Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5751  
Old 08-24-2015, 03:24 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
What are these studies you're referring to that show a different outcome? My understanding is that there are metastudies that show that having a gun in the house is a net negative ...
Net negative for the average gun-owner but, like the children of Lake Wobegon, all righteous white-skinned gun-owners are above average.

And, how did the study treat non-prosecutable homicides? Damuri Ajashi is on record(*) as effectively claiming that all non-prosecuted homicides by civilians are "beneficial."

(* - He may have rolled back this claim. I don't know, I got tired of reading the whiny dolt.)
  #5752  
Old 08-24-2015, 03:55 AM
bengangmo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 9,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
For example, they would never pay out for suicides, insurance companies never do.
Small nitpick -
my insurance company does pay out for suicide - after a two year wait period.
  #5753  
Old 08-24-2015, 11:32 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
And, how did the study treat non-prosecutable homicides? Damuri Ajashi is on record(*) as effectively claiming that all non-prosecuted homicides by civilians are "beneficial."

(* - He may have rolled back this claim. I don't know, I got tired of reading the whiny dolt.)
You are distorting what he said. He claimed "justifiable homicides" by gun-owning citizens as a benefit of private ownership of guns. Prosecution is kind of irrelevant: a "justifiable" homicide might in fact be prosecuted, and an "unjustifiable" (i.e., criminal) homicide might in fact not be prosecuted, due to issues with evidence or inability to find a suspect.

Where it falls down is in the definition of "justifiable". By Damuri Ajashi's standard, the killing of Trayvon Martin might have been justifiable. Insofar as Zimmerman was acquitted, the killing has legally been deemed not criminal, but whether one could call it genuinely justifiable remains a matter of debate (as to whether the situation was created by the killer when it could have been avoided).

If I catch you in my house, does my uncertainty automatically make your life forfeit? "Castle doctrine" seems to make that assertion, but is it a fair one? Where, exactly do we draw the "justifiable" line? Do more people need to die upon that line for us to figure out where it is?

One of the issues for the gun control people remains the fact that the gun itself is not a neutral party. Strict gundamentalists strongly deny this, but it seems pretty obvious to me that a gun at hand is certainly going to affect how a situation plays out. In the Zimmerman/Martin case, if the former had not had a gun in his pocket, how/if he would have confronted the latter would have been very different. I suspect most people do not consider that homicide to have been "justifiable" or even "beneficial", and if you take the gun out of the picture, a homicide would almost certainly not have happened (Zimmerman probably would not have approached Martin, or would have done so in a much less threatening manner).

So my claim is that guns tend to make people stupid, or at the very least, less careful. Perhaps even less polite. The counter-claim is that "No They Don't". I am not quite sure which side the evidence supports, or even which side ought to have the burden of proof. However, I do not believe that "No They Don't" is a sufficient refutation to my claim.
  #5754  
Old 08-28-2015, 01:04 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Let me rephrase the question: what makes you so certain that the studies you cite are credible, and the ones showing a different outcome are not?
What are these studies you're referring to that show a different outcome? My understanding is that there are metastudies that show that having a gun in the house is a net negative, and then there are other studies that don't actually address the question (like defensive gun use studies).
Crickets? Did I call your bluff or something?

Last edited by steronz; 08-28-2015 at 01:04 PM.
  #5755  
Old 08-28-2015, 01:19 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Crickets? Did I call your bluff or something?
Fer Chrissake, I didn't expect to have to do a research project just to post something. There have been enough cites in enough gun threads here that I thought that was uncontroversial.
  #5756  
Old 08-28-2015, 01:25 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Fer Chrissake, I didn't expect to have to do a research project just to post something. There have been enough cites in enough gun threads here that I thought that was uncontroversial.
Quite the opposite, really; study after study shows that homes with guns are less safe than homes without. That's the uncontroversial position. I thought maybe you knew something I didn't.
  #5757  
Old 08-28-2015, 03:30 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Quite the opposite, really; study after study shows that homes with guns are less safe than homes without. That's the uncontroversial position. I thought maybe you knew something I didn't.
You made 6 posts in a thread discussing the CDC report assessing the existing research on gun violence. From that report:
Quote:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive
gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by
criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to
more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about
300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the
other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only
108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization
Survey (Cook et al., 1997).

...

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous
or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding
crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual
defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the
crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have
found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims
compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck,
1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck,
2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary
across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the
crime, so further research is needed, both to explore these contingencies
and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury
for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a
gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—
may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun
ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by
those who invade the homes of gun owners this could cancel or outweigh
the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992,
1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to
this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important
question that it merits additional, careful exploration.
This is not to say one study is right or another is wrong - but that there clearly are conflicting studies and you participated in at least one thread discussing those. Did you forget participating in a thread that discussed some studies that Lumpy was referring to?
  #5758  
Old 08-29-2015, 10:09 AM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
This is not to say one study is right or another is wrong - but that there clearly are conflicting studies and you participated in at least one thread discussing those. Did you forget participating in a thread that discussed some studies that Lumpy was referring to?
Allow me to quote myself here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
What are these studies you're referring to that show a different outcome? My understanding is that there are metastudies that show that having a gun in the house is a net negative, and then there are other studies that don't actually address the question (like defensive gun use studies).
You've linked to a thread about a defensive gun use study and pointed out 6 posts where I say things like:

Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
I'm saying that DGUs don't really mean anything.
I think I did a fairly good job of explaining in that thread why I feel that studies that look at defensive gun use don't actually address the question, and when I challenged Lumpy I explicitly used DGU studies as an example of the sort of thing I don't find convincing. So no, I didn't forget participating in that thread. And I'm still waiting for Lumpy to tell me about these contradicting studies that show a net positive benefit to gun ownership.
  #5759  
Old 08-29-2015, 11:41 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
You've linked to a thread about a defensive gun use study and pointed out 6 posts where I say things like:
Actually no. The study is called "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence". It's 113 pages and is essentially a summary of much of the research that has been done across several areas relating to firearm violence. While it discusses DGU, it is not a defensive gun use study.

Quote:
I think I did a fairly good job of explaining in that thread why I feel that studies that look at defensive gun use don't actually address the question, and when I challenged Lumpy I explicitly used DGU studies as an example of the sort of thing I don't find convincing. So no, I didn't forget participating in that thread. And I'm still waiting for Lumpy to tell me about these contradicting studies that show a net positive benefit to gun ownership.
I agree you did a fairly good job of explaining your position in that thread. I find your position unpersuasive and weakly supported, but I understood your points. But look back at the sequence that led to your criticism. Hentor is made claims that abuot the available research pointing to various conclusions (5738) and further lamented that these great studies get handwaved away (5740). Lumpy then countered by asking what makes the studies that favor a certain position credible, and the contrary position not credible (5742). You then ask what studies are those (5749). But on top of your request, you are excluding any study of DGU.

First, your exclusion of DGU studies is moving the goal posts. That is not the framework under which Lumpy made his statement. Second, what exactly do you think the benefit of gun possession is, if not to be used defensively? A core right of the 2nd amendment is self defense - I would argue that liberty and self defense are the primary benefit, but you are asking for evidence of positive outcomes but excluding any evidence of positive outcomes? You've asked for evidence of something but excluded any mention of said evidence. Good luck with that!
  #5760  
Old 08-29-2015, 11:51 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,517
Thanks Bone, you said it better than I could.
  #5761  
Old 08-29-2015, 12:11 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Actually no ... While it discusses DGU, it is not a defensive gun use study.
Fair point; I should have characterized the thread as such, not the study itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I agree you did a fairly good job of explaining your position in that thread. I find your position unpersuasive and weakly supported, but I understood your points.
If nothing else, then, even if you disagree with me, that thread answers Lumpy's question about why I (in lieu of Hentor) disregard such studies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
First, your exclusion of DGU studies is moving the goal posts.
But here I have to disagree. Lumpy is the one who claims that there are studies that show a "positive [net] impact" of firearm ownership, his words not mine. Epidemiological studies like Kellerman's directly address the question of whether owning a firearm is a positive or negative net impact on one's life expectancy. Studies of defensive gun use do not directly address that question, and therefore cannot support his claim. You can disagree all you want but this is a basic fact. Lumpy set the goalposts, I merely threw out the DGU example to ensure that he adhered to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
you are asking for evidence of positive outcomes but excluding any evidence of positive outcomes? You've asked for evidence of something but excluded any mention of said evidence. Good luck with that!
Let's be perfectly clear, then. I'm not looking for evidence of positive outcomes, I'm looking for epidemiological evidence of a positive net benefit. That requires, at a bare minimum, subtracting all of the negative outcomes (including domestic violence, suicide, and accidental shootings) from all of the positive outcomes (defensive gun uses that can reasonably be said to have saved a life). Certainly both of those things exist -- accidents happen, and guns are used to save lives. But just as you wouldn't be satisfied with me linking to a study showing that guns greatly increase the chance of a "successful" suicide attempt as convincing evidence that gun ownership is bad, I likewise won't accept you linking to a study showing that guns are sometimes used to save lives as evidence that gun ownership is good.

Once again, Lumpy claims that there are studies that show a positive net benefit to gun ownership. His goalposts, not mine.

Last edited by steronz; 08-29-2015 at 12:12 PM.
  #5762  
Old 08-29-2015, 12:49 PM
Esox Lucius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,016
Defensive gun use would not be necessary if there weren't so many guns around. Flood the country with guns and people will necessarily have to start using them for defence.

A study that shows that defensive gun use exists is not an argument against gun control. It's the opposite. It indicates that guns are such a problem that people need to use them for defense. Reduce the number of guns overall and subsequent studies will undoubtedly show reduced cases of defensive use.

Thank you, Bone and Lumpy, for supporting the case for better gun control.
  #5763  
Old 08-29-2015, 12:49 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
But here I have to disagree. Lumpy is the one who claims that there are studies that show a "positive [net] impact" of firearm ownership, his words not mine. Epidemiological studies like Kellerman's directly address the question of whether owning a firearm is a positive or negative net impact on one's life expectancy. Studies of defensive gun use do not directly address that question, and therefore cannot support his claim. You can disagree all you want but this is a basic fact. Lumpy set the goalposts, I merely threw out the DGU example to ensure that he adhered to them.
No, Kellerman's studies do not address the question of whether owning a firearm is a positive or negative net impact on one's life expectancy. They mostly deal with firearms as an increased risk of suicide or homicide. There is no comparison to the positive impacts because Kellerman doesn't concede the positive impacts in his studies. They are not the focus of his studies. That's why I quoted the section from the Obama Administration report:
Quote:
Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury
for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a
gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—
may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun
ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by
those who invade the homes of gun owners this could cancel or outweigh
the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992,
1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to
this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important
question that it merits additional, careful exploration.
The goalpost moving is that you've stated that any study of DGU is to be disregarded. That condition was not set by Lumpy, hence the goalpost moving.

Quote:
Let's be perfectly clear, then. I'm not looking for evidence of positive outcomes, I'm looking for epidemiological evidence of a positive net benefit. That requires, at a bare minimum, subtracting all of the negative outcomes (including domestic violence, suicide, and accidental shootings) from all of the positive outcomes (defensive gun uses that can reasonably be said to have saved a life).
But here you take the same position you did in the other thread, that the only positive outcomes are those that can be said to have saved a life. Positive outcomes can exist even when a life is not saved. Injury can be avoided, property can be defended, crime can be prevented - all of these things are positive outcomes which you've dismissed.

We're not arguing the validity of any particular study right? Your main contention is the existence of any study that shows these positive outcomes. So if you take the most favorable study, say, 2.5M DGU per year arguendo, that is near 2 orders of magnitude greater than all firearm deaths. It is an order of magnitude greater than firearm deaths and injuries. If those are true, then I'd consider that a net positive. But if you won't accept anything on the benefit side of the comparison it's no doubt you draw the conclusions you have.

Quote:
Certainly both of those things exist -- accidents happen, and guns are used to save lives. But just as you wouldn't be satisfied with me linking to a study showing that guns greatly increase the chance of a "successful" suicide attempt as convincing evidence that gun ownership is bad, I likewise won't accept you linking to a study showing that guns are sometimes used to save lives as evidence that gun ownership is good.
Then we are at an impasse.
  #5764  
Old 08-29-2015, 12:56 PM
Bruce Wayne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 822
"Net benefit" is a bs reason to crusade against gun rights. Your counting on suicides to bolster your point. I strongly reject the notion of my liberties being limited due to the actions of the troubled or depressed.
  #5765  
Old 08-29-2015, 01:00 PM
Bruce Wayne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esox Lucius View Post
A study that shows that defensive gun use exists is not an argument against gun control. It's the opposite. It indicates that guns are such a problem that people need to use them for defense.
You only think DGU applies to defending yourself against someone with a gun?
  #5766  
Old 08-29-2015, 01:06 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne View Post
"Net benefit" is a bs reason to crusade against gun rights. Your counting on suicides to bolster your point. I strongly reject the notion of my liberties being limited due to the actions of the troubled or depressed.
And this is silly, because you assume I'm a crusader against gun rights. I'm a huge fan of gun rights, I think everyone should be allowed to own a handgun if they want, even for personal protection if they want. For most people, though, I just don't think the science supports their decision.

And this is entirely Hentor's point. When faced with the science, the response isn't, "Well that's interesting," it's to ignore it completely and change the subject to Freedom!
  #5767  
Old 08-29-2015, 01:11 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
We're not arguing the validity of any particular study right? Your main contention is the existence of any study that shows these positive outcomes.
Again, no. The existence of any study that shows a positive net benefit, not any positive outcome. As in, if I, a father of 3, were to go buy a gun and keep it in my house for personal protection, is that a smart thing to do backed up by science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
So if you take the most favorable study, say, 2.5M DGU per year arguendo, that is near 2 orders of magnitude greater than all firearm deaths. It is an order of magnitude greater than firearm deaths and injuries. If those are true, then I'd consider that a net positive.
Your consideration is simply wrong, and you don't understand science. That's pretty much what it comes down to.
  #5768  
Old 08-29-2015, 01:27 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esox Lucius View Post
Defensive gun use would not be necessary if there weren't so many guns around.
B.S. A 90-lb woman being threatened by a 200-lb man needs a gun. A person outnumbered 3-1 by attackers needs a gun.
  #5769  
Old 08-29-2015, 02:18 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
B.S. A 90-lb woman being threatened by a 200-lb man needs a gun. A person outnumbered 3-1 by attackers needs a gun.
That would make sense if there was a law that says the 90 lb. woman gets a gun but the 200 lb. man doesn't, or that when a person is outnumber 3 to 1, only the person that is outnumbered is legally entitled to be carrying a weapon.
  #5770  
Old 08-29-2015, 03:18 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
That would make sense if there was a law that says the 90 lb. woman gets a gun but the 200 lb. man doesn't, or that when a person is outnumber 3 to 1, only the person that is outnumbered is legally entitled to be carrying a weapon.
Yes, but guns still change the equation. To a first approximation, a bullet doesn't care how big you are; the 90-lb woman and the 200-lb man are now roughly equal. And even with a 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 advantage, the attackers now face a non-zero risk of injury or death, whereas before their numbers made them virtually omnipotent over and invulnerable against their victim. The old saying "predators prefer easy victims" applies here (Unless they're psychos willing to escalate to gunning down victims and looting the bodies, which would swiftly draw the most draconian of responses).

Despite our "gun culture", we in fact haven't yet seen enough people routinely carrying to bestow a herd-immunity deterrence. The closest examples are places where locally the level of legal carry is high, which apparently have dramatically lower crime rates than areas that try (and fail) to eliminate guns. I concede that if it were truly possible for there to be no guns at all (which it isn't) that would be a workable solution, at least to gun violence (see preceding paragraph). So, imho, would be a situation in which almost everyone routinely carried. Either extreme would work better than our current situation.
  #5771  
Old 08-29-2015, 09:49 PM
Dave Hartwick is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Yes, but guns still change the equation. To a first approximation, a bullet doesn't care how big you are; the 90-lb woman and the 200-lb man are now roughly equal. And even with a 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 advantage, the attackers now face a non-zero risk of injury or death, whereas before their numbers made them virtually omnipotent over and invulnerable against their victim. The old saying "predators prefer easy victims" applies here (Unless they're psychos willing to escalate to gunning down victims and looting the bodies, which would swiftly draw the most draconian of responses).
And, of course, having a gun makes predation easier for human predators, which is why lax gun laws in the US are matched with high homicide rates, when compared to other wealthy nations.

Quote:
Despite our "gun culture", we in fact haven't yet seen enough people routinely carrying to bestow a herd-immunity deterrence. The closest examples are places where locally the level of legal carry is high, which apparently have dramatically lower crime rates than areas that try (and fail) to eliminate guns. I concede that if it were truly possible for there to be no guns at all (which it isn't) that would be a workable solution, at least to gun violence (see preceding paragraph). So, imho, would be a situation in which almost everyone routinely carried. Either extreme would work better than our current situation.
Gun ownership rates correlate with gun death rates, which will comes as no surprise to people who have experienced reality for extended periods. Your modest proposal for everyone to carry a gun (including felons? schoolkids? prisoners? Fair's fair, after all) is nothing more than a prescription for an increased firearm homicide rate.

https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/tT3...p%20states.png

The majority of scientists who study firearm violence agree, of course, because of extensive reality study and experiences.

"I [David Hemenway, a professor with reality credentials from Harvard] also found widespread confidence that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%). Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%)."

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...423-story.html
  #5772  
Old 08-29-2015, 10:13 PM
Esox Lucius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Despite our "gun culture", we in fact haven't yet seen enough people routinely carrying to bestow a herd-immunity deterrence. The closest examples are places where locally the level of legal carry is high, which apparently have dramatically lower crime rates than areas that try (and fail) to eliminate guns. I concede that if it were truly possible for there to be no guns at all (which it isn't) that would be a workable solution, at least to gun violence (see preceding paragraph). So, imho, would be a situation in which almost everyone routinely carried. Either extreme would work better than our current situation.
I can understand how you, as a gun lover, would think a fully-armed populace would be awesome. What I don't get is how you so casually ignore those who would rather not have a gun. I assume that you, as a lover of freedom, respect their choice to forego guns (which puts them in the majority, by the way). Your hare-brained lunacy would require a majority of people to go against their will. Can you justify that?
  #5773  
Old 08-29-2015, 10:29 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esox Lucius View Post
I can understand how you, as a gun lover, would think a fully-armed populace would be awesome. What I don't get is how you so casually ignore those who would rather not have a gun. I assume that you, as a lover of freedom, respect their choice to forego guns (which puts them in the majority, by the way). Your hare-brained lunacy would require a majority of people to go against their will. Can you justify that?
If everyone possible is armed, do we develop a herd immunity to gun violence, or do we develop a herd immunity to protection from gun violence?
  #5774  
Old 08-29-2015, 10:46 PM
Esox Lucius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Yes, but guns still change the equation. To a first approximation, a bullet doesn't care how big you are...
There's no equation to change. If both people in a confrontation have guns, all that matters is who shoots first. "A bullet doesn't care how big you are", nor does it care who's right and who's wrong, yet you're treating guns like they convey some kind of moral authority.

Quote:
The old saying "predators prefer easy victims" applies here (Unless they're psychos willing to escalate to gunning down victims and looting the bodies, which would swiftly draw the most draconian of responses).
LOL Dead bodies really appreciate "the most draconian of responses" in their name. Go ahead, ask them.

Last edited by Esox Lucius; 08-29-2015 at 10:49 PM.
  #5775  
Old 08-29-2015, 11:10 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esox Lucius View Post
I can understand how you, as a gun lover, would think a fully-armed populace would be awesome. What I don't get is how you so casually ignore those who would rather not have a gun. I assume that you, as a lover of freedom, respect their choice to forego guns (which puts them in the majority, by the way). Your hare-brained lunacy would require a majority of people to go against their will. Can you justify that?
I think the premise is that if the bad guy is aware that two-thirds of the people he meets will be packing, the odds that he will choose an unarmed victim are not very good, hence all those "normal" people out there with guns will extend their statistical mantle of protection over the unarmed pussy weirdos just by changing the overall balance of things. You can get by going without because so many are carrying.

Or it might lead more of the bad guys to start carrying, and you might discover the true ultimate meaning of crossfire.

And, of course, with the odds such as they are, the bad guy might seek to improve his position by stealing a "normal" person's gun, which should be a pretty likely play. The problem with having a gun for self-defense is that you have to be able to use it: take a sap to the head and your sidearm becomes an instant liability.

Last edited by eschereal; 08-29-2015 at 11:10 PM.
  #5776  
Old 08-30-2015, 12:20 AM
Esox Lucius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If everyone possible is armed, do we develop a herd immunity to gun violence, or do we develop a herd immunity to protection from gun violence?
Good point. When everyone has guns, no one thinks of the possibility of not having guns. Kind of like these young scamps...
  #5777  
Old 08-30-2015, 10:49 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,517
So much snark to dig through...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hartwick View Post
And, of course, having a gun makes predation easier for human predators,
If 90%+ of all their victims are unarmed, yes. Which was the whole point I'm trying to address.
Quote:
Your modest proposal for everyone to carry a gun (including felons? schoolkids? prisoners? Fair's fair, after all)
No wise-ass, no one is proposing that people who aren't legally responsible or have forfeited their rights be allowed guns.
Quote:
because of extensive reality study and experiences.
Snark.
Quote:
"I [David Hemenway, a professor with reality credentials from Harvard]
More Snark.
Quote:
also found widespread confidence that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%). Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%)."
More lying with statistics. I'll bet that that study made no allowance for the prevalence of guns in the homes of criminals and gang members; and that it only counts "defensive" gun uses if someone actually drew and fired a gun, ignoring the number of times that displaying or simply possessing a gun deterred an assault.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esox Lucius View Post
I can understand how you, as a gun lover, would think a fully-armed populace would be awesome. What I don't get is how you so casually ignore those who would rather not have a gun. I assume that you, as a lover of freedom, respect their choice to forego guns (which puts them in the majority, by the way). Your hare-brained lunacy would require a majority of people to go against their will. Can you justify that?
No one's saying you have to do anything; just don't demand a veto power over what everyone else does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esox Lucius View Post
There's no equation to change. If both people in a confrontation have guns, all that matters is who shoots first. "A bullet doesn't care how big you are", nor does it care who's right and who's wrong, yet you're treating guns like they convey some kind of moral authority.
LOL Dead bodies really appreciate "the most draconian of responses" in their name. Go ahead, ask them.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, all the people inclined to shoot first already have guns; and that would only change if you could make it effectively impossible for people to obtain guns- good luck with that. And if there really were that many marauders out there who would commit murder if their victims didn't meekly submit, then yes there would be a "draconian response". Once upon a time we hanged people who murdered in the commission of an armed robbery. Now they get a plea deal for 25-to-life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
I think the premise is that if the bad guy is aware that two-thirds of the people he meets will be packing, the odds that he will choose an unarmed victim are not very good, hence all those "normal" people out there with guns will extend their statistical mantle of protection over the unarmed pussy weirdos just by changing the overall balance of things. You can get by going without because so many are carrying.
Thank you eschereal; even if you don't agree with me, you at least evince comprehension of what I'm saying.
Quote:
Or it might lead more of the bad guys to start carrying, and you might discover the true ultimate meaning of crossfire. And, of course, with the odds such as they are, the bad guy might seek to improve his position by stealing a "normal" person's gun, which should be a pretty likely play. The problem with having a gun for self-defense is that you have to be able to use it: take a sap to the head and your sidearm becomes an instant liability.
See my response above. I truly stand agog when people say that we must stay unarmed or the predators will just escalate. If we have that big a predator problem, we need to start culling.
  #5778  
Old 08-30-2015, 02:51 PM
Esox Lucius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
I think the premise is that if the bad guy is aware that two-thirds of the people he meets will be packing, the odds that he will choose an unarmed victim are not very good, hence all those "normal" people out there with guns will extend their statistical mantle of protection over the unarmed pussy weirdos just by changing the overall balance of things. You can get by going without because so many are carrying.

Or it might lead more of the bad guys to start carrying, and you might discover the true ultimate meaning of crossfire.

And, of course, with the odds such as they are, the bad guy might seek to improve his position by stealing a "normal" person's gun, which should be a pretty likely play. The problem with having a gun for self-defense is that you have to be able to use it: take a sap to the head and your sidearm becomes an instant liability.
Lumpy's vision is a fairy tale. Even with the amount of gun violence today, only a tiny fraction of the population is armed in public. For two-thirds of them to start carrying in the open, gun violence would have to be so bad that severe gun control would be necessary or society would collapse.

The arms race between criminals and the law-abiding public is unbalanced by its very nature and always will be. If there were no guns at all, criminals would use whatever weapons they could find to get the upper hand. If the public is armed, they'll get more guns and bigger guns, or ambush their victims instead of confronting them face-to-face. It's way too easy to nullify whatever defensive utility a gun has for the average citizen.

The idea that an armed society is a peaceful society is part of the myth that has grown around guns that, astoundingly, confers morality on them. In place of a mythical superhero, it's the gun that represents Courage and Justice and Patriotism. Gun owners are warriors in the battle for freedom (if anyone thinks that's hyperbole, those very words were shouted gloriously by an NRA executive at one of their conventions). The myth gives the dullard with a pretend military rifle the moral authority to disregard social standards and guard a recruiting center like he's defending the Alamo. Arming the public enforces justice because heathen bad guys are no match for the moral righteousness of a little handgun. No wonder they resist gun control so vehemently. In their minds, it's immoral.

Okay, sorry for the length. I got on a roll.

tldr: guns are God.
  #5779  
Old 08-30-2015, 04:58 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,517
I see no particular moral superiority in not being armed. At a minimum it's abrogating any personal responsibility for one's defense to a professional warrior caste; who, from the examples given in the Controversial Encounters thread, are hardly shining paladins. At worst it's squeamish fear or even smug pseudo-pacifism.

I have yet to hear of anyone who accepted any of the "Gun-Free Home" signs being offered for free.
  #5780  
Old 08-30-2015, 05:26 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,238
Lots of antis aren't against folks getting shot. They just want somebody else to do it. Calling the cops is just calling a hired gun. If you wouldn't pull the trigger over the situation, why are you so comfortable calling the cops knowing they may pull the trigger?
  #5781  
Old 08-30-2015, 06:29 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,975
I expected some sort of rebuttal to Esox's over-the-top post there, instead we get enthusiastic support. OK then.
  #5782  
Old 08-30-2015, 06:59 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Lots of antis aren't against folks getting shot. They just want somebody else to do it. Calling the cops is just calling a hired gun. If you wouldn't pull the trigger over the situation, why are you so comfortable calling the cops knowing they may pull the trigger?
Because they have more training, more experience with dealing with violent criminals, and most importantly, there will always be more of them than there are of any threat I can imagine. I am not interested in a fair gunfight with an intruder. I want overwhelming force.
  #5783  
Old 08-30-2015, 07:14 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,238
Yeah...all that AND you are comfortable with a cop killing or getting killed in your place over something you manifestly don't consider worth your own life.
  #5784  
Old 08-30-2015, 07:51 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Yeah...all that AND you are comfortable with a cop killing or getting killed in your place over something you manifestly don't consider worth your own life.
That's right. It's called civilization, where we pool our resources to hire and train a police force to keep the peace and apprehend criminals. Yes, I agree, they are paid guns, hired to risk their lives so I don't have to. I wouldn't have it any other way, including a fully armed populace with all the attendant carnage from accidents and intentional mayhem.
  #5785  
Old 08-30-2015, 08:07 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,238
Antis...their belief they hold the moral high ground gets more hilarious every day. So, the cop's life is basically worth less than yours because civilization. You really are an egregious piece of shit says this former LEO and son of an LEO.
  #5786  
Old 08-30-2015, 08:44 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,878
I pity you. So much fear and anger.
__________________
“If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let 'em go, because man, they're gone.” ~~Jack Handey
  #5787  
Old 08-30-2015, 08:48 PM
Esox Lucius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I see no particular moral superiority in not being armed. At a minimum it's abrogating any personal responsibility for one's defense to a professional warrior caste; who, from the examples given in the Controversial Encounters thread, are hardly shining paladins. At worst it's squeamish fear or even smug pseudo-pacifism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Lots of antis aren't against folks getting shot. They just want somebody else to do it. Calling the cops is just calling a hired gun. If you wouldn't pull the trigger over the situation, why are you so comfortable calling the cops knowing they may pull the trigger?
Ha, just like I said. You get a sense of moral superiority from guns. That's why you fight tooth and nail against gun control while thousands get slaughtered. You'd be lost without guns, wouldn't you?

And thanks for confirming my post, guys. I guess I owe you one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I have yet to hear of anyone who accepted any of the "Gun-Free Home" signs being offered for free.
Isn't that sweet? Gun owners rubbing their smug superiority in law-abiding citizens' faces. Is that how you warriors defend freedom? By ridiculing the freedom of others?

Last edited by Esox Lucius; 08-30-2015 at 08:51 PM.
  #5788  
Old 08-30-2015, 08:49 PM
Esox Lucius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Antis...their belief they hold the moral high ground gets more hilarious every day. So, the cop's life is basically worth less than yours because civilization. You really are an egregious piece of shit says this former LEO and son of an LEO.
You're the kind of cop they're trying to weed out of the system now. Lucky you, you got out before they kicked you out.
  #5789  
Old 08-31-2015, 09:13 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esox Lucius View Post
Isn't that sweet? Gun owners rubbing their smug superiority in law-abiding citizens' faces. Is that how you warriors defend freedom? By ridiculing the freedom of others?
If guns in homes are a bad thing, why would you want to hide that yours is gun-free?
  #5790  
Old 08-31-2015, 09:31 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
If guns in homes are a bad thing, why would you want to hide that yours is gun-free?
Would you be willing to put up a sign that read "GUNS STORED HERE", to let people know that you have firearms to steal when you aren't home?
  #5791  
Old 08-31-2015, 10:08 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Antis...their belief they hold the moral high ground gets more hilarious every day. So, the cop's life is basically worth less than yours because civilization. You really are an egregious piece of shit says this former LEO and son of an LEO.
Let me see if I got this straight. As an LEO, you prefer that the portion of civilians carrying guns increase. Do I understand correctly?
  #5792  
Old 08-31-2015, 11:43 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Would you be willing to put up a sign that read "GUNS STORED HERE", to let people know that you have firearms to steal when you aren't home?
I wouldn't mind a sign identifying my house as the home of a gun owner; although most of them are too aggressive for my taste.
  #5793  
Old 08-31-2015, 12:31 PM
Sitnam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
I pity you. So much fear and anger.
Right. In addition, all the effort it must take to maintain a warped world view to justify the trouble.

Gun fanatics are essentially Doomsday Prepper Lite.
  #5794  
Old 08-31-2015, 12:47 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Yeah...all that AND you are comfortable with a cop killing or getting killed in your place over something you manifestly don't consider worth your own life.
That's not what he said, but I recognize your motivation to claim so.
  #5795  
Old 08-31-2015, 12:54 PM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
If guns in homes are a bad thing, why would you want to hide that yours is gun-free?
Guns in homes end up harming the homeowner a good deal of the time. That's a big part of why I'd discourage it.

The sign just puts you out as a target. One doesn't have to like guns to not want to entice criminals. Would you hang a sign that says "I have jewelry and cash, but its in a safe so don't bother"? Better yet, since you support gun rights, would you list how many guns you have in your home on a sign outside? After all, you're not afraid right? If somebody comes to steal your guns, you'll just shoot them. So what are you afraid of? Don't you think it'll make you less of a target to taunt criminals?
  #5796  
Old 08-31-2015, 02:35 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
Guns in homes end up harming the homeowner a good deal of the time. That's a big part of why I'd discourage it.

The sign just puts you out as a target. One doesn't have to like guns to not want to entice criminals.
How? Declaring your house a gun-free home doesn't advertise valuables; I'd like to hear how a gun-free home is an enticement.
  #5797  
Old 08-31-2015, 03:41 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,975
Why does putting up a "gun free zone" sign at my house do for me? I don't give a shit if people know, but I don't know why I'd bother. I'm not really a bumper sticker kind of guy.
  #5798  
Old 08-31-2015, 07:06 PM
Esox Lucius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
If guns in homes are a bad thing, why would you want to hide that yours is gun-free?
That sign would be redundant for me. I have a "God-free home" sign to indicate I don't believe in God, Allah, Yahweh, Guns, or any other god.
  #5799  
Old 08-31-2015, 10:06 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
There was a little discussion of the literature on guns above, and steronz made an important distinction. On the one hand, lit from Kleck focuses on defensive gun uses. This comes from asking gun owners how many times they defended themseves with a gun. Not surprisingly, this method is fraught, and most dgus are actually illegal acts and/or are incidents started by the gun carrier himself. In these surveys as well, most of the incidents come from a small handful of reporters reporting unbelievably high numbers of dgus (e.g., in a survey in the link below, 3 individuals were responsible for 68% of all the dgus in the data.)

http://m.injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full

A newer study shows that those who report having used a gun in self defense end up with the same frequencies of outcomes as those who use another type of weapon (e.g., equal rates of physical injury, of having stuff stolen...).

http://www.armedwithreason.com/more-...tive-and-rare/

On the other side of the ledger are studies using actual data to address a somewhat different question. These studies show that you are more likely to die from homicide or from suicide if you have a gun in the house. A recent meta-analysis of 16 such studies confirmed this:

Anglemyer, A., Horvath, T., & Rutherford, G. (2014). The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of internal medicine, 160(2), 101-110.

There's simply no equivalence in the nature of the empirical literature. Having a gun in the home is like putting a huge pile of cinder blocks on a homemade wooden shelf over your front door. Sure, there's a chance it might fall on a "bad guy" and protect you, but it's more likely to fall on family or friends.
  #5800  
Old 09-01-2015, 12:00 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
... studies show that you are more likely to die from homicide or from suicide if you have a gun in the house. A recent meta-analysis of 16 such studies confirmed this: ...
Yes, but couldn't that be an argument in favor of gun ownership? After all, the guns did behave as intended. Don't we even one gun nut already on record that non-felonious gun deaths are always beneficial? (Yes, the gun owner's death from homicide may not be beneficial, but at least his family will be proud that he went down defending God's Second Amendndment.)

Surely reliability is a feature to incorporate into advertisements.
Smith and Wesson. 96% of suicide attempts made with our products are successful. Buy one now at Amazon.Com
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 09:14 AM.

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

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

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

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

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

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017