Yep, like my favorite jewboy says, gotta be careful where you cast them pearls…
Did you translate this sentence into Japanese and back by way of Babelfish? Because, you know, don’t you, that it makes no sense? How can the “probability of being killed” be “far out of proportion to the actual danger”?
You’re welcome to try now, got the sand for it.
Well, back to the show.
It showed how easy it is to exchange cash for guns.
Would anyone entertain the idea that all transfers are done through a FFL dealer?
As a compromise we could have the fees paid by Hangun Control Inc.
According to wikipedia:
Seems more likely, on balance, that the guy had dropped his gun (which in any case had run out of ammo) and been rushed before the two cop/students showed up. That’s what the other witnesses saw anyway.
So this story doesn’t support your position. It’s not a case of defensive gun use and the media weren’t biased - they just reported the most likely scenario based on witness and other evidence.
No, I wrote it from my iPod. Still, seems clear enough to me. Let me translate…the danger of crashing in an airplane is slight…if you crash in one though you will probably be killed. The danger of dieing from Ebola is slight…but if you catch it, you will probably die. The danger (as portrayed by the anti-gun crowd, yourself included) of being killed by a gun is minor…but if you are shot by one it would really suck to be you.
IOW, the probable danger of a gun, especially of being killed by an accidental discharge is being vastly overblown by the folks who live in fear of guns and want them banned. Like fire, there IS danger from a gun…as there is from driving your car, climbing a ladder to paint in your house, eating a cheese burger, breathing, etc etc…but when looked at rationally, the over all danger is minor.
That make any more sense to you? My guess is that this is still Japanese to you…
-XT
No, although the payment suggestion is not bad.
Part of the message of the show was that even well trained ,well practiced shooters would not do well in a crisis. Even though gun lovers think they would all do well, the experts they used shot inaccurately and panicked. They came close to shooting bystanders. They did not hit the perps.
The police agreed that home shooters were dangerous. They were worried about the untrained shooters in an incident.
You didn’t watch the show, did you? The only ‘trained’ person was the shooter…and he was an expert AND a trainer in small arms tactics. He was also given advanced notice that there would be an armed student in the class…and, IIRC, approximately where that student would be.
The problem is that the program didn’t prove anything, except that you can rig such a demo to show whatever you want to show. Myself, I think that it’s an interesting question, and that had they done it right it might have actually told us something worthwhile and worthy of consideration. Unfortunately 20/20 chose to do the demo in an obviously biased and set up manner to ‘prove’ exactly what they wanted to prove ahead of time.
Being 20/20 I’m militantly unsurprised…
That’s true…of course, the crazy with the gun attempting to shoot up the class room would also be fairly dangerous, at a guess.
-XT
Doesn’t matter if its Japanese, Chinese or friggin’ Esperanto, that sentence makes no sense. The “probability of being killed” cannot be “far out of proportion to the actual danger”, they are almost identical concepts, the probability of being killed is the actual danger!
If there were no such probability there would be…(wait for it!)…no danger!
If you cobble together a crippled train wreck of a sentence, how about you just cop to it and not try to pretend its because I’m don’t grasp your subtlety. I got a lot of faults, its a long goddam list, but dumbass ain’t on it.
I don’t know why you think it makes no sense, I was able to understand his point the first time, before he clarified it for you. :dubious:
The girl in the classroom was identified as a target shooter of some skill.
Yeah…and the shooter was a combat training specialist. Do you know what the difference between a girl with ‘some skill’ at target shooting and a combat training specialist is?
Let me put it this way…the comparison would be similar to saying ‘a chimpanzee is a human…with some fur’. And this leave out the aspect of the guy who is the expert given fore knowledge of an armed student in the classroom.
Or do you think that a guy who is probably an expert marksman AND a small arms trainer is the equivalent of a girl who ‘was identified as a target shooter of some skill’…and that to even the odds it was necessary to give the expert marksman a bit of info about an armed student being in the class? I mean, just to make it fair and all…everyone knowing that a girl ‘with some skill’ at target shooting being a nearly unstoppable force and all…
-XT
All the people in the classes were given training that met or exceeded what is legally required in all but 4 states. All gun carriers are not highly qualified and well practiced. The point of the show was that people who think they are able to protect themselves and make correct decisions with firearms are often wrong. The police on the show, said they have to continually retrain under stress to keep their abilities. It was not a gun =evil show at all. It was that people are a lot less able to do a good job of defending themselves than they and most gun lovers think. For gun fans that in blasphemous.
And how often are those who commit murder sprees combat training specialists? Who know which of their victims are armed? Gun haters can try to make this a realistic scenario, but it just doesn’t fly.
Yeah, go figure they had to stack all the odds against their test subjects in order to “prove” their point. :rolleyes:
Training them better than just picking people off the street , choosing young and healthy people, is stacking the deck? Go figure.
The armed students were basically weekend target shooters…they were relatively familiar with shooting a gun and in some cases even fairly accurate (well, they SAID they were…I’m not sure this was ever demonstrated empirically, but I’ll give em the benefit of the doubt)…but afaik none of them had carry conceal licenses (so didn’t regularly carry or train to carry) and none of them had any kind of combat training.
There is a vast difference between someone who can shoot a gun and hit a target and someone trained to do that AND who has small arms tactical training…and an even greater distance between someone trained and someone who is an expert trainer himself.
Do you get that?
That’s probably true but misleading…most people who jump through the hoops to get a carry conceal license DO practice quite a bit because they are interested in weapons training…otherwise they wouldn’t bother getting such a license.
Of course, the flip side of this is that most of these folks going nuts and shooting up schools and such are basically fuckups with little or no training at all. A lot is coming out now regarding the Columbine shooters that points to them being psychotic and seriously fuck ups (their main weapons that day were SUPPOSED to be two nasty bombs, not the guns…and the plan was to blow up the cafeteria, shoot students as they emerged and then blow up a second bomb when the police and fire department responded aimed at them. It’s a good thing they WERE such fuckups).
So, a FAIR test for 20/20 would have been a series of double blind tests where neither shooter nor armed student knew anything, and both were trained to similar levels (and neither an expert small arms instructor), and that a random element was introduced where sometimes there would be no gun man, sometimes no armed shooter, the armed student put in a variable spot in the class, etc etc…IOW a real double blind SERIES of tests.
Yeah…I think we all got what the show was trying to demonstrate. The problem is…they didn’t. Instead they choose to rig the deck to ‘prove’ exactly what they wanted too, what their preconceptions were ahead of time.
Yes? And?
Well, that’s a matter of opinion. Certainly it was a rigged show that was set up to demonstrate exactly what the producers of the show wanted to demonstrate…instead of anything approaching a well balanced and objective demonstration.
Well, that’s because you are so obviously biased that you wouldn’t understand objectivity on this subject if it sat in your lap and called you mama.
It’s interesting to me that several 'dopers in this thread (not you of course gonzo) who would normally be screaming at the fact that this demo wasn’t a double blind test are so blithely going along. I’m militantly unsurprised that this doesn’t bother you gonzo…but surprised at some others.
For anyone actually looking at the show in anything approaching objectivity it screams ‘bias’…for anyone who watched the show and found that it met their preconceptions it basically just vindicates their position.
-XT
Not to mention between that expert who chose the time of the event, had the draw on the armed student, and already know who that student was, and a student who didn’t know when the guy would be coming into the class, didn’t have a weapon drawn, etc…
And yeah, a real double blind would have to have multiple classrooms. Some with no armed students. Some with one. Some with five, and so on, and so on, and so on. Then randomly send gunmen into random classrooms, with some getting no gunman at all. Now that would be an actual test.
This was just rigging the variables to get what you’re looking for.
Exactly. Random variables, double blind participants, series of tests…I’d be fascinated to see what the results would be. It would be very interesting to see.
I’m militantly unsurprised that 20/20 didn’t choose to even attempt an objective test.
-XT
I would love to see an un-biased test too.
I hate to even suggest it, but ‘Myth Busters’?