Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5151  
Old 07-16-2015, 10:06 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Why would it have rise to the level of an epidemic? How many deaths of innocent bystanders is acceptable to you?
Does it matter at all that people who have permits to carry guns are not just more law abiding than the average citizen, they are more law abiding than the average cop.
  #5152  
Old 07-16-2015, 10:09 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
So, bottom line: the evidence is clear and compelling (to rational people not engaged in motivated reading) that guns are a net harm. Salving your crippling fear is not worth increasing the risk to everyone else.
The evidence is not clear except to someone who is looking to reach the conclusion you want to reach.
  #5153  
Old 07-16-2015, 10:09 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
(2013)
Murder 91-0
Manslaughter 364-3
Robbery 1495-0
Place weapon prohibited 78-0
Prohibited weapon 113-0
Unlicensed carry weapon 1947-16
Unlicensed carry weapon alcohol premises 42-0
Deadly conduct(?) 887-16
Deadly conduct weapon discharge 204-1
Deadly weapon in penal institution 28-0
Raw numbers are meaningless. What are the per capita rates for permittees versus non-permittees?
  #5154  
Old 07-16-2015, 10:14 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
The evidence is not clear except to someone who is looking to reach the conclusion you want to reach.
uh huh. Like your reaction to the new study that Fear Itself linked to: 'I'm ignorant of the terminology and techniques of science, so I reject the conclusions.'

Shorter Dumuri: 'I will not respond til I get the talking points about handwaving away this study from the gun fuck community.'
  #5155  
Old 07-16-2015, 10:16 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
I'm no statistician, but that seems like a completely pointless way to produce numbers. Let's pick one, sexual assault of a child in 2013. 693 total convictions, only 20 of which were by CHL holders. They even put a percentage on there, 2.886%! Seems small, until you go elsewhere on the internet to find that CHL holders make up less then 2% of the Texas population. Oops.

In short, this cite is completely unconvincing.
Someone stated earlier that the overall crime rate is irrelevant because it was not gun specific enough. I would have thought that things like murder and assault with a deadly weapon would be the most relevant. The rate of those over seems to be well below the 2% rate you mention. And consistently so when you look at the various years.
  #5156  
Old 07-16-2015, 10:18 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Raw numbers are meaningless. What are the per capita rates for permittees versus non-permittees?
The chart includes the percentage. Anything less that 1.8% is below the CCW rate.

Why can't you just look at the chart? Just numbers. No spin. No distortions. No agenda.
  #5157  
Old 07-16-2015, 10:19 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Someone stated earlier that the overall crime rate is irrelevant because it was not gun specific enough. I would have thought that things like murder and assault with a deadly weapon would be the most relevant.
Deadly weapons include knives, bats and swimming pools. Irrelevant when determining the relative safety of carry permits.
Quote:
The rate of those over seems to be well below the 2% rate you mention.
Meaningless until they are indexed by per capita rates.
  #5158  
Old 07-16-2015, 10:21 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
(2013)
Murder 91-0
Manslaughter 364-3
Robbery 1495-0
Place weapon prohibited 78-0
Prohibited weapon 113-0
Unlicensed carry weapon 1947-16
Unlicensed carry weapon alcohol premises 42-0
Deadly conduct(?) 887-16
Deadly conduct weapon discharge 204-1
Deadly weapon in penal institution 28-0
Once again, I'm not a statistician, but it occurs to me that these are raw numbers, small samples sizes, and control for no factors. Furthermore, the fact that you just dropped them out there without even bothering to find % of Texans who have a CHL (1.8%) suggests that your intent might have been to mislead.

I'd bet that CHL holders tend to be at least middle class, and middle class people rarely commit robbery. Do you really think your raw numbers are compelling?

Last edited by steronz; 07-16-2015 at 10:25 AM.
  #5159  
Old 07-16-2015, 10:25 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Someone stated earlier that the overall crime rate is irrelevant because it was not gun specific enough. I would have thought that things like murder and assault with a deadly weapon would be the most relevant. The rate of those over seems to be well below the 2% rate you mention. And consistently so when you look at the various years.
I'll readily grant that it's possible that CHL holders commit fewer crimes than the population at large, but the same is probably true for Audi owners, or people with nice Moen faucets where the faucet head pulls out of the neck. Those things are great, and people with those in their kitchen probably aren't going around committing robberies. Does that mean the Moen faucets make people less likely to commit crimes?

In other words, raw numbers are meaningless, you need to control for other factors.
  #5160  
Old 07-16-2015, 10:27 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Once again, I'm not a statistician, but it occurs to me that these are raw numbers, small samples sizes, and control for no factors. Furthermore, the fact that you just dropped them out there without even bothering to find % of Texans who have a CHL (1.8%) suggests that your intent might have been mislead.

I'd bet that CHL holders tend to be at least middle class, and middle class people rarely commit robbery. Do you really think your raw numbers are compelling?
One of the arguments is that allowing CCW will increase crime rates and present a danger to the community because of all the guns out there.
So if the majority of CCW holders are middle class and unlikely to commit crimes, why the cries of "Danger, danger!"?

I don't favor unrestricted carry (or open carry for that matter). I do believe that a permit holder should demonstrate proficiency and have an understanding of when a weapon can or cannot be displayed or used.
  #5161  
Old 07-16-2015, 10:34 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
So if the majority of CCW holders are middle class and unlikely to commit crimes, why the cries of "Danger, danger!"?
It very well may prove true that middle class people with CHLs commit more crimes than middle class people without CHLs. I don't know if that's true and I don't think it is; I think the rates are probably about the same. But just because middle class people are unlikely to commit robbery doesn't mean it's a good idea for all middle class people to carry around a gun all the time. More guns = more gun crime, more gun accidents, more gun suicides. CHLs don't magically prevent any of that. (FTR and I hate having to say this all the time, but I think people should be allowed to own handguns and carry them concealed if that's what they really want to do. I also think it's generally a bad idea for people to exercise this right.)

Last edited by steronz; 07-16-2015 at 10:36 AM.
  #5162  
Old 07-16-2015, 10:42 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
In general, you seem like a gun fuck.

But let's see. Let's not restrict it to gun deaths, shall we. How do you propose reducing harmful gun incidents (injuries, deaths and non-injurious harm to others)?
Mandatory firearm safety instruction in public schools. Optionally taught through the NRA's Eddie Eagle program.
Quote:
While maturity levels vary, the Eddie Eagle program is intended for children of any age from pre-school through third grade. The NRA encourages parents and other adults to reach out to schools and inform them of the availability of the program.[1] The NRA provides all the classroom materials at no cost for schools who take advantage of the training.
This education should continue to be required through age appropriate channels through the end of secondary education as well.
  #5163  
Old 07-16-2015, 10:46 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Mandatory firearm safety instruction in public schools. Optionally taught through the NRA's Eddie Eagle program.


This education should continue to be required through age appropriate channels through the end of secondary education as well.
Except the Eddie Eagle program is not effective.

Quote:
neither the Eddie Eagle program, nor the behavior skills training program was successful at teaching students to respond properly when presented with a real-life scenario that involved finding a gun.
What else you got?
  #5164  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:01 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
More education of course. Eddie Eagle is but one avenue. Continue exploring training until a method that reliably works is developed.
  #5165  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:01 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Bone, your plan is obviously part of a political agenda independent from one aimed at gun safety. We don't even have mandatory gun safety training for gun owners. I wonder why that is not your focus, since it is clearly the relevant population. Can't you drop the political agenda for even a second?
  #5166  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:13 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Bone, your plan is obviously part of a political agenda independent from one aimed at gun safety. We don't even have mandatory gun safety training for gun owners. I wonder why that is not your focus, since it is clearly the relevant population. Can't you drop the political agenda for even a second?
Teaching kids about gun safety is independent of gun safety - that doesn't make sense, but okay. You asked specifically for a proposal to reduce harmful gun incidents. This is one. Do you have any you'd like to offer?

Taking one approach does not preclude other approaches, however it's much easier to require certain education for children in an environment designed to educate, rather than force adults to engage in activity. Children do grow up to become the relevant population - are you opposed to educating children about gun safety?

It's not a political agenda, though it does align nicely. I teach my children about gun safety. I'm not engaging in a political agenda when I do so.
  #5167  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:16 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
More education of course. Eddie Eagle is but one avenue. Continue exploring training until a method that reliably works is developed.
That study I linked to was done over 10 years ago. How many kids have been hurt or killed since then? Why does the NRA continue to pat its back over a program that it knows is ineffective? Doesn't that bother you?

Guess what! We don't need to wait, because we know of a method that reliably works. It's called, "Don't keep guns in the house if you have kids."

It boggles my mind. You can't claim to be in favor of gun safety if you eschew a method that's proven to work in favor of a method that's shown to be ineffective. At the end of the day, getting guns out of the houses containing children is flat out not an option for you folks, and Eddie Eagle is a feel-good program designed for PR and to help ignorant people sleep better.
  #5168  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:17 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
are you opposed to educating children about gun safety?
I'm opposed to programs that cost money but don't work, and you should be to.
  #5169  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:18 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Teaching kids about gun safety is independent of gun safety - that doesn't make sense, but okay. You asked specifically for a proposal to reduce harmful gun incidents. This is one. Do you have any you'd like to offer?

Taking one approach does not preclude other approaches, however it's much easier to require certain education for children in an environment designed to educate, rather than force adults to engage in activity. Children do grow up to become the relevant population - are you opposed to educating children about gun safety?

It's not a political agenda, though it does align nicely. I teach my children about gun safety. I'm not engaging in a political agenda when I do so.
A minority of Americans are gun owners (approximately 30%, give or take). Let's ensure that those people are trained in and can demonstrate gun safety before we try to market guns to kids. You're showing how unserious you are about doing something real.
  #5170  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:30 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
I'm opposed to programs that cost money but don't work, and you should be to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Continue exploring training until a method that reliably works is developed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
A minority of Americans are gun owners (approximately 30%, give or take). Let's ensure that those people are trained in and can demonstrate gun safety before we try to market guns to kids. You're showing how unserious you are about doing something real.
I didn't know that education was the same as marketing. Good luck with that abstinence! As for doing something real, I'll be buying my oldest his first rifle this year and we're gonna have a lot of fun while I teach him how to use it, seriously.

Last edited by Bone; 07-16-2015 at 11:31 AM.
  #5171  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:33 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,057
I have 3 kids, aged 4 through 8. Should I send them to the Eddie Eagle classes?
  #5172  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:45 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Why would it have rise to the level of an epidemic? How many deaths of innocent bystanders is acceptable to you?
The number that is less than the number of people who were not assaulted, robbed, raped or killed because a firearm proved a deterrent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
What skin is it off my nose? You mean what hole is it in my chest, don't you?
Is your estimation of the intelligence and responsibility of the average citizen really that low?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
For one, it is often literally skin off of other people's noses, or arms, or legs - there were 16,864 non-fatal unintentional firearms injuries in the US in 2013. People should be free to go to church or the store and not be injured because someone dropped their fear-reducing amulet on the floor.
How many of those were bystanders injured by someone carrying in public? As opposed to self-injury, hunting accidents, etc.? And, might I add, out of a population of over 300,000,000.

Quote:
This doesn't even include accidental shootings that do not involve injuries - where someone has a bullet go through their house or is fortunate to not be struck by an accidental discharge at Walmart.
Okay, then I feel justified in considering the unknowable number of incidents that never happened because of the deterrence value of guns.

Quote:
I think the more fundamental problem though is the ABSOLUTE OPPOSITION that gun fucks show towards doing anything to reduce the problems associated with gun carrying.
If you have a suggestion that doesn't involve forbidding people who've never done anything wrong from owning and carrying guns, I'm all ears.

Quote:
So, bottom line: the evidence is clear and compelling (to rational people not engaged in motivated reading) that guns are a net harm
I don't believe you've demonstrated that.
  #5173  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:45 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
I'll readily grant that it's possible that CHL holders commit fewer crimes than the population at large, but the same is probably true for Audi owners, or people with nice Moen faucets where the faucet head pulls out of the neck. Those things are great, and people with those in their kitchen probably aren't going around committing robberies. Does that mean the Moen faucets make people less likely to commit crimes?

In other words, raw numbers are meaningless, you need to control for other factors.
Why isn't it enough to know that people who have concealed carry permits are more law abiding than the general population (and more law abiding that the average police officer)?

What do you need to control for? So what if the average concealed carry holder is a pudgy white middle class suburbanite? Do we have to check and see if they are more or less law abiding than the average pudgy white middle class suburbanite?

To hear some on the gun control side talk, the concealed carry permit holders are bloodthirsty massacres just waiting to happen. This is obviously not true.
  #5174  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:47 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I didn't know that education was the same as marketing. Good luck with that abstinence! As for doing something real, I'll be buying my oldest his first rifle this year and we're gonna have a lot of fun while I teach him how to use it, seriously.
You seem to be equating gun safety with sex education. Most people will fuck at some point, and most people possess the requisite equipment.

Most people will never own a gun, and nobody is born with the requisite equipment. That analogy is moronic, which is not particularly surprising.

Glad you're purporting to teach your child gun safety. To be consistent with your proposal, though, you should round up all the neighbor kids and teach them gun safety, whether they want it or not.
  #5175  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:50 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Deadly weapons include knives, bats and swimming pools. Irrelevant when determining the relative safety of carry permits.Meaningless until they are indexed by per capita rates.
Why does it matter what weapon is used to commit assault? In what way would it be relevant if aggravated assaults committed by concealed carry permit holders were all committed with a gun while most of the aggravated assaults committed by non CHL holders were committed with chainsaws?

In what way is a swimming pool a deadly weapon? Are people drowning each other in swimming pools at some measurable rate? Or are you just being idiot?

And I was attempting to index per capita. If 2 out of every hundred Texans is a CHL holder but only .5 out of every murderer is a CHL holder, then why can't we say that CHL holders are less likely to be murderers than the general population?

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 07-16-2015 at 11:50 AM.
  #5176  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:56 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
It's amusing how damned concerned Dumuri was about proper controls when trying to handwave non-preferred results away, while looking at straight percentages that he does like he suddenly doesn't give a shit whether those two groups are otherwise equally at risk for the outcome of interest.

Last edited by Hentor the Barbarian; 07-16-2015 at 11:57 AM.
  #5177  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:57 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Why isn't it enough to know that people who have concealed carry permits are more law abiding than the general population (and more law abiding that the average police officer)?

...

To hear some on the gun control side talk, the concealed carry permit holders are bloodthirsty massacres just waiting to happen. This is obviously not true
It depends on what you're trying to do with this information. If all you're doing is defending yourself against people who are claiming that CHL holders are bloodthirsty massacre [perpetrators] just waiting to happen, then fine, valid point. Having a CHL doesn't make someone more likely to commit cold blooded murder or armed robbery or anything like that. People shouldn't resort to hyperbole, absolutely.

If you're pushing for more people to have CHLs and to carry handguns regularly in order to, say, stop bad guys with guns and make the world a safer place, like the NRA regularly does, then I think you need to show some net benefit to CHL holders, and I don't think the stats support that.

Quote:
What do you need to control for? So what if the average concealed carry holder is a pudgy white middle class suburbanite? Do we have to check and see if they are more or less law abiding than the average pudgy white middle class suburbanite?
On reflection, running coach's only claim was that CHL holders are more law abiding than the general population. I should have read more carefuly. While I don't think his cite did anything to prove his claim, I don't dispute it either. My bad.
  #5178  
Old 07-16-2015, 12:01 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
uh huh. Like your reaction to the new study that Fear Itself linked to: 'I'm ignorant of the terminology and techniques of science, so I reject the conclusions.'

Shorter Dumuri: 'I will not respond til I get the talking points about handwaving away this study from the gun fuck community.'
So you think this blurb about a study (that you haven't seen yet) proves what you want it to prove. Not surprising.

It is very obvious to anyone reading this thread that you resort to insults because the only thing you have left is insults. You can't prove what you know in your heart of hearts to be true (banning guns = teh win), you can't convince the courts or the legislature to agree with you and more people are starting to think that banning guns is stupid.
  #5179  
Old 07-16-2015, 12:14 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Glad you're purporting to teach your child gun safety. To be consistent with your proposal, though, you should round up all the neighbor kids and teach them gun safety, whether they want it or not.
Just to be clear, are you opposed to teaching kids about gun safety? Do you have any proposals to reduce harmful gun incidents?
  #5180  
Old 07-16-2015, 12:22 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Just to be clear, are you opposed to teaching kids about gun safety? Do you have any proposals to reduce harmful gun incidents?
I oppose your plan of universal school based gun safety training. I endorse mandatory gun safety training and competency testing, with compulsory retesting requirements, for all gun owners (and users).
  #5181  
Old 07-16-2015, 12:25 PM
Bruce Wayne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Most people will never own a gun, and nobody is born with the requisite equipment. That analogy is moronic, which is not particularly surprising.
There are plenty of firearms in this country, in some regions it might all be assured a child will see his dad's hunting rifle or handgun at some point. I know I did. Schools have fire and tornado drills, teach kids not to touch downed power lines, how to tell if a dog is dangerous, etc. I don't think most kids will experience these dangers first hand, but society deems safety coverage prudent. But if we were to teach children the dangers of playing with dad's firearms, it suddenly becomes "marketing"? Guns are like Voldemort now, and shall not be named? Your the one injecting the political agenda.
  #5182  
Old 07-16-2015, 12:29 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne View Post
But if we were to teach children the dangers of playing with dad's firearms, it suddenly becomes "marketing"?
I can just imagine the outrage if schools started teaching kids that guns are dangerous.
  #5183  
Old 07-16-2015, 12:30 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So you think this blurb about a study (that you haven't seen yet) proves what you want it to prove. Not surprising.

It is very obvious to anyone reading this thread that you resort to insults because the only thing you have left is insults. You can't prove what you know in your heart of hearts to be true (banning guns = teh win), you can't convince the courts or the legislature to agree with you and more people are starting to think that banning guns is stupid.
Haven't seen it? There's a link to the article right there in the story, dumbass. See, I insult you because you do stupid shit like this. I insult you because efforts at reason have no effect on you. You are scared into gun nuttery; you cannot be reasoned out of it.
  #5184  
Old 07-16-2015, 12:33 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne View Post
There are plenty of firearms in this country, in some regions it might all be assured a child will see his dad's hunting rifle or handgun at some point. I know I did. Schools have fire and tornado drills, teach kids not to touch downed power lines, how to tell if a dog is dangerous, etc. I don't think most kids will experience these dangers first hand, but society deems safety coverage prudent. But if we were to teach children the dangers of playing with dad's firearms, it suddenly becomes "marketing"? Guns are like Voldemort now, and shall not be named? Your the one injecting the political agenda.
No, guns are things that most people wi never have a use for. But I'll go along with your proposition : I would strongly endorse a mandatory training program for all kids living in a household with a gun. Do you?
  #5185  
Old 07-16-2015, 01:23 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
It's amusing how damned concerned Dumuri was about proper controls when trying to handwave non-preferred results away, while looking at straight percentages that he does like he suddenly doesn't give a shit whether those two groups are otherwise equally at risk for the outcome of interest.
When you are answering the question of whether the population of CHL holders is more law abiding than the general population, why would you control so that you are no longer comparing CHL holders to the general population but to a subset of the population?
  #5186  
Old 07-16-2015, 01:33 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
When you are answering the question of whether the population of CHL holders is more law abiding than the general population...
That is not the question.
  #5187  
Old 07-16-2015, 01:39 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
When you are answering the question of whether the population of CHL holders is more law abiding than the general population, why would you control so that you are no longer comparing CHL holders to the general population but to a subset of the population?
Because the implication is that it has something to do with CHL licensure, when that may be completely irrelevant or even may mask the opposing effect. That's why any research controls for potential third variables. This is another example of you saying something really dumb.

For example, pretend that living in socioeconomic disadvantage causes increased criminality. Now pretend that the segment of people getting CHL lives in disproportionately advataged circumstances. That may very well make it look like they are less disposed to criminality.

However, it could very well be that people who get CHLs are in fact more disposed to criminality that people who live in the same SES circumstances but who don't get CHL. It's very possible that getting a CHL is an actual marker for risk that is outweighed by the effects of ses.

See, I have to explain fundamentals like this to you, but I guarantee that you will turn around and say again in the future that I have nothing but insults. This will again be a lie, but you will do it nevertheless because you are too stupid to retain this knowledge.
  #5188  
Old 07-16-2015, 02:14 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
A gun fuck is someone who proclaims to be interested in reducing gun injuries, but who, when asked how they propose reducing gun injuries, focuses instead on defining what a gun fuck is.
You never asked me what I propose to reduce gun injuries.

Further, are you open to a proposal that does not include total elimination of guns from the law abiding citizens?
  #5189  
Old 07-16-2015, 02:28 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
You never asked me what I propose to reduce gun injuries.
See post 5143, to which you responded. jesus, these people are fucking lampposts.
Quote:
Further, are you open to a proposal that does not include total elimination of guns from the law abiding citizens?
Yes.
  #5190  
Old 07-16-2015, 02:50 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Further, are you open to a proposal that does not include total elimination of guns from the law abiding citizens?
Every time we propose modest regulation of guns, all the gun nuts start yammering about the slippery slope, and how it is just the first step to confiscation.

You aren't one of those, are you?
  #5191  
Old 07-16-2015, 03:23 PM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
You never asked me what I propose to reduce gun injuries.
What do you propose to reduce gun injuries? And is it realistic?

Quote:
Further, are you open to a proposal that does not include total elimination of guns from the law abiding citizens?
Further, do you think such a thing is even possible?
  #5192  
Old 07-16-2015, 04:24 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
What do you propose to reduce gun injuries? And is it realistic?

Further, do you think such a thing is even possible?

Oh - now you think we have a dialogue, when you want your questions answered?

I'm willing to answer your questions but we don't have a dialogue established yet. Remember, it goes both ways.
  #5193  
Old 07-16-2015, 04:40 PM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
So that would be No, to each.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 07-16-2015 at 04:40 PM.
  #5194  
Old 07-16-2015, 05:39 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,904
When you assume...
  #5195  
Old 07-16-2015, 09:50 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
When you assume...
You seem pretty bad at responding to inquiries yourself.
  #5196  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:48 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Every time we propose modest regulation of guns, all the gun nuts start yammering about the slippery slope, and how it is just the first step to confiscation.

You aren't one of those, are you?
It cannot be about a slippery slope, on either side. It does have to be about compromise on both sides. So, no, I'm not one of those who claim or act as if it's a slippery slope.
  #5197  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:52 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
You seem pretty bad at responding to inquiries yourself.
I don't live here. I live more over on Thread Games. Just ask Elvis. Sometimes it's been a few hours, if not longer, since I've checked this thread and I see many new back-and-forths and I don't read them all. But if you have something to ask, please, fire away. In the meantime I'll skim over the thread, looking for questions...

Last edited by Bullitt; 07-16-2015 at 11:53 PM.
  #5198  
Old 07-16-2015, 11:57 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
See post 5143, to which you responded. jesus, these people are fucking lampposts.
Yeah, Elvis asked me questions but he'd ignored my earlier inquiries. That's when I told him there wasn't a dialogue, not yet. Why should I answer his questions when he never answered mine, and I was the first of either of us to ask.
  #5199  
Old 07-17-2015, 12:14 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
How do you propose reducing harmful gun incidents (injuries, deaths and non-injurious harm to others)?

Start with training. Lots of it.

I didn't grow up around guns. The first guns I shot were in boot camp. While I was in the Marine Corps I never owned a firearm. When I retired I didn't own one. It wasn't until 10 years after retiring that I bought my gun, a handgun.

When I was in the Marines one of my side jobs, not my main USMC job, was taking my unit through the rufle and pistol qual range, and teach marksmanship and gun safety.

When you're a Marine your gun never leaves your side. You eat with it, sleep with it, shit with it. It is DRILLED into you that your weapon never leaves your side. I see how sloppy with keeping track of where their gun(s) is (are).

Weapon accountability is one starting point. Too many people aren't aware of where their gun is, at all times.
  #5200  
Old 07-17-2015, 05:40 AM
Double Foolscap is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 1,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Start with training. Lots of it.

I didn't grow up around guns. The first guns I shot were in boot camp. While I was in the Marine Corps I never owned a firearm. When I retired I didn't own one. It wasn't until 10 years after retiring that I bought my gun, a handgun.

When I was in the Marines one of my side jobs, not my main USMC job, was taking my unit through the rufle and pistol qual range, and teach marksmanship and gun safety.

When you're a Marine your gun never leaves your side. You eat with it, sleep with it, shit with it. It is DRILLED into you that your weapon never leaves your side. I see how sloppy with keeping track of where their gun(s) is (are).

Weapon accountability is one starting point. Too many people aren't aware of where their gun is, at all times.
Surely it was your rifle not your gun? Unless this is just an extended penis metaphor?

(Just busting your balls on the "this is my rifle / this is my gun" chant, if that wasn't obvious )
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 10:28 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