Who said the difference was a minor variation? Are you being deliberately obtuse? The point is that all the evidence is going one direction, the amount of DGU is substantial. I ask again, do you deny this?
Defensive gun use:
Yeah, the MF pulled out his piece and started ripping at me, so I pulled my piece and emptied it his way. The we both took off and I threw mine down the sewer in case the man got me. I need to get another so I can defend myself again next time.
This isn’t real.
I assume you use of the word “pinpoint” was in pursuit of a meaningful point, as if to say I was being picky. Perhaps if you were more careful about your inferences?
As to whether or not the use of DGU is “substantial”, you would need to first define the term. The numbers are all over the map, according to the studies you offer. You want to pick one as representing “substantial”?
Then the question would become whether or not that “substantial” fact is sufficient to overwhelm the inherent dangers of firearm possession. Merely proving that anyone, at any time, has used a firearm in self-defense clearly does not meet that bar, so we must agree on some point of reference.
I would like those questions answered, or at least approached in a standard scientific fashion, to the extent that is possible. May I take it that we agree on that? Because then, at least, we would have a better idea about what, precisely, we are arguing about.
Now, I admit to a prejudice. My prejudice is that those people who resist such a study have a motive. I tend to be suspicious of such motives. How about you? Can you offer me a good reason why such research should not be conducted? And, failing that, may I presume your whole-hearted and enthusiastic support?
That is what I am arguing, at this point. You are entirely free to argue any point you like, but unless you are addressing that question, you aren’t arguing with me. Now, I freely admit that my instinct is that the numbers for DGU are wildly exaggerated BUT I do not offer that as fact, given the paucity of contemporary information. I further suspect that research will bear that out, but I don’t offer than as fact either, for obvious reasons.
But isn’t it clear where the pressure to prevent such research is coming from? Or do you think it is the mighty, mighty gun-grabber Hitler lobby that is responsible? And do you share my suspicion of people who would prevent an inquiry into the facts?
If I were to hazard a guess, I would say resistance to government funded further study is an exercise of scarce resources and unlimited wants. Maybe it’s not cost effective? I’m not opposed or in favor of any additional study. Several were done privately and I suspect that if there was a desire further studies will be conducted, privately. If the CDC or whatever arm of the government wants to conduct further studies and can appropriate the funding for it, good for them, I don’t particularly care one way or the other.
It could also be that regardless of the outcome of the study, it will be attacked from either side, and the conclusions not relied upon. Either for methodology or for veracity, or in your case, timing.
I consider DGU substantial when it exceeds firearm related deaths. If you think the number should be higher before it’s considered substantial, then any complaint about firearm related deaths would again, be disingenuous. If the value on one side (deaths) is meaningful, then the value on the other side (DGU) must also be meaningful. And in this case, the scale tilt heavily in favor of DGU.
But why do you feel the need to preculde my ability to do so?
Your opinion versus facts.
On average, there are over 8000 home instrusions in America every day. lot of times, noone is home and a lot of times the burglar is not armed with a gun but home invasions occur fairly regularly.
The argument from the gun rights perspective is that the CDC is not impartial.
We already have studies from the DOJ and it is startign to look like youa re going to keep asking for more studies until you can get one taht supports you.
I have no problem with such a study but i can understand the mistrust considering the CDC’s history on studying gun violence.
How about teh constitution. Is that a good enough point of reference for you or are is there a big blank spot between first and third amendment in your copy of the constitution?
The inherent danges of firearm possession are no greater than the inherent dangers and societal ills of alcohol. We tried to ban it but it didn’t work out so well.
I think gun rights folks people would be OK with a study conducted by the NRA, the NRA should be wholly transparent in terms of methodology, data, analysis and conclusions. And, of course, they should be conducted by impartial investigators with all the professional accreditation we would expect from such a momentous investigation. Seems to me that the CDC, with its expertise in firearms is the ideal candidate.
I suspect you would wholeheartedly support such a study. After all there would be transparency and stuff.
The objection isn’t cost. Its impartiality. There are government studies out tehre but 'luc doesn’t like them because they are 20 years old (I guess soemthing changed in the last 20 years to make the study less valid).
The constitution? I have no problem with people in the national militia bearing arms. So we’re done right?
Well, it’s kind of sexist, and agist, so I think it’s too restrictive, but it’s fairly broad.
Yeah we’re done if you understand that EVERYONE is a member of the militia.
BtW, are you familiar with the Heller decision?
This will all go easier if you can keep track of who you are talking to and what their actual positions are. Let me try this one more time, hundredth time is the charm: I am not now, nor do I anticipate that I ever shall be in favor of a total ban on guns. Period. Full stop.
Come to think on it, I don’t recall who has. Or even if anybody has, though I suppose someone must have, at some point. Perhaps you should find out who that is, and address your remarks to him?
My understanding of the term “home invasion” is overt and armed invasion of the home, not a stealth burglary. We are treated to loud trumpetings of the phrase, as if it were directly the same as protecting your own life and that of your family.
And of course that is very very different, isn’t it? Certainly I am willing to kill as a last resort, to protect myself and mine own, of course. But kill someone for trying to steal money, or my TV? No way. If you wouldn’t kill someone to take their money, why would you kill to stop them from taking yours?
I note you put that in the third person. They think this. Are we to take it that you don’t agree with that assessment? Or, if you do, can you offer specific facts to support this accusation?
At least the DOJ merits your approval. Apparently they have demonstrated their clear impartiality and cogent analysis to your satisfaction.
I can’t. You can understand it, can you explain it? Convince me. Convince anybody who isn’t already convinced.
Cute. Needlessly insulting, but cute. Here’s a pat on the head and a cracker.
That’s not apples and oranges, that’s apples and orangutans! Besides which, for the one hunredth and one time, I’m not proposing a prohibition. You need to find that guy.Talk to him.
But since you brought it up, we regulate the living shit out of alcohol. Personally, I think many of the penalties for drunk driving are severe, harsh, and Draconian, and I heartily approve.
An aspersion cast without even the pretense of substance. A mere innuendo.
Quite a bit has changed in 20 years. For one thing, the clamor for gun control has made such a study more or less inevitable. The only real questions are when a study will be permitted by such people who find that prospect odious, and then the really worthwhile questions: how such a study can best be conducted.
I would hope and would insist that the methodology be discussed, criticized and corrected in advance of the study being done. Let all the voices be heard, but most especially the voice of statistical experts, and much less the voices of those with a dog in the fight.
What part of everyone being in the militia qualifies as “well-regulated”? Are the same children who can buy the lil’ shooter rifles also in the militia? Where is our training?
No. Can you summarize?
“Well regulated” in 17th century parlance meant “well functioning”. For instance, you’d regulate a clock to make sure it kept time accurately.
It certainly makes more sense than thinking it means there should be this people’s army that wouldn’t be at the government yoke like so many professional armies in the past which were used to infringe upon liberty, but that it should be subject to lots of regulations and tightly controlled by the government.
I’m sorry I should have said: Why do you feel the need to restrict my ability to do so?
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
OK so there are actually about 10,000 burglaries every day.
750 of those burglaries result in a member of your family becoming a victim of violent crime.
How do you tell which burglars are going to rape your wife? Do they wear signs?
How do you do that? With telekinesis? I’d rather use a gun.
I have homeowners insurance but I can’t tell that they are going to stop at just taking my stuff until they are headed out the door.
How would you feel if someone was stealing your livelihood (your jewels if you are a jeweller for example).
No I don’t mind research but I think a lot depends on how that research is presented. I think the CDC is biased against guns because banning guns would clearly reduce deaths but mostly as a result of a reduction in successful suicide attempts not a reduction of homocides. The CDC doesn’t distinguish between those two types of deaths as much as I would. But I wouldn’t mind seeing the research because if they are honest and study the effect of gun control on the homocide rate because I am confident it will show that the assault weapons ban had no perceptible impact on gun violence the last time and probably wouldn’t this time either.
My question is why the DOJ doesn’t merit YOUR approval?
I’ll go find the guy that is proposing a gun ban if you go and find the guy that is proposing no regulation of firearm. I have specifically proposed several regulation (The first on the board I think): national gun registry, national gun licensing standards, universal background checks.
Why can’t the DHS or the DOJ do the study?
I’ll take your word for it. How is the militia well-functioning? What training, or performance metrics do shooters have to meet? What types of mental and physical health screenings go on in the militia to make sure they’re competent to function in the militia? How do you tell a well functioning American militia form a non-well functioning militia?
Well, if you want to pick nits, it was frequently every able bodied male but it wasn’t supposed of be a standing army of volunteers. It was as compulsory as jury duty and paying taxes.
Also I don’t recall the use of the phrase “national militia” anywhere in the constitution.
Just read the header.
Before the Heller decision, one side of the debate said that the right to bear arms was a state right against the federal government and the other side said that there was an individual right to bear arms. Heller said that there was an individual right to bear arms. At no point did anyone take the position that the second amendment preserved the federal government’s right to maintain a “national militia”
Heller mostly read the militia clause out of the constitution (which is wrong IMHO).
People say this all the time, but I’ve never understood the argument. In fact, even in your own exposition, you suggest that a person regulates a clock, as in exerts control over the clock in order to make sure it keeps good time. Rather than, for example, not regulating it so that it falls out of sync with other measures of time and isn’t wound.
So that pretty much means having some oversight and control exerted by another entity, just like people commonly understand regulated to mean today.
Plus the second amendment.
And? So therefore? Meaning? Thus?
Go on…
Quite right, kill 'em all. Can’t be too careful. Besides, he’s a criminal, his life is worthless.
Flash him a picture of your mom? No, wait, that won’t work, it might be too dark. Nope, you got that one, clearly, everybody should keep lethal force on hand because a) you might need it and b) people generally make very smart decisions under stress, and having a lethal capacity will improve their cognitive functions. Yes, its perfectly clear that having lethal force promotes clear thinking and rational decision making.
Oh, so now you want to play Hypothetical Calvinball! I love hypotheticals, it frees us from any necessity for relevance! But wait, what if the burglar has the cure for cancer? True, not many molecular biologists burgle houses, but it could happen!
The reason the CDC comes to mind in these discussions is the fact that they were proposing to do meaningful research but were prevented from going ahead by political maneuvering. Could have been ACORN, but I’m willing to guess NRA.
I simply think the research is most likely to be conducted on an epidemological model, and they have considerable experience therein. Just like if I want research into the effect of minimum wage raises, my first thought is going to be the Dept. of Labor.
But it doesn’t matter that much under which letterhead the results are printed. What matters is that the methodology is thoroughly vetted, criticized and corrected before the research proceeds, and utter transparency is the rule. Experts in statistical research and analysis from the League of Women Voters will do nicely, given those ground conditions.
Born and raised in Waco, TX. True, but irrelevant. Twenty years is a long damn time. Maybe there is no substantial difference, maybe there is, but we won’t know until we look, right?
Difference being I never said otherwise, and you keep addressing me to rebut arguments I am not making.
No prob, Bob. Under the conditions outlined above, coolness. But the objection (apparently) was not that the liberal pinheads over at CDC were going to do the research, the objection was that anybody was going to. Somebody found that so objectionable, they sabotaged it. Of course, maybe it was ACORN. But more likely the NRA. You disagree, or you would simply prefer to change the subject to me and my own personal biases?
PS: Perusing the studies offered as absolute and irrefutable proof of whatever, I get the impression that most, if not all, of these studies are based on little more than the respondent testimony. My understanding is limited, but I am under the impression that such results based on that sort of research only tells you what people say happened, which may be at some variance with objective truth. Or, as Dr. Gregory House points out, everybody lies. Kind of thing that made a mess out of Kinsey’s research on sexual behavior, it went right down the rabbit hole. And 53% of rabbits liked it.