The Hemenway cite (from the misleading wiki paraphrase) that Dumari Ajashi linked to earlier suggested that in home invasions, the perpetrator takes the victims weapon twice as often as there is a defensive gun use.
I guess Dumuri Ajashi must believe that, since he endorsed the link.
The 2nd Amendment relates to State militias that would fight enemies “foreign and domestic”. If the Federal Government gets out of hand, I don’t think the National Guard will rise up against it. The People are all the citizens, not just the ones that join a Government military unit. You may pretend otherwise, as it suits your agenda. (Note my quote by Noah Webster upthread).
How would you disprove:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state …”?
Is your point that a poorly regulated militia would do as well? Or, that a State will certainly be secure without any militia? How are either disproven empirically?
Not that I’m doubting you, but…cite?
Do you think Roe v. Wade was judicial activism too?
Well I suppose its actually a quote of an article that paraphrases Hemenway. So? Does that change anything? Or are you reverting back to your pettifoggery to try and score a few points in an otherwise untenable position?
In what way do I lie? Doesn’t the Dept of justice conduct a study twice every year that shows (among many many other things) that there are about 100,000 defensive gun uses every year? is there a more reliable source for this sort of information?
So maybe I’ve got it wrong, how many defensive gun uses does Hemenway think occurs every year? How many defensive gun uses do YOU think occur every year?
Or are you going to your falback position and say that it is actually impossible to know for certain and that guys with guns are just compensating for small penises?
You seem to be able to accept high levels of uncertainty surrounding data that shows guns in a bad light while discounting all the best data we have about defensive gun use because there is too much uncertainty.
Hemenway routinely puts out poor scholarship on guns and useful idiots like you repeat those articles.
This is the article that was cited by wiki:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
First, I don’t think using a cite means you agree with everything in that cite. Espcially if you are citing an expert from the other side of the argument.
Second I don’t think the article says that. OR are you saying that because I cited one of the nation’s premier gun grabbers that I must agree with everything the nation’s permier gun grabber has to say?:dubious:
Dumuri, it is very simple. You keep saying that Hemenway says there are 100,000 DGU.
Cite him actually saying that he believes there are 100,000 DGU or stop claiming he does.
Since we have been down this road repeatedly, you are at this point just lying when you make claims about Hemenway, you stupid lying fuck.
Learned helplessness is definitely the concept.
A friend of mine assists in teaching 7-8 year olds self defense. That wouldn’t happen if your claim was true.
Learned helplessness.
Oh I think I could defend myself fine against 4-5 guys. So can you. The strategy is called, “Shout and run.” You are conceiving of self defense as a mano to mano thunderdome matchup. That’s not the reality.
Learned helplessness.
We’ve discussed crackpot theories involving middle aged fat guys with popguns and their ability to take on an organized military in the past. It’s fantasy and I don’t need to engage here.
There are dozens examples of free states that exist without well regulated private militias. You are so deep into the nutbaggery that you can’t see that.
The Warren Court didn’t practice judicial activism IMHO, though they were the ones that prompted conservatives to coin the term. I am firmly pro-Choice but as it happens I think Roe v. Wade was ill conceived. If the supremes had waited until 2/3 of the states had legalized abortion before making their move, this divisive issue might very well have not become the source of so much drama. It’s for these reasons that the court has been circumspect on the subject of SSM – circumspect with regards to timing. Scalia doesn’t like this at all and he’s fully aware of how the game is played - in fact he can be pretty explicit. Heller was a sort of conservative payback along these lines: it occurred after the Democrats consciously decided to back off on the gun issue.
Hey, that’s politics. As I said upthread, I accept Heller and I’m looking to technological and private sector solutions to the gun nuttery problem.
Palm Readers can make a good living, it doesn’t make their services true.
Oh the irony! The shoot and run method you see in the movies isn’t a reality either.
As noted upthread, I haven’t been able to locate any solid data on the subject. The techniques look credible to me, but that’s not science. But neither is your implicit claim regarding gun fetishism.
Shout. Not shoot. You want to call attention to yourself if your are in a crowded area. If it’s you and a mugger with a gun in an alleyway obviously the situation is different.
Here’s my advice if you are surrounded by 4-5 hostiles. Flee. Leave the bar. Don’t be a nightclub psychopath with a gun.
I’m kind of ticked off at the gun shop owner for not selling the damn thing just because of the people threatening him. Screw those bastards.
As am I in this new thread in IMHO. If anyone has any ideas that don’t involve limiting the 2nd Amendment as it is currently interpreted by the SCOTUS, please stop by and post them.
I don’t think you’re a stupid lying fuck because you disagree with me but I think its pretty clear that you are an asshole for how you disagree with me. Inuslts are pretty much the alpha and omega of your arguments (that and nitpicking pettifoggery). There is a reason you don’t post in great debates gun threads, you can’t make an argument without calling people baby killer or questioning their penis size.
Here is the post you are replying to: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17367218&postcount=342
Where in that post do I say that Hemenway says there are 100,000 defensive gun uses every year? Or are you referring to some other post I made somewhere else?
So if Hemenway doesn’t think there are 100,000 defensive gun uses every year, then how many does he think there are? If he doesn’t find the Department of justice study credible, then why does he use it in his studies? Is the Department of Justice only credible when it helps him reach the conclusions he wants to reach? Whether you like it or not, Hemenway uses the NCVS in his studies (which includes that 100,000 dgu/year number) and while he whittles the dgu numbers down a bit, it is still in the same neighborhood.
How many dgu do YOU think there are? Or do you think they don’t exist?
Self defense training for a 7 or 8 year old is useless against an adult male. It is useful for confidence, discipline and exercise but the best 8 year old martial artist does not have much of a chance against an adult male. I would say that any pre-pubescent child doesn’t stand much of a chance against an adult male.
Do you have a family? can you outrun all those guys with your kids in tow? Sometiems running and shouting just isn’t a viable option.
Heller was payback for Roe v Wade?!!??!?
There has always been a question whether the second amendment right applied to individuals. There wasn’t always a question about whether abortions were a constitutional right.
Here is the post you are replying to: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17367218&postcount=342
Where in that post do I say that Hemenway says there are 100,000 defensive gun uses every year? Or are you referring to some other post I made somewhere else?
[quote]
You said it was a quote of Hemenway. It is not. That’s false. If you say false things, pointing out that you are lying is not pettifoggery. I don’t think you know what pettifoggery means.
If you bring in Hemenway into a debate, just so that you can say “See, even a gun grabber thinks there are 100,000 dgu’s!” it is not pettifoggery to demand that you actually cite evidence for your claims.
When you repeatedly say that Hemenway makes a claim, and are repeatedly asked to cite him, and repeatedly fail to do so, and repeatedly then go on to make the claim, you are a lying sack of dicks.
Perhaps insults are the alpha and the omega of my arguments, but you always ignore all the data and citations that make up the beta to psi of my arguments. I think it’s because you cannot understand them, you stupid fuck.
It doesn’t matter. Cite him or stop making false claims about what he believes. Very simple - even someone as fucking stupid as you should get that it is wrong to claim that someone said something he never said.
Here’s the beta to psi that shoots right over your flat forehead. I’ve provided you with three or four cites to Hemenway’s discussion of the problems of survey data. I’ve done this probably about five times. You still, at this point in time, have no idea what Hemenway thinks about the strengths and weaknesses of these data.
The Department of Justice? What do you mean, DOJ? You still have no idea how research is done, do you? Goddamn, this is a waste of time. You’re a fucking moron.
Really? He whittles it down? To what? QUOTE HIM or stop claiming that he says or does anything. FUCK. Once more, it’s a simple rule that most of the SDMB understands - CITE what you claim, or stop fucking claiming it.
I don’t think you know what relevant means. You lie in wait to bicker over trifling irrelevant inaccuracies to try and undermine credibility. Thats pettifoggery.
What argument are you trying to make other than point out that I said something was a quote of Hemenway rather than a paraphrase (by someone sympathetic to Hemenway’s point of view) of what Hemenway said. In what way does that change the substantive issues in the debate?
I might as well harp that you are lying when you say that I “keep saying that Hemenway says there are 100,000 DGU” but then people would think I was as stupid as you.
I think that hemenway thinks there are 100,000 DGU. He is constantly referring to the NCVS in his writing. Or do you think he just use the NCVS because it produces the lowest estaimates of any study?
So you ignore the Dept. of Justice produced NCVS (which requires someone to answer 19 internally consistent questions before being counted as a DGU) and I’m the one thats ignoring data? Pffft. What sort of “data” have you ever produced?
Where does Hemenway apply the problem of surveys used to measure rare events to the NCVS? Doesn’t his critique of Kleck’s work comapre NCVS favorably to Kleck at the same time he criticizes Kleck’s study for what youa re talking about?
Hemenway is trying to maintain deniability by never explicitly saying he thinks the government produced numbers are accurate, because even 100,000 DGU makes all your handwringing over accidental gun deaths seem Jenny McCarthy level retarded. He wants to use the NCVS numbers to cast doubt on larger estimates (like Kleck) and at the same time he doesn’t want to admit there are even as many DGU as the NCVS indicates.
So I just use the same numbers he uses (the smallest estimate out there) and as we can see from the articles by other gun grabbers, the impression is that Hemenway believes the NCVS.
These surveys are the best information we have. You are starting to sound like the Republicans who kept claiming that the 2012 presidential election polling was wrong because of some reason or another.
Why use so many words when this is basically your entire argument? There is a reason you can never engage in gun threads in great debates. In fact the only gun threads that exist for very long are the ones in the pit because the ones in great debates are so one sided.
So what do you think the incidence of DGU is? Or do you think the number is incapable of being determined with any sort of reliability?
Same here. I’m just saying the story sounds like a little one in a million – little girl holds off attacker! It’s the twelve-year-old part, mostly.
MY point is mostly that the guns themselves don’t sound very reliable, or practical.
cite, bitch!
You want a cite for what I think? Seriously? If you are going to insist on cites for my opinions then I don’t really know what that anything is ever going to convince you of anything.
I can tell you why I think that Hemenway thinks there are 100,000 DGU if you like (although I thought the previous post was pretty clear on that topic) but you seem to be ignoring the rest of my post.
So how many DGU do you think Hemenway thinks there are? How many do YOU think there are?
First of all, things that are “Negligible” or “Statistically insignificant” don’t make it into top 10 lists. It’s this sort thinking that makes me highly dubious about the claims of gun advocates. Secondly, it appears that accidental shootings are ranked 5 or 6. I wish I could find out what numbers 7-10 are for context.
That’s in a relative sense. I worked up some rough figures for absolute risks: those aren’t tiny either. Say we have 120 deaths per year. Multiply that by 14 to get an idea of lifetime risk for an accidental shooting during the ages of 1-14. For the purpose of argument I’ll set 15-18 deaths at zero. Then divide by the number of kids in that age bracket that are in a household with a gun. Yes, yes, some kids get shot at their friend’s house. We’re discussing rough numbers.
120*14 = 1680 deaths in a generation.
There are 72 million kids between the ages of 0 and 18. I’m gaming the number high because that will tend to favor the gun enthusiast side. Multiply that by the 47% of households with a gun and you get a generational base of 35 million.
35 million / 1680 deaths per generation = 20,800: 1. So a small city of 100,000 will have about 5 families affected by an accidental shooting… for a single generation. I’m not including those who had someone shot over 14 years ago. And I’m not even addressing injuries. That strikes me as something which should be addressed and not poo-pooed. It’s not drownings to be sure. It’s not motor vehicle accidents which are huge. But it’s not like those risks are poo-pooed either: we have lifeguards, mandatory fencing, seat belts and air bags for example.
Cougars kill about 1 person per decade. The denominator there is not a single age group, but rather whole populations. I would call that a small number, though of course not to friends and family of the victims.
No, I disagree actually. During the 1880s D.B. Wesson of Smith and Wesson asked his team to develop a childproof gun after he learned of a kid getting hurt during an accident. They invented the grip safety, intended to discourage those under 8. Smith & Wesson stopped developing such technology many years ago. There are a number of patents devoted to gun personalization, but they haven’t exactly taken the gun world on by storm. I perceive indifference at best, hostility at worst. I assume it’s driven by NRA propaganda and the distorted thinking of its membership: in most normal contexts nothing on a top 10 list is considered “Small”, never mind “insignificant”. And accidental shootings are squarely in the middle.
Cite?
I disagree, but I can’t cite either. I suspect though that you are imagining a cage match, while I have in mind something more like, “I have called the police. They are on their way. I have this bat in hand. Leave. Now.” There are also more physical self defense techniques that diminutive 12 years can use (I’ve trained with some) but honestly they aren’t on the top of my list. I’m not too fond of fighting.
You know, I’m glad you said that. Sometimes one strategy won’t work - so you try another. I’m actually pretty skeptical about any single self defense technique. But there are lots of them: I haven’t even mentioned the possibility of keeping mace in the home.
What I was addressing was the gun fetishistic claim, that there is no way a 12 year old would stand a chance against an adult intruder. That strikes me as learned helplessness, and a poor way of protecting one’s loved ones.
Conservatives believe that judicial activism was rampant in the Warren Court. That’s their coded attack on Brown v Board of Ed et al. Scalia displayed quite a bit of activism in Bush v Gore and in Heller. The man possesses no meaningful tendency towards judicial restraint.
I don’t think any of these claims are exceptional.
Well, not anymore.
The thought experiment basically assumes every household in the city owns a gun and that each contains at least one child. It ignores shootings before 2000. It’s a thought experiment.
Cite?
How you construe this to mean that people take joy in the suffering of others is more revealing about you than anything else. There are many many reasons against the use of this technology. Taking joy in the suffering of others is not one of them.