# Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729 "2013-01-29T19:01:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 173
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3441 "2013-12-06T14:07:21Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > If YOU have a reliable defensive gun use study hidden under your hat somewhere, feel free to post a link to it. The problem would seem to be that there \*is \*no credible study that shows \*real \*DGU’s to be comparable in quantity to that of the intentional/accidental/suicidal gun death rate, wouldn’t it? > [@](#): > > I note all you posted was a link to stupid gun accidents or misuses, which it doesn’t cost anyone anything to admit exist. Any object that exists will at some point be the cause of a stupid human death somewhere. The problem for you is their massive incidence rate, isn’t it? A rate that wouldn’t exist if not for the means for those incidents to occur, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3442 "2013-12-06T14:15:04Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What do YOU call it? Anecdote? Duh. > [@](#): > > The AWB that Feinstein was pushing was a reenactment of the 1994 law just with no expiration date so if Feinstein wasn’t pushing a REAL AWB, then WTF was she doing? I said a real AWB. We’ve never tried banning assault weapons. The bill that provides you with so much whacking material did nothing about all the AWB’s out there. Yet you stated that it’s a “fact” (your word) that they don’t work. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > No I say that a LOT of them exist Just like your gun-porn fantasies, especially the ones that involve Dianne Feinstein. > [@](#): > > Really??? Maybe in your mind but I was pretty sure I was talking about the gun regulation push after Newtown. And then you went on to blame the defeat (by a minority) of _Manchin-Toomey_ on that effort. IOW, yes, that is what you were thinking, and you can’t even make yourself tell the truth to _yourself_. That’s mental illness. > [@](#): > > How do you think people market to the civilian population? Already summarized. Or is this another of your obsession-compulsions? You’re a sick, sick person, and a menace to society. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3443 "2013-12-06T14:31:16Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Controlling for all other factors is tricky business. You might as well control for all other factors in the study itself. What Zeriel’s statement about attaching a dashboard cam to guns points out is how ridiculous the level of proof the gun grabbers are going to demand before they consider the evidence. Why would gun grabbers even except that ridiculous level of “proof” as proof of anything at all? Let’s say I’m in the business of selling rocks that keep bears away. You say that the rocks do nothing, and that people without my rocks don’t seem to be getting attacked by bears either. In fact, you have studies that prove this. As a counterpoint, I start collecting anecdotes of people using my rocks to scare away bears. Hundreds of thousands of anecdotes every year, in fact. Not impressed? What if, then, I produced video evidence of these hundreds of thousands of people using my rocks to chase away bears every year? What would you do with that “evidence”? What do you trust more, the impressive videos of bear-scaring, or the hard numbers that say my rocks are statistically ineffective? That’s what I’m getting at. You can produce all the numbers about DGUs that you want, but if those DGUs don’t manifest themselves as a statistically verifiable safety benefit, what good are they? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3444 "2013-12-06T14:45:44Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The problem would seem to be that there \*is \*no credible study that shows \*real \*DGU’s to be comparable in quantity to that of the intentional/accidental/suicidal gun death rate, wouldn’t it? I don’t believe such a study can exist in this political environment, as I said. Anti-gun proponents are prone to minimize, pro-gun proponents are prone to exaggerate, and there’s almost no objective way to determine why a non-incident might have not happened. > [@](#): > > The problem for you is their massive incidence rate, isn’t it? A rate that wouldn’t exist if not for the means for those incidents to occur, isn’t it? Your second sentence doesn’t follow from your first. The correlation, globally, between firearms ownership restrictions and firearms crime is not as strong as you seem to want me to accept that it is. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3445 "2013-12-06T16:45:53Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > I don’t doubt you have double standards for the use of the word fear. No no, you’re doing it wrong. What you should do is acknowledge that you have certain fears about losing your guns pertaining to safety and civil rights, then entreat the other side to elucidate their fears too > [@Kable](#): > > Guns don’t substitute for a penis though do they? That’s just something gun grabbers like to say, isn’t it? Its something [gun](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MRXvp5y1Rlc/TIBaDz94Y3I/AAAAAAAAAQY/_rB4ogig8JE/s1600/gunad97.jpg) [manufacturers](http://blogs.jamaicans.com/gwgraeme/files/2012/12/bushmaster-ad1-600x450.jpg) [say](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/sexist-gun-ads-eaacorp.jpg) actually. Everyone else is just smart enough not to deny it. You don’t have to agree that’s why you want it, but its dishonest to pretend the image isn’t purposefully marketed that way. > [@Kable](#): > > My guess is Prius driving, gun-grabbers are more likely the one’s lacking in testosterone than the pickup driving, deer hunting, red necks. Unless you are a doctor who has taken testosterone tests of those people, its a claim you cannot make. What you are doing is assuming testosterone based on cultural ideals of manhood and equating that to hormonal imbalance. One can easily say the man who doesn’t want guns around is tough enough to solve his issues with his fists or brains, and the lack of testosterone in the hunters is what makes them need to supplement their manhood with an inanimate, penis-shaped object that doesn’t exude natural testosterone on its own. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So why is a Honda Accord any less of a penis substitute than a run of the mill glock 19 or a Mossberg 500 or one of those $600 smith and wesson AR-15s? These are all affordable, reliable guns and I don’t think anyone feels emasculated because some guy shows up with a Kimber 1911 or Benelli shotgun or a Larue AR 15. Why isn’t it just a tool like any other tool? Penis substitutes are all about image and a Honda isn’t seen in the same light as a generic gun. When people see a Honda the same way they see a Corvette or a Mustang, then you can make the comparison. But I’m not really saying cars are like guns or vice versa, it was just a response to that particular sentence ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3446 "2013-12-06T17:28:32Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > No, those are problems with the _results_ because they show the data don’t support your argument: Whose data is it? Because it doesn’t look like the data collected by the DoJ. > [@](#): > > _Results_—Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. **A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges**. > [@](#): > > _Conclusions_— **Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense**. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society. The DoJ study only asks people who called to report a crime, they don’t tend to have this problem. They don’t even try to count people who might have used a gun in self defense and didn’t report the defensive gun use. > [@](#): > > Why, gee thank you Captain Obvious. I guess it’s a good thing I was talking about gun deaths since 1999 then, huh? I’m just saying its awfully convenient for you to pick a start date when the gun death rate had flattened out. BTW, do you think that all 400,000 of those people would have survived if guns weren’t available? Do you even try to compare that with the over 1 million defensive gun uses in the same time period? > [@](#): > > No, you lying sack of shit, gun deaths are not ‘relatively flat’, unless you’re a desperate gun licker and hope nobody notices that in your feeble mind ‘relatively flat’ equates to a \*10% increase \*since 2000, \*despite \*improvements in communications technology and healthcare / emergency medical care technology. > Abso-fucking-lutely yes you’re a deranged, paranoid, pathetic scared little idiot. Look at the fucking graph you shithead. What does the term RELATIVELY mean to you? You have nothing to contribute do you? You’re just the chorus for Hentor. > [@](#): > > Normally I’d thank you for making my fucking point for me, but in this case the level of stupidity I’m dealing with is so tragically deep I’m clearly going to have to spell it out for you. If that’s the ‘best information you have’ supporting your side of an argument, then maybe, just maybe, there’s a wee little problem with your argument? If DGUs were happening anywhere near as frequently as you say they are, don’t you think the NRA or the gun makers would have creamed their pants in an effort to get some study done? Gee, I wonder why they haven’t? Why would they try to get a study done? There are already plenty out there and they all point to high levels of defensive gun use. The entire gun grabber argument for defensive gun use has been to poke holes in survey data. I think you can always poke holes in survey data like this. You’re operating on faulty information. The criticisms you mention above that you are much less applicable to the DoJ data. Its not really your fault, you are trusting Hentor to present you with impartial analysis of the data (and you believe that he would because you are convinced that the data must be on your side, except it isn’t). > [@](#): > > The most obvious and logical answer is because DGUs don’t happen with anywhere near the frequency gun lickers dream they do. Do they happen on occasion? Sure. But the numbers are probably measured in the dozens, \*maybe \*the hundreds if we’re really generous. There just over 200 justifiable homicides by civilians in 2011. So I guess you are being really generous. The DoJ pegs the number at about 100,000 defensive gun uses per year and their number might considered conservative because they only survey people who report they have been victims of a crime. > [@](#): > > Interesting point. As it happens, I have 30,000 fucking FACTS on my side each year, bitch. What do you have? Unverifiable, unsubstantiated, random anecdotes collected by random phone calls in surveys, that \*still \*suggest guns are far more likely to be used to intimidate and threaten instead of for protection. You don’t use the ‘best estimate available’ when it’s clear that even the ‘best estimate’ is ‘complete and utter shit’. This is the survey I am talking about:[National Crime Victimization Survey - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_Survey) This complete and utter bullshit produced by the Department of Justice every year since the 1970’s under Republican and Democratic administrations. I still can’t tell if your position is based on ignorance of some important facts or simply disregard for those facts. You can argue against ignorance, its a lot harder to argue against wilful ignorance. > [@](#): > > Guess what - you often don’t even need a gun to prevent a crime! How many crimes do you think home security systems prevent? How about merely having double locks on your doors? How about having a dog? Yeah, you often don’t need an abortion either. How about you let the person whose life is being threatened decide if they should have a gun or not. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > [Redirect Notice](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hsph.harvard.edu%2Fhicrc%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F01%2FBullet-ins_Spring_2009.pdf&ei=DruhUuHYFuTMsQTR3YKgBA&usg=AFQjCNGOe458HCtprKFAVJVO3D9l1HiLQQ) > > I’ve provided this stupid fucker with multiple writings from Hemenway, studies from Hemenway, and other methods papers illustrating the fundamental problems with these methods. However, he sees Hemenway say that the NCVS method mitigates telescoping (just one methodological concern) and he concludes that Hemenway “accepts” the NCVS numbers. > > I understand that as scientists, it is incumbent upon us to disseminate our work to the lay public in ways that they can grasp, but dumbasses like this really make you just want to give up altogether on the effort. If you can’t Tweet it, people can’t get it. > > Anyway, I’ve linked to another Hemenway writing to illustrate that whenever you ask in a survey about whether people have been threatened with a gun AND whether they have used a gun in self-defense, the number who have been threatened DWARFS the defensive gun uses. This is independent of the fact that asking scared gun owners means you’re gonna get a lot of crazy ass answers. Without context, for example, the guy in GA who shot the kid turning around in his driveway, and the other guy who recently shot the girl through his closed front door would report having successfully used a gun to defend themselves. As would the guy who shot up the car next to him at the gas station and the guy who, several years ago shot the exchange student who came to his door. The people who make up 50 incidents are.just fantasizing, obviously. So Hemenway concocts his own study and runs it poorly and uses that as proof that these studies are run poorly? OKO, I guess:confused:? Are these also problems that exist to any great degree in the DoJ studies or are you just trying to explain away why the facts don’t line up with your politics? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The problem would seem to be that there \*is \*no credible study that shows \*real \*DGU’s to be comparable in quantity to that of the intentional/accidental/suicidal gun death rate, wouldn’t it? > > The problem for you is their massive incidence rate, isn’t it? A rate that wouldn’t exist if not for the means for those incidents to occur, isn’t it? Right so now the DoJ isn’t credible (or they have been spending time and resources for the last 40 years compiling data that is not credible. Do you think that the suicide rate would drop in half and the murder rate would drop by 70% if we got rid of guns? Do you think there is any chance that criminals would hold on to their guns? Any chance at all? Do you think that current defensive gun use saves any lives at all? Do you think that armed criminals in an unarmed society would commit more or less murders than they do now? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Duh. So a 40 year old survey that has been asking questions of the same people the same every year over a 3 year period is anecdote?:dubious: > [@](#): > > I said a real AWB. We’ve never tried banning assault weapons. The bill that provides you with so much whacking material did nothing about all the AWB’s out there. > > Yet you stated that it’s a “fact” (your word) that they don’t work. :rolleyes: > > Just like your gun-porn fantasies, especially the ones that involve Dianne Feinstein. Geez, for someone that goes on about how the AWB wasn’t in the bill, you flip pretty quickly to “a REAL AWB” when I point you to the Feinstein bill. And the AWB wasn’t ineffective because there were all these pre-existing assault weapons out there. It was one reason why it was retarded but not why it was ineffective. It was ineffective in reducing gun violence for the same reason that outlawing the use of lawnmowers on public streets is ineffective in reducing global warming. Assault weapons were responsible for a miniscule percentage of gun deaths before, during and after the assault weapons ban. The ability to substitute another firearm for an assault weapon with very little difference in functionality means that you aren’t really going to prevent jack shit with an AWB. > [@](#): > > And then you went on to blame the defeat (by a minority) of _Manchin-Toomey_ on that effort. IOW, yes, that is what you were thinking, and you can’t even make yourself tell the truth to _yourself_. That’s mental illness. Wait, so now the filibuster shouldn’t be used to protect constitutional rights either? Did you feel that way when we were filibustering things under Bush? > [@](#): > > Already summarized. Or is this another of your obsession-compulsions? I’m not sure anyone knows what you are talking about most of the time. > [@](#): > > You’re a sick, sick person, and a menace to society. You’re too stupid to have an opinion. > [@steronz](#): > > Why would gun grabbers even except that ridiculous level of “proof” as proof of anything at all? > > Let’s say I’m in the business of selling rocks that keep bears away. You say that the rocks do nothing, and that people without my rocks don’t seem to be getting attacked by bears either. In fact, you have studies that prove this. As a counterpoint, I start collecting anecdotes of people using my rocks to scare away bears. Hundreds of thousands of anecdotes every year, in fact. Not impressed? > > What if, then, I produced video evidence of these hundreds of thousands of people using my rocks to chase away bears every year? What would you do with that “evidence”? What do you trust more, the impressive videos of bear-scaring, or the hard numbers that say my rocks are statistically ineffective? > > That’s what I’m getting at. You can produce all the numbers about DGUs that you want, but if those DGUs don’t manifest themselves as a statistically verifiable safety benefit, what good are they? Its not entirely clear to me what you’re getting at. Something about magical bear repelling rocks? What makes you say that guns are ineffective at preventing crime? What sort of statistics are you looking for? > [@Zeriel](#): > > I don’t believe such a study can exist in this political environment, as I said. Anti-gun proponents are prone to minimize, pro-gun proponents are prone to exaggerate, and there’s almost no objective way to determine why a non-incident might have not happened. So is the DoJ anti-gun or pro-gun? > [@](#): > > Your second sentence doesn’t follow from your first. The correlation, globally, between firearms ownership restrictions and firearms crime is not as strong as you seem to want me to accept that it is. There is a short circuit in the minds of a lot of gun grabbers. They think they can legislate away guns from the hands of criminals. They basically think all the gun crime is being committed by people who own guns legally. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3447 "2013-12-06T17:43:21Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Its something [gun](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MRXvp5y1Rlc/TIBaDz94Y3I/AAAAAAAAAQY/_rB4ogig8JE/s1600/gunad97.jpg) [manufacturers](http://blogs.jamaicans.com/gwgraeme/files/2012/12/bushmaster-ad1-600x450.jpg) [say](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/sexist-gun-ads-eaacorp.jpg) actually. Everyone else is just smart enough not to deny it. You don’t have to agree that’s why you want it, but its dishonest to pretend the image isn’t purposefully marketed that way. I’m not seeing the penises in those ads. The first ad plays on some cowboy themes. Are cowboys code for penis or were they back in 1955? The second one talks about the man card and red meat. Its a bit macho but penis? The third one is a scantily clad chick with a gun, we use scantily clad women to sell everything from beer to cars to iphones. If scantily clad women in advertisements indicates penis substitutes then almost anything is a penis. The fact of the matter is that guns manufacturers know that most of their customers are guys so they market to guys. This means appeal to their sense of machismo or using half naked women, etc. I’m not sure how they are marketing it as a penis substitute, (I’m not saying it never happens but I am saying I don’t see it happening a whole lot more than I see with all sorts of other products). > [@](#): > > Penis substitutes are all about image and a Honda isn’t seen in the same light as a generic gun. When people see a Honda the same way they see a Corvette or a Mustang, then you can make the comparison. But I’m not really saying cars are like guns or vice versa, it was just a response to that particular sentence I’m not really understanding this penis substitute thing. I never really understood the whole phallic symbol thing in college either (it seemed like anything that was long was a penis as far as my professor was concerned, the mast of a ship, swords practically hardened if you rubbed them but it all seemed a bit forced and contrived) so maybe its just me. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3448 "2013-12-06T18:02:52Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its not entirely clear to me what you’re getting at. Something about magical bear repelling rocks? What makes you say that guns are ineffective at preventing crime? What sort of statistics are you looking for? What sort of statistics would you be looking for if you wanted to verify that my bear-repelling rocks prevented bear attacks? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3449 "2013-12-06T19:52:37Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Unless you are a doctor who has taken testosterone tests of those people, its a claim you cannot make. I didn’t make a claim, I just offered a guess, countering an opposite type of guess. If you have evidence I’m incorrect I’d like to hear it. IIRC firearms do increase endogenous testosterone production, and if I’m not mistaken conservative economic positions (which I think are going to be associated with conservative firearms positions) are associated with increased arm circumference, which I again would imagine is correlated with endogenous testosterone levels. This is all kind of a new science so I’m just guessing ahead a bit. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3450 "2013-12-06T19:56:55Z")
There’s a joke somewhere in there about men who date conservative women, but I can’t quite suss it out. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3451 "2013-12-06T21:10:59Z")
Empirical evidence indicates that conservatives are more fearful. Also, they show elevated amygdala activation and lower activity in the anterior congulate cortex when processing fearful stimuli. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3452 "2013-12-06T21:29:42Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m not really understanding this penis substitute thing. I don’t think you’re really as ignorant of the symbolism as you claim, and so it feels like to me that there is nowhere to go in this debate except a pointless tangent. So congrats, you win this one by pretending there’s absolutely no symbolism there. There simply isn’t a meaningful and honest place to go if you refuse to even acknowledge that fact > [@Kable](#): > > I didn’t make a claim, I just offered a guess, countering an opposite type of guess. If you have evidence I’m incorrect I’d like to hear it. So we both made a guess then. Only mine simply pointed to observed behavior while yours pretends that you know something about hormonal levels of drivers, something I’d be willign to bet that you made up. > [@Kable](#): > > IIRC firearms do increase endogenous testosterone production, and if I’m not mistaken conservative economic positions (which I think are going to be associated with conservative firearms positions) are associated with increased arm circumference, which I again would imagine is correlated with endogenous testosterone levels. This is all kind of a new science so I’m just guessing ahead a bit. I would like to see these scientific positions and their methodology. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3453 "2013-12-06T21:50:38Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Whose data is it? Because it doesn’t look like the data collected by the DoJ. > > The DoJ study only asks people who called to report a crime, they don’t tend to have this problem. \*\* They don’t even try to count people who might have used a gun in self defense and didn’t report the defensive gun use. \*\* Kinda makes you wonder how reliable the DGU numbers are, doesn’t it? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > This is the survey I am talking about:[National Crime Victimization Survey - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_Survey) > This complete and utter bullshit produced by the Department of Justice every year since the 1970’s under Republican and Democratic administrations. I’m sure the survey does serve some useful purpose. Determining the number of DGUs a year may not be one of 'em. From your very own link: > [@](#): > > NCVS surveys households randomly selected from a stratified multistage cluster sample, with the interviews administered by the United States Census Bureau. This methodology has some \*\*disadvantages \*\*for surveying domestic violence crimes, since the \*\*entire selected household \*\*(above **age 12** ) is interviewed instead of just one member selected. The selected household remains in the survey sample for three years, with interviews conducted every six months. Critics also argue that there is **no way to verify much of the information gathered**. In other words - talk to kids as young as 12. Let the people tell their story, and you jot it down. No confirmation, no verification. That sounds like…I don’t know, what’s the word…anecdotal? > [@](#): > > Right so now the DoJ isn’t credible (or they have been spending time and resources for the last 40 years compiling data that is not credible. I’m sure the DoJ is credible for a lot of things. DGUs may or may not be one of them. Why are you taking their estimate at face value, if it’s based on the same survey format? > [@](#): > > Do you think that the suicide rate would drop in half and the murder rate would drop by 70% if we got rid of guns? I don’t know about exact percentages, but yes, suicides and homicides would fall rather sharply. Why? What do you think would happen? > [@](#): > > Do you think there is any chance that criminals would hold on to their guns? Any chance at all? A few might, initially. So what? > [@](#): > > Do you think that current defensive gun use saves any lives at all? Probably a few here and there, sure. No one’s arguing otherwise. What’s your point? > [@](#): > > Do you think that armed criminals in an unarmed society would commit more or less murders than they do now? Gee, if only we had some modern societies with strict gun controls see what might happen to homicide rates when society is un-armed…oh wait, \*we do: \*The UK (England and Wales) has been under 2 homicides per 100,000 population for the last 10 years or so. Japan has been at 0.5. The US? Over 5 for most of the past 10-15 years. Believe it or not, some criminals in the UK and Japan still end up with guns. And yet, the entire un-armed population somehow manages not to end up as homicide victims in the thousands each year. Amazing. > [@](#): > > So a 40 year old survey that has been asking questions of the same people the same every year over a 3 year period is anecdote? Doesn’t matter how long they’ve been doing the survey, dipshit - 30 years of unreliable, completely unverifiable anecdotes does not suddenly morph into ‘data’ just because you have 30 years of bullshit piled up. > [@](#): > > There is a short circuit in the minds of a lot of gun grabbers. They think they can legislate away guns from the hands of criminals. Oh, we don’t think we can legislate guns away _overnight_. But overtime, yes - and then so few criminals have guns that it won’t even be worth worrying about anymore. Remember our UK and Japan examples? The UK has seen a total of approx. 850 fatal injuries from firearms since…1998. 850! That’s a mildly bad \*week \*in the US. In Japan, it was a national embarrassment when total gun homicides for the year reached…20. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3454 "2013-12-06T22:58:43Z")
Regarding penis substitutes and guns, while its a fun cheap shot, I highly doubt that there is any correlation between desire for a gun and lack of size of member. What I do suspect is that there is a high correlation between desire for a gun and preoccupation with manliness. I may be hung like a horse or like a canary, but it don’t really give much thought to it that one way or another because it is only a small part of my identity. Whether someone thinks I’m kind, funny or intelligent is far more important to me than whether someone thinks I’m “manly”. Objects that are called “penis substitutes” whether it be a car or a gun, fulfill a desire of the owner to display his manly qualities, as is clearly demonstrated by advertisements as those of Yogsosoth. This is true regardless of how actually well endowed the person actually is. The reason this leads to cheap shots indicating that those who need guns are less men in other areas are because such insults hit them where it hurts and its fun to watch them get all flustered about what is to us superficial. If this was turned around and someone told me that my love of Dr Who and comic books was a clear indication of my lack of manhood, my response would be to roll my eyes and wonder why their values are so messed up that this actually matters. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3455 "2013-12-07T00:16:53Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Empirical evidence indicates that conservatives are more fearful. Also, they show elevated amygdala activation and lower activity in the anterior congulate cortex when processing fearful stimuli. What’s the reference? I recall a study that found conservatives were happier than liberals. I’ll look up he cite if you will. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3456 "2013-12-07T00:23:51Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I don’t think you’re really as ignorant of the symbolism as you claim, and so it feels like to me that there is nowhere to go in this debate except a pointless tangent. Oh contraire mon frère, it was your side that started this penis replacement talk. I was just going along with that tangent. > [@](#): > > So we both made a guess then. Only mine simply pointed to observed behavior while yours pretends that you know something about hormonal levels of drivers, something I’d be willign to bet that you made up. How much do you want to bet? The studies I recall are regarding guns and economic policy, not driving though. I’m extrapolating to the driving. > [@](#): > > I would like to see these scientific positions and their methodology. If I cite what I said I can cite would you be willing to admit I’m most likely right and you’re most likely wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3457 "2013-12-07T02:12:47Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Empirical evidence indicates that conservatives are more fearful. They’re certainly less fearful about firearms. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3458 "2013-12-07T02:38:14Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > What sort of statistics would you be looking for if you wanted to verify that my bear-repelling rocks prevented bear attacks? Well, if I was interested in how much of a deterrent these rocks were, I would look the rate of bear attacks for people that have rocks and compare that to the rate of bear attacks for people who don’t have rocks but who were otherwise getting attacked by bears at about the same rate as people who now have rocks before they had the rocks. I suppose what you could be saying is that considering that so few of the defensive gun uses actually end up killing the criminals, that less lethal means of self defense might yield similar results, or at least similar enough that it closes the gap on the self defense argument. But by the same token, we can’t pretend that none of those gun deaths wouldn’t be replaced by jumping in front of train deaths and stabbing deaths. Or you could be saying that if there really were millions of defensive gun uses as some people claim, there would be a stark and noticable difference in crime rates between pro-gun and anti-gun jurisidictions. Of course the difference would be less noticable if we were talking about the sort of numbers that we see in the DoJ study. I just can’t tell, you’re an enigma. 😃 > [@Kable](#): > > and if I’m not mistaken conservative economic positions (which I think are going to be associated with conservative firearms positions) are associated with increased arm circumference Or conservatives are fat. I bet Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist have a huge arm circumference. 🆒 > [@DragonAsh](#): > > Kinda makes you wonder how reliable the DGU numbers are, doesn’t it? Yeah, it makes me think they might be too low. > [@](#): > > I’m sure the survey does serve some useful purpose. Determining the number of DGUs a year may not be one of 'em. From your very own link: > > In other words - talk to kids as young as 12. Let the people tell their story, and you jot it down. No confirmation, no verification. That sounds like…I don’t know, what’s the word…anecdotal? Are surveys conducted any other way? They do take steps to reduce inaccuracy by conducting the surveys on the same people over multiple years and they limit the survey to people who have reported a crime. > [@](#): > > I’m sure the DoJ is credible for a lot of things. DGUs may or may not be one of them. Why are you taking their estimate at face value, if it’s based on the same survey format? I thought their methodology was different than the methodology of the surveys that produce 3 million DGU/year. > [@](#): > > I don’t know about exact percentages, but yes, suicides and homicides would fall rather sharply. Why? What do you think would happen? I think a lot of the gun suicides would be replaced with train suicides and a lot of the gun murders would be replaced with stabbing murders. > [@](#): > > A few might, initially. So what? I think a lot of them would. I think we would have an armed criminal population with a disarmed citizenry. that doesn’t seem like a good combination does it? > [@](#): > > Probably a few here and there, sure. No one’s arguing otherwise. What’s your point? That its more than a few. That banning guns will only radically reduce the gun deaths committed by legal gun owners, the criminals aren’t likely to obey gun laws and turn in their guns because they are already breaking them. So when you compare the gun murders by legal gun owners to the lives saved by defensive gun use, I think that the balance tips in favor of letting law abiding citizens own guns. > [@](#): > > Gee, if only we had some modern societies with strict gun controls see what might happen to homicide rates when society is un-armed…oh wait, \*we do: \*The UK (England and Wales) has been under 2 homicides per 100,000 population for the last 10 years or so. Japan has been at 0.5. The US? Over 5 for most of the past 10-15 years. > > Believe it or not, some criminals in the UK and Japan still end up with guns. And yet, the entire un-armed population somehow manages not to end up as homicide victims in the thousands each year. Amazing. When you have a plan that will get gun ownership among our criminal population to the same levels as the criminal population has in places like Japan and the UK, then I think you could expect similar results but I don’t think you can ignore the fact that we have very well armed criminals in this country. Its a lot easier to convince gun owners that they don’t need guns if the cops don’t even carry guns. I don’t think anyone thinks that we would achieve Japan’s murder rate, even if we somehow got rid of all the guns in society. Our murder rate is higher than Palestine and its not because they don’t have guns. Mexico’s murder rate is 5 times our murder rate and they have much more restrictive gun laws than we do. Perhaps guns aren’t the most important variables at play here. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t matter how long they’ve been doing the survey, dipshit - 30 years of unreliable, completely unverifiable anecdotes does not suddenly morph into ‘data’ just because you have 30 years of bullshit piled up. So you don’t think it makes a study more reliable to survey the same people over and over again over a long period of time? Doesn’t it at least get rid of telescoping, thereby making the data more reliable. Lets not forget, the DoJ only asks people who report a crime. But, if you have already decided that you simply aren’t going to accept an information that undermines your position unless science forces you to, then sure, we can just stop talking about defensive gun use and assume the only time it really happens is when its caught on tape. If a gun grabber like Hemenway is willing to accept the DoJ numbers with a few adjustments, I don’t see why you think it is so unreliable but if it doesn’t convince you then thats fine, I’m not really concerned that anyone is ever going to try to get rid of all guns and anyone who tries will pay a dear political price for it. > [@](#): > > Oh, we don’t think we can legislate guns away _overnight_. But overtime, yes - and then so few criminals have guns that it won’t even be worth worrying about anymore. Remember our UK and Japan examples? The UK has seen a total of approx. 850 fatal injuries from firearms since…1998. 850! That’s a mildly bad \*week \*in the US. In Japan, it was a national embarrassment when total gun homicides for the year reached…20. How exactly will you slowly get the criminals to get rid of their guns over time? And no, you’re not going to get rid of guns in this country in your lifetime, or your children’s lifetime any more than the pro-lifers are going to get rid of abortion. You might throw up some meaningless speedbumps that will appear and disappear as the political pendulum swings but it will never swing far enough to legislate away guns. The best you can do is to make a safer gun owning society but your side keep focusing on stupid retarded shit like gun bans and hasn’t pursued licensing and registration since LBJ. > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > penis substitute…If this was turned around and someone told me that my love of Dr Who and comic books was a clear indication of my lack of manhood, my response would be to roll my eyes and wonder why their values are so messed up that this actually matters. Its most of their argument now, they have very little else left, why not just let them have it? It helps them sleep at night to call gun owners names, it doesn’t help their cause to have these attitudes because it alienates the gun owners but they seem to feel like they have nothing to lose by alienating gun owners. I sort of feel like a pro-choice activist telling the anti-abortion activist that they are never going to get rid of fairly unhindered abortions in the first trimester, EVER. If they really want to reduce abortions then they need to focus on sex education and availability of birth control (kinda like licensing and registration) but they keep insisting that abortions are horrible and that anyone that doesn’t support a total ban is a baby killer (actual words thrown at the pro-gun side on this board, we don’t just have small penises, we are baby killers). ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3459 "2013-12-07T03:04:20Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So is the DoJ anti-gun or pro-gun? I would expect them to have similar biases as the current chief executive. Additionally, I would expect their methods to involve either wild mass guessing or surveying people regarding their experiences with defensive gun use, and those people are going to have views. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3460 "2013-12-07T03:07:06Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Regarding penis substitutes and guns, while its a fun cheap shot, I highly doubt that there is any correlation between desire for a gun and lack of size of member. What I do suspect is that there is a high correlation between desire for a gun and preoccupation with manliness. This is self-evident to anyone who’s hung (heh-heh) around gun owners for any length of time, I think. > [@](#): > > If this was turned around and someone told me that my love of Dr Who and comic books was a clear indication of my lack of manhood, my response would be to roll my eyes and wonder why their values are so messed up that this actually matters. I find another useful strategy is to assert that the complainer is not, themselves, manly enough to be revoking anyone else’s “man card”. Because trolling is funny. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=172) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=174)