No its not. They are targetting one agency, the CDC, I don't agree with it but I understand why the gun lobby is upset with the CDC's approach to studying gun violence. The DoJ does studies on gun violence, they don't like their own results but there you have it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
It's simply incorrect to say that "you can collect any data you want." There are scientific, ethical, regulatory and pragmatic concerns that dictate what and how data can be used in answering research questions.
What research questions are you trying to answer? Because sometimes the question that folks are trying to answer seems to be "why should we ban guns?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
I think the gun rights advocates are starting to get concerned that there might be enough of a ground-swell of interest in lowering the body count a little that the power of the NRA may not be enough to maintain the status quo, and he's trying to deflect as much attention and energy as he can.
I'm not concerned at all. I don't think they will ban anything and if they did, I think it would be unconstitutional without a congressional study. I think we will have a marginally effective background check rule implemented at places like gun shows. If they had played their cards right, we might be talking about licensing and registration right now but instead we are talking about a watered down version of watered down background checks that would only apply at places like gun shows.

What a wasted opportunity for sensible gun regulation. Wasted chasing something as retarded as an AWB.

You're not even going to get your magazine capacity limit because you've spent so much political capital on an ineffective and utterly retarded AWB.

Its not that the NRA is all powerful, its that their opponents are just so fucking stupid (tactically and strategically).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
I think gun safety is an important issue and think they should teach it to all children in public school. How do you like that idea?
It should be an elective. When I was in high school, you could choose between home economics, woodworking, photography, printing, and a bunch of other stuff, I don't see why gun safety shouldn't be one of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I'd love it as an optional course, but I can't imagine schools affording the insurance required.
Right, because those table saws are really safe. Gun safety doesn't require using live rounds. They have these dummy bullets (I forget what they are called but they are orange or red) that people use to demonstrate gun safety in classroom environments, like a CCW class.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
I love science!
Physics and chemistry are pretty important to making guns work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Yes, and people make retarded-ass decisions all the fucking time.
Like wasting all your political capital on a retarded, ineffective, ill-conceived AWB?

Quote:
If you want to live longer, don't smoke, don't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and don't keep a gun in the house. It's that simple.

And yet, in my state, people are allowed to do all 3! Doesn't stop me from spreading the word that they're all bad ideas.
You speak out all you want against gun ownership, just don't try to pass any laws banning gun ownership before you repeal the second amendment. Complain all you want, I complain about dignifying Fox News as "press" under the first amendment andabout Citizens United all the time but I don't think we can pass a law against it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
If you love science, do you know what anecdotal evidence is worth?

Or do you deny that bullets entering a person's body will cause it damage?
The same can be said for a knife or a nail or axe or whatever. Noone is denying that guns are lethal, if they weren't, we wouldn''t want them. We are saying that your skittishness and irrational fear of being around a gun is not sufficient reason to violate the second amendment.
  #776  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:09 PM
AlienVessels is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
We are saying that your skittishness and irrational fear of being around a gun is not sufficient reason to violate the second amendment.
Not afraid of being around guns. I'm afraid of being around irrational people with guns. This includes vast numbers of people that think that owning an AR-15 makes them Rambo.

I find it ironic that the same people that claim that the AR-15 is just a rifle are often the people that buy it because it is intimidating-looking. Scalia cited laws dating to the founding fathers that banned "frightening" weapons when affirming what kinds of laws were on the table for discussion.
  #777  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:27 PM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Jesus, you are a dumb fuck.
So you can't even name what you're talking about and why its relevant to the discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
I assumed correctly, and the uzi pistol is the same as a normal pistol. You thought it should be outlawed because it looked "military" but was just a handgun.
You brought it up, maybe you should list why you did specifically. You're just trying to dodge your horribly inept questioning by covering your ass. Its easy to see what you're getting at, dropping the word Uzi into the conversation like a pink elephant in the room. Here's my answer: If the pistol is functionally different than a standard glock or revolver, having the capabilities of higher shooting rates or magazine capacity, then yes, it should be banned. It is not a standard pistol. You should ONLY have standard pistols

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
I think gun safety is an important issue and think they should teach it to all children in public school. How do you like that idea?
I like it fine. I would also add that like cars or booze, there should be an age limit on when one can use a gun, and ownership comes mandatory with licensing, registration, and other regulations. How do you like that idea?
  #778  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:34 PM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Wait, are we talking about an AWB again?
What were you talking about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Dear Lord, I thought we resolved that an AWB was retarded and it was ignorance that caused the gun control side to support an AWB in the first place.
You keep saying that as if it was established fact, its not. The AWB had some positives and negatives, the positives being that it began to dry up the supply for the guns on the list, and the negatives being the loopholes and the million types of other guns it didn't ban. Please don't keep repeating that the AWB didn't do anything because it did, maybe not as much as I wanted, and not as much as you dreaded

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Do we have to go through that argument all over again?
You brought up the issue about regulations. If you want to get back to the main point instead of going off on a tangent, let's do so. My point is that it doesn't matter if there is at first a more severe impact on legal gun ownership when it comes to regulations. Over time, the illegal version will follow due to the disruption in supply. Also, it is perfectly ok with this initial asymmetry in impact, as the law affords you plenty of other options for self defense. If your ultimate claim is that only guns can be used to defend against guns, then that is a circular and pointless argument that I will not entertain. Maybe in that GD thread that I'll get back to, but not in the Pit
  #779  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:43 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi
I don't agree with them but the NRA isn't preventing all studies on gun violence, just ones by the CDC. They don't have problems with the ones from academia, the DoJ, ATF, whatever, but I understand why they are offended by the apparent lack of neutrality from the CDC on this issue.
[...]
What research questions are you trying to answer? Because sometimes the question that folks are trying to answer seems to be "why should we ban guns?"
You seem as ignorant on this subject as you were on the issue of crimes committed by CCW people.

Show me how the CDC is biased. Show me where they’ve called for a ban. Show me how they are not academic. Show me where they lack neutrality.

Here’s the mission of the CDC
Quote:
Collaborating to create the expertise, information, and tools that people and communities need to protect their health – through health promotion, prevention of disease, injury and disability, and preparedness for new health threats.
I guarantee you that gun-strokers don't like the work of David Hemenway, and he's at Harvard. Certainly that's academia, right?
  #780  
Old 02-26-2013, 03:53 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
What were you talking about?
I don't know anymore, its hard to keep track. I thought we were talking about the notion that legally reducing the NUMBER of guns was a useful goal in itself without regard to WHO had those guns.

Quote:
You keep saying that as if it was established fact, its not. The AWB had some positives and negatives, the positives being that it began to dry up the supply for the guns on the list, and the negatives being the loopholes and the million types of other guns it didn't ban. Please don't keep repeating that the AWB didn't do anything because it did, maybe not as much as I wanted, and not as much as you dreaded
It had no discernable effect on gun violence. Reducing the number of a particular type of gun in society is not a benefit if that reduction has NO DISCERNIBLE EFFECT on gun violence, it is merely an imposition.

Quote:
My point is that it doesn't matter if there is at first a more severe impact on legal gun ownership when it comes to regulations. Over time, the illegal version will follow due to the disruption in supply. Also, it is perfectly ok with this initial asymmetry in impact, as the law affords you plenty of other options for self defense. If your ultimate claim is that only guns can be used to defend against guns, then that is a circular and pointless argument that I will not entertain. Maybe in that GD thread that I'll get back to, but not in the Pit
[/quote]

And if there is no discernible effect on gun violence, then what have you accomplished other than restrict choice, expended political capital and riled up the gun nuts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
You seem as ignorant on this subject as you were on the issue of crimes committed by CCW people.

Show me how the CDC is biased. Show me where they’ve called for a ban. Show me how they are not academic. Show me where they lack neutrality.

Here’s the mission of the CDC I guarantee you that gun-strokers don't like the work of David Hemenway, and he's at Harvard. Certainly that's academia, right?
I'm not sure why you make reference to Hemenway. I know who he is and I know which side of the debate he is on (BTW, has the NRA banned research on this issue by Harvard as well? nope, only the CDC). He applies academic rigor to the research he does and reviews and he seems intellectually honest as far as I can tell but he has some policy preferences that all seem to fall on one side of the debate, concern over the rights of gun owners hardly seems like a factor at all as far as he is concerned.

Thank you for all your cites disproving what I said and I have already said that I don't think we should stop any sort of research, let the CDC publish what it wants and if there is spin in it, then expose the spin, it will undercut their credibility. When it comes to the NRA argument on the CDC research funding, I have already said that my explanation of their reasons is merely my understanding based on things they have said but here is why I reasonably relied on their explanation.

First of all, the ban on the CDC is NOT a ban on research, its not even a ban on government research. Its a ban on CDC research. The DoJ does research on gun violence without objection.

Second their conclusions are made a bit uncritically so they don't really inspire confidence that they are neutral. For example they conclude that having a firearm in your home increases the chances of being a victim of gun homocide by 300%. This conclusion is reached without critically reviewing whether the same factor that leads to gun homocides are also the factors that lead to gun ownership (living in a dangerous neighborhood, being a gang member, having a stalker, etc.), it merely sees the correlation and assumes causation.

Here is an interview with the person who was involved with this at the CDC and I would just like to point out this line:

Quote:
What the research showed was not only did having a firearm in your home not protect you, but it hugely increased the risk that someone in your family would die from a firearm homicide. It increased the risk almost 300 percent, almost three times as high.

It also showed that the risk that someone in your home would commit suicide went up. It went up five-fold if you had a gun in the home. These are huge, huge risks, and to just put that in perspective, we look at a risk that someone might get a heart attack or that they might get a certain type of cancer, and if that risk might be 20 percent greater, that may be enough to BAN a certain drug or a certain product.
Emphasis added. Gee is 20% correleation would be enough to ban a drug, why wouldn't a 500% correlation be enough to ban guns?

http://www.propublica.org/article/wh...killed-funding

The CDC is also focused on saving lives rather than reducing violence or crime or giving very much weight to crimes deterred or prevented. Because so many successful suicides are accomplished with firearms it is very easy to reach the conclusion that any reduction in firearms is a good thing even if it is only a reduction among law abiding citizens. They reinforce this with the correlation between gun ownership and gun murders and they just want to get rid of guns in society without looking any further. I understand their perspective, I have several friends at the CDC and they are all doctors, they all think the lethality of guns make them inherently unacceptable risks.

I think CDC research can be useful but I understand why the NRA is skeptical of them.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 02-26-2013 at 03:54 PM.
  #781  
Old 02-26-2013, 05:32 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Sure I know the difference. An anecdote is the Newtown Massacre, data is rifles making up only about 3% of firearm related homicides, and "assault" type rifles making up only a subset of that 3%. That data I just presented you, along with anecdotes from before, are also "facts."
How often are assault weopons used in self & home defense?
  #782  
Old 02-26-2013, 06:13 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,972
Until guns can be made so they don't shoot children, they belong under lock and key, unloaded:
Quote:
A week after an accidental shooting in his home, a Brown County boy was taken off life support and has died, officials said on Tuesday.

According to the Hamilton County Coroner's Office, Sebastian Swartz, 9, of Decatur, died at 10:57 a.m., Tuesday.

Swartz was shot Feb. 18, when a family member attempted to take his father's handgun away from him.

According to Brown County Sheriff Dwayne Wenninger, Swartz may have been fascinated with the laser sight on the gun, which may have prompted him to seek out the weapon in his parents' bedroom.

He was shot in the head and rushed to Children's Hospital in Cincinnati.
http://www.maysville-online.com/news...4d83940a6.html
  #783  
Old 02-26-2013, 06:53 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
How often are assault weopons used in self & home defense?
Noone has asked that question before because it is so irrelevant but we do know that it has been used in self and home defense in the past. We do know how frequently it is used in homocides, the number is a I believe something like 400 since the AWB expired (i don't remember if thats per year or total). Out of something like 100,000 gun homocides its a pretty small number.

The reason I say it is irrelevant is because a ten year AWB had no discernible effect on gun violence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Until guns can be made so they don't shoot children, they belong under lock and key, unloaded:http://www.maysville-online.com/news...4d83940a6.html
If you want to make a law that requires people to have secured weapons, thats fine, how do you enforce such a law (do you arrest the grieving parents or do you do home inspections?). What if you don't have kids, can you keep a loaded gun under your pillow then? What if you have a biometric smart gun (they don't exist yet but lets just say).

Secondly, I am pretty sure that SCOTUS has said that trigger locks and gun safe requirements are unconstitutional.
  #784  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:16 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If you want to make a law that requires people to have secured weapons, thats fine, how do you enforce such a law (do you arrest the grieving parents or do you do home inspections?). What if you don't have kids, can you keep a loaded gun under your pillow then? What if you have a biometric smart gun (they don't exist yet but lets just say).
I am in favor of responsible gun ownership laws. Gun owners are responsible for what happens with their guns. If kid is found in possession of a gun, the gun owner is guilty of a misdemeanor; if the kid hurts himself or others, the gun owner is guilty of a felony. No inspections or mandatory locks are necessary; gun owners are free to secure their weapons any way they wish, so long as they know they assume the responsibility for any mayhem or injuries caused by their use.

Last edited by Fear Itself; 02-26-2013 at 07:17 PM.
  #785  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:19 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
I just realized that until you mentioned it, I had pretty much assumed that was already the case. Silly me.
  #786  
Old 02-26-2013, 08:53 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
Lucky for you he made all that noise.
I suppose so.

Quote:
But there are ways for him to slip in silently. Maybe you forget to lock a door or window. Maybe the garage door is obstructed and stays open. Or maybe he makes just a little bit of noise breaking a window and you don't wake up.
All those maybe's are in your imagination. I can play that game too. Maybe I'd forget to set the alarm, maybe the intruder snuck in before the alarm was set, maybe my dog ran away, maybe my dog was taken by the humane society for attacking a child...

Quote:
If he did make it into your bedroom before you woke up, how would you manage to reach your gun before he shot you? He's not going to politely stand there and wait for you to get it.
The fact is, I'm alive because I have my gun. I would have been dead without it. Likely my girlfriend too. Is that how you prefer things went down?

Quote:
A gun requires you do something with it to be useful.
And I did something with it, and it was useful? Disagree?

Quote:
This is the false security you get from guns.
True security in my case.

Quote:
You think that since you have a gun, you're safe. You're thinking that you'll always be able to hear the intruder, always be able to get your gun, and always get the jump on the intruder. That's not the case.
I don't think any such thing. Where did you get that idea?
  #787  
Old 02-27-2013, 10:11 AM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,558
Kable, I'm not saying a gun is useless. I'm saying a gun is woefully insufficient if it is the only thing used for home security. There are so many ways that a gun will fail to protect you. I iterated some of the failures which you didn't address. Just because other systems also have failures doesn't mean that guns are sufficient. You're relying way too much on your gun. Any system which depends on you waking up and confronting the threat is not a good safety situation.

You're putting so much faith in your gun that it's giving you a false sense of security. You're ignoring other real threats because you think the gun is all you need.
  #788  
Old 02-27-2013, 10:49 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Yes, because some of us don't want to defer our right to self-defense.
Why do you seem to think that you are incapable of defending yourself without a gun? All your posts have this same attitude: guns are the ONLY means of defense, and without them you would be utterly defenseless. What is it that has happened to you or that you have seen that engendered this?

No gun ≠ no self-defense

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 02-27-2013 at 10:51 AM.
  #789  
Old 02-27-2013, 10:52 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Did you all see the anecdote about the shooting in Switzerland that resulted in 3 dead and 7 wounded? Apparently it is their second multiple fatality shooting in as many months.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02...ng-police-say/
  #790  
Old 02-27-2013, 10:52 AM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,140
Breaking news - guns don't shoot people, dogs shoot people.
  #791  
Old 02-27-2013, 10:59 AM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I don't know anymore, its hard to keep track. I thought we were talking about the notion that legally reducing the NUMBER of guns was a useful goal in itself without regard to WHO had those guns.
Ok, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one confused. Hard to keep up when we only quote a bit of each other's stuff and respond to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
It had no discernable effect on gun violence. Reducing the number of a particular type of gun in society is not a benefit if that reduction has NO DISCERNIBLE EFFECT on gun violence, it is merely an imposition.
Again, I don't believe it had no discernible effect, nor would I believe, if data was shown to me proving it, that it was the fault of the AWB rather than the short length of time in which it was in effect.

What I would accept as evidence is something along the lines of looking at the specific weapons banned in the AWB, and if there were loopholes around that, and taking the ones that don't have them, then looking at their availability. If you don't think it affect gun violence, fine, but if it can be shown to have an effect on the type of guns it sought to reduce, then extrapolating that logic, I can say it would have had a great effect on gun violence had it been more ironclad and longer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
And if there is no discernible effect on gun violence, then what have you accomplished other than restrict choice, expended political capital and riled up the gun nuts?
We'll just have to wait for the CDC to come back with their study I suppose

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I think CDC research can be useful but I understand why the NRA is skeptical of them.
Because the NRA is crazy. Do you really think they'll accept any research, no matter who does it, if it points to widespread gun availability being one factor in our high gun violence rate?
  #792  
Old 02-27-2013, 11:39 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
Kable, I'm not saying a gun is useless. I'm saying a gun is woefully insufficient if it is the only thing used for home security. There are so many ways that a gun will fail to protect you. I iterated some of the failures which you didn't address. Just because other systems also have failures doesn't mean that guns are sufficient. You're relying way too much on your gun. Any system which depends on you waking up and confronting the threat is not a good safety situation.
You will admit it was 100% sufficient for me, when I needed it though, won't you?

Quote:
You're putting so much faith in your gun that it's giving you a false sense of security. You're ignoring other real threats because you think the gun is all you need.
The gun is what best fits my lifestyle, and I can take it with me outside the home, which is a benefit an alarm doesn't share. That's good too don't you think? What home security measures do you take?
  #793  
Old 02-27-2013, 11:50 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
Staying as far away from people like you as humanly possible.
  #794  
Old 02-27-2013, 11:54 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Staying as far away from people like you as humanly possible.
1/3 of all accidents occur within a mile of his house, so your strategy has merit.
  #795  
Old 02-27-2013, 11:55 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,314
Dog shoots owner.

Quote:
Gregory Dale Lanier, 35, of Frostproof, Fla., and his dog were in his truck Saturday when his dog kicked a loaded gun on the floor, shooting him in the leg, the Highlands Today newspaper reported.

Lanier told authorities he didn't know his .380 pistol was loaded.
The dog is not facing charges.

While I favor gun rights in general, this is the kind of carelessness/stupidity that should get this guy's gun rights removed.

He doesn't know it's loaded and it's bouncing around loose on the floor of his truck. Brilliant.
  #796  
Old 02-27-2013, 12:22 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienVessels View Post
Not afraid of being around guns. I'm afraid of being around irrational people with guns. This includes vast numbers of people that think that owning an AR-15 makes them Rambo.

I find it ironic that the same people that claim that the AR-15 is just a rifle are often the people that buy it because it is intimidating-looking. Scalia cited laws dating to the founding fathers that banned "frightening" weapons when affirming what kinds of laws were on the table for discussion.
I'm looking for the word frightening in the Scalia opinion and I cannot find it. Can you provide a cite?

People have all sorts of reasons for buying an AR-15. In my experience, the primary reason is because they are ex-military and the AR-15 is a platform they are familiar with. This creates a large market for parts and accessories. As a result the AR-15 is the most customizable rifle out there. This makes them very attractive rifles for the rest of the market.

And once again, if there is no discernible reduction in gun violence when you ban AR-15s, then what is the point in banning them? What is the consitutional argument for instituting an ineffective ban?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
I am in favor of responsible gun ownership laws. Gun owners are responsible for what happens with their guns. If kid is found in possession of a gun, the gun owner is guilty of a misdemeanor; if the kid hurts himself or others, the gun owner is guilty of a felony. No inspections or mandatory locks are necessary; gun owners are free to secure their weapons any way they wish, so long as they know they assume the responsibility for any mayhem or injuries caused by their use.
In no other case is this sort of strict owner liability imposed. If some underage kids raid my bar and get caught, I am not liable for giving those underage kids liquor. But you would make me liable for an underage kid possessing my firearm as if I had given it to them?

If I have a bottle of rat poison and a kid gets into and kills himself, I am not liable. But if a kid gets a hold of my gun and shoots himself, I'm guilty of a felony? Which felony? Murder?

If I leave my car keys in in the ignition and some kid takes my car for a joyride and runs over a bunch of people, I am not guilty of anything but if a kid gets a hold of my gun and shoots a bunch of people, then i am guilty of something?

You are applying a stricter standard to my cosntitutionally protected firearms than youa re applying to a range of other things that I own that do not enjoy specific constitutional protection.

Why is that? It doesn't seem rational, certainly not when taken in the context of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
I just realized that until you mentioned it, I had pretty much assumed that was already the case. Silly me.
Why would you assume that?

Are you liable if someone steals your poorly secured car and runs someone over with it? Are you liable when a kid gets into your liquor cabinet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
Kable, I'm not saying a gun is useless. I'm saying a gun is woefully insufficient if it is the only thing used for home security. There are so many ways that a gun will fail to protect you. I iterated some of the failures which you didn't address. Just because other systems also have failures doesn't mean that guns are sufficient. You're relying way too much on your gun. Any system which depends on you waking up and confronting the threat is not a good safety situation.

You're putting so much faith in your gun that it's giving you a false sense of security. You're ignoring other real threats because you think the gun is all you need.
I think dogs are great. They can be great watchdogs and the larger breeds can provide very good physical security (I don't know if anyone has been mugged while walking a rottweiler but I doubt it), unfortunately my wife is allergic and is generally against animals roaming her house. I have a deep and abiding hatred of alarm companies dating back to my childhood.

Guns on the other hand has saved the livelihoods of friends and family during the LA riots and they have foiled robberies at family owned businesses. So when given a choice between owning a gun or being unarmed, I want to have a gun.
  #797  
Old 02-27-2013, 12:34 PM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,335
From "Think Progress" "A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which included a Reagan and a George W. Bush appointee, held unanimously on Friday that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed firearm"

I'm glad to see this and hope the issue gets explored further. The second ammendment does not give unfettered access to any and all guns in any and all situations. The responsibly part is missing from the pro-gun side.
  #798  
Old 02-27-2013, 12:52 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
Again, I don't believe it had no discernible effect, nor would I believe, if data was shown to me proving it, that it was the fault of the AWB rather than the short length of time in which it was in effect.
It was a DECADE!!! How much longer does the test period have to be before its a valid test of then policy? The DoJ says that an AWB is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. At this point you are dangerously close to saying that you cannot be swayed by facts. You sound like Republicans who try to justify supply side economics when they say that the only reason it didn't work was because it needed more time to become effective.

Quote:
What I would accept as evidence is something along the lines of looking at the specific weapons banned in the AWB, and if there were loopholes around that, and taking the ones that don't have them, then looking at their availability. If you don't think it affect gun violence, fine, but if it can be shown to have an effect on the type of guns it sought to reduce, then extrapolating that logic, I can say it would have had a great effect on gun violence had it been more ironclad and longer
You can't tell legal gun owners that its ok to ban assault weapons because there are so many other weapons to choose from but assume that the same choice is not going to be available to criminals who aren't nearly as likely to comply with any law. Of course the AWB was effective in banning the weapons it actually banned, thats not the question. The question is whether banning any small subset of guns is going to have any impact at all on gun violence generally. The vast majority of criminals use a 38 special, a .380, or a 9 mm. If we banned these calibers, I am confident, that it would have no discernible effect on gun violence no matter how long the ban was in effect. Similarly, banning a small subset of guns will have no effect on gun violence no matter how long that ban remains in effect.

We have had a ban on machine guns since 1986. That ban has had no discernible effect on gun violence in the 25 years since it was passed. How much longer before we can expect to see the impact of THAT ban?

Simply put, gun bans on some small subset of guns will have no effect on gun violence. A ban on handguns might have an effect but you would probably have to repeal the second amendment to get that.

Quote:
We'll just have to wait for the CDC to come back with their study I suppose
Why? There have been several studies already. What makes the CDC so qualified to research gun violence while other government agencies that have already studied this are not? Looking to the CDC for a more favorable report is really an exericise in forum shopping, or do you think the DoJ is a pro-gun outfit?

Quote:
Because the NRA is crazy. Do you really think they'll accept any research, no matter who does it, if it points to widespread gun availability being one factor in our high gun violence rate?
We don't need the NRA to accept it. They are not omnipotent, they are a lobbying group that probably spent less on the last election cycle than dozens of individuals did on their own. And frankly, I think it is an exercise in stating the obvious if you say that widespread gun availability being one factor in our high gun violence rate. THAT horse left the barn a looong time ago, there are over 300 million guns floating around society already. Short of repealing the second amendment and confiscating guns, you are not going to change the widespread availability of guns in our society, and a ban would only restrict access to law abiding citizens.

If you want to ban guns entirely then repeal the second amendment and just ban the goddam things but trying to ban guns one small subset at a time is a horrible policy and IMHO unconstitutional.
  #799  
Old 02-27-2013, 02:05 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
From "Think Progress" "A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which included a Reagan and a George W. Bush appointee, held unanimously on Friday that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed firearm"

I'm glad to see this and hope the issue gets explored further. The second ammendment does not give unfettered access to any and all guns in any and all situations. The responsibly part is missing from the pro-gun side.
There are several cases being set up for SCOTUS. We will see what SCOTUS has to say about it. I think the second amendment says "keep and bear arms" not just "keep arms" so while they can restrict ther ight to carry concealed, I don't think they can restrict the right to carry concealed AND open as much as these places do.
  #800  
Old 02-27-2013, 03:52 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Damuri Ajashi, your rank ignorance of research and how it is done is shocking.

You keep saying that the NCVS survey is research, and in a broad sense it is, but what you keep saying about the CDC and DoJ is akin to saying "Why should the NIH do research on cancer, since the American Cancer Society already did a survey and found out how many people have cancer."

CDC is an agency of the federal government, like NIH and DoJ. They do some internal stuff and a lot of external funding of research. DoJ is not particularly involved in research, although they do also do some funding of external research projects.

Basically you're coming off like a fool on the subject.
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 01:09 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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017