It’s an interesting point. I guess I should thank someone who (a) was in procurement back when, and (b) made the same sensible decision then that I’ve of course made as a law-abiding civilian: ensuring that I have what you term an ‘equalizer’ at hand, given that I might otherwise feel inadequate facing life situations without one.
Maybe I should thank the marketer who convinced the folks in procurement, too.
I agree with most of what you say. I particlarly agree that if you spend every weekend at the range and you don’t know basic first aid, then you might as well admit you just like shooting. I agree that the vast majority of gun deaths are gang/drug related and suicides but I don’t see how you reduce the number of guns out there. Ban one type of gun and people just buy more of another type.
I agree, calling each other chicken is stupid. I also don’t think that guns are any more of a penis substitute than cars.
Or to put it another way, I think many cars are just as much of a penis substitute as guns.
Reading comprehension not your strong suit I guess? Maybe you should read slower? Shall we have someone read it out loud to you perhaps? Where in ‘gun deaths’ do you see the word ‘homicides’?
*Overall homicides *are down down vs the early 1990s, you idiot, so yeah, it probably shouldn’t be a major surprise that homicides by guns - far and away the most common instrument used to kill someone - would be down as well. It means we’re slightly less likely to kill one another than we used to be 20 years ago (although still way way higher than the average for other industrialized nations).
It clearly doesn’t mean *guns themselves *have somehow become less dangerous, because - as I posted above, which you’d know if you had even the reading comprehension of a retarded fruitcake - overall gun deaths have risen steadily since 1999.
The NCVS surveys include responses from kids as young as 12 years old. The surveys are almost completely unverifiable. If I say I brandished a gun and scared away a potential home intruder…hey, there’s a DGU! No verification necessary!
Personally, I wish my expert wasn’t quoting that as his ‘more reliable’ source. But that might be just me.
But let’s assume that the other social scientists are correct and that total DGUs per year are actually around 300,000. Let’s further assume that in just 10% of cases someone actually has to shoot someone to defend themselves. That’s *30,000 *people per year being shot by armed, non-LEO. Does that seem even *remotely *plausible? Hell, even using the lower number of 100,000 DGUs - does *10,000 *seem even remotely plausible? That’s as many people as are killed in outright gun homicides each year.
The ‘hundreds of thousands of DGUs a year’ is a fantasy.
What do YOU call it? Anecdote?
No true scottsman. 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?
So you consider this a study? A compilation of anecdotes? You sure you know what data means?
No I say that a LOT of them exist and you are both stupid and crazy, therefore shut up.
Really??? Maybe in your mind but I was pretty sure I was talking about the gun regulation push after Newtown. You are really bad at this. Maybe you should stick to things like gay marriage and scientific racism, you’re on much safer ground there and you don’t sound so stupid by being a kneejerk liberal.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-usa-guns-idUSBRE92D0RI20130314
“Obama’s call to renew the ban is a centerpiece of his effort to curb U.S. gun violence in the wake of Newtown.”
Now there were other important parts to the push that I had less objection to but this was the piece that Feinstein fell on her sword over.
How do you think people market to the civilian population? Can you give me an example? As far as I can tell, you have a lot of “mil spec” stuff that is popular because it is a proven design that has been lab tested and field tested in some military for many years. People buy all sorts of doodads and gizmos to attach to guns but the basic gun itself is frequently something that has a long history of reliability and depenability from years of use in military or law enforcement use.
Cite for this, please?
I don’t see how that’s possibly true. For example, the number of firearms homicides in 2010 was 11,078: FastStats - Homicide
The number of gang homicides IN TOTAL (so, all weapons, not only firearms) in 2010 was 2,020: National Youth Gang Survey Analysis: Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems | National Gang Center
Even if every one of the 2,020 was a gun homicide, that means that 82% of firearms homicides in 2010 were not gang related.
What’s your point?
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html only goes back to 1999 but according to the DoJ, the total deaths in 1993 was 39,595, 1994 was 38505, 1995 was 35,957, 1996 was 34,040, 1997 was 32,436.
So total gun deaths was much higher beofre 1999. Total gun deaths have been relatively flat since 1999. Or were you under the impression that suicide accounted for large variations in gun deaths? And you think I’m the idiot?:rolleyes:
Hey, I’m not the one that pointed out that gun deaths were “rising slowly but steadily” since 1999:smack:. I don’t think I ever said that guns have become less dangerous. Guns haven’t gotten more dangerous either despite some perceived “slow but steady rise in gun deaths” since 1999.
You have more reliable information then bring it, otherwise I think its probably the best information we have. Or do you think we should all base policy on your opinion of the facts rather than the best facts available?
Its the most reliable we have. I think and your expert has poked away at it and whittled his estimate down to about 50 or 60K based on his assumptions.
You don’t have to kill someone or even shoot someone to use a gun defensively or to prevent a crime. Did you think that defensive gun use meant justifiable homicide? And you call me an idiot :rolleyes:
And both uses are generally baseless caricatures. Come on, people; nobody on either side here is quaking in their boots. That kind of inflammatory rhetoric is not productive. We can give each other the benefit of the doubt, especially since we’re all Dopers here and therefore have a bit of an advantage over the teeming millions in the intelligence and attractiveness departments. 
A person who argues for more gun regulation isn’t motivated by pants-wetting fear of being gunned down by a Zimmerman du jour, nor by some kind of latent hoplophobia caused by feelings of inadequacy / absent father figure / insufficient manliness. Likewise, a person with a concealed weapon license isn’t strapping on a piece because he lives constantly in terror that today might be the day somebody pulls a gat / knife / baseball bat / bag of skittles on him and he can’t afford to not be prepared to blow them away. He doesn’t do it because he has action movie fantasies or to compensate for his tiny penis.
There are exceptions to both categories. I actually did meet a guy once who told me he didn’t feel safe when he wasn’t packing heat; out of all the gun owners I’ve met or known over the years, he’s the only one who gave me that impression of actually feeling like the world was out to get him. And, yeah, that weirded me out. He seemed like he had some more deep-set personality and emotional issues.
If you haven’t read this before (it’s one of the studies I provided to dipshit previously), you might get a kick out of it:
Hemenway, Azrael & Miller (2000)
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full
Here are a couple of examples of some of the DGU reports:
Here’s another example of concerning issues with the survey:
I know that this is just esoteric statistical handwaving that the lay person can’t grasp, but one person claiming 50 incidents of DGU is a big red flag for me. Six people accounted for more than 2/3 of all reports. Any layperson ought to see what the problem with extrapolating from these kind of reports to the population at large would be.
This is the kind of thing I have provided before regarding DGU, but this fucking douchebag has the balls to claim I’ve just been arguing about “statistical certainty.” I guarantee you that if this thread is going on in two months from now, he’ll be claiming I just argued about a 99% confidence interval.
I don’t doubt you have double standards for the use of the word fear.
Guns don’t substitute for a penis though do they? That’s just something gun grabbers like to say, isn’t it?
My guess is Prius driving, gun-grabbers are more likely the one’s lacking in testosterone than the pickup driving, deer hunting, red necks.
A 12 year old can use a gun to defensively though, can’t they?
Can’t they?
If YOU have a reliable defensive gun use study hidden under your hat somewhere, feel free to post a link to 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.
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?
If we’re going to be applying sterotypes, I’d be willing to wager that just the opposite is true
Are you saying that the DoJ included these sort of things in their study?
Because here is what they say about the NCVS:
So if even an avowed gun grabber like Hemenway can accept the DOJ numbers, why can’t you?
Wait, aren’t those problems that Hemenway found with his OWN survey not with the DoJ survey?
Are you saying that the DoJ survey has these problems and the DOJ didn’t correct for it? Do you have a cite for that?
So you didn’t quibble about confidence levels?
you are saying a lot of things here, do any of them apply to the DoJ study or are you saying that these are problems with the Hemenway study?
I agree with the growing consensus that talk of penises and cowardice is not useful in a debate but this is the pit and the gun grabbers have nothing left so why not just let them have it.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Wait, aren’t those problems that Hemenway found with his OWN survey not with the DoJ survey
[/QUOTE]
No, those are problems with the results because they show the data don’t support your argument:
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. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly.
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.
[QUOTE=Kable]
A 12 year old can use a gun to defensively though, can’t they?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, sure. Hell, kids of any age can use guns.
:rolleyes:
Why, gee thank you Captain Obvious. I guess it’s a good thing I was talking about gun deaths since 1999 then, huh?
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.
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?
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.
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’.
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?
Are you thinking of my link to the GunFAIL blog at DailyKos? If so, be clear: that blog has documented about 50 stupid gun incidents a week for nearly a year.
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.