The WDBJ Shootings

[Sage_Rat]

@Habeed

Still, this is supposed to be the straight dope, and the straight dope seems to be that being awash in weapons leads to more violence. That is the result of virtually every study done on it. Maybe the numbers are compiled by liberal anti-gun staticians, but that’s the dope.

Either your memory is incorrect, you’ve undergone a confirmation bias, or you’ve been mislead by liberal anti-gun statisticians.

The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates -...

http://home.sbu.edu/rhughes/Handgun%20Study%202.PDF

An example of a liberal anti-gun statistician at work would be something like this:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199112053252305

You will note that in all cases, in the abstract he will say things like “Deaths were prevented!” But then if you look at the fine details, you will note that the numbers given are for “gun homicides”. And that’s basically the same bit of BS as you see in global warming conspiracist documents, where they take two five year spans of temperature decrease in 100 years of temperature increase, and blow them out so that you don’t see the 100 years.

“Gun homicide” is a slimy, dishonest metric. The bad part of being murdered is being murdered. The implement that was utilized doesn’t increase nor decrease the weight of the crime in any way.

“Oh my god, I’ve been murdered BY A GUN!!!”

Or

“Oh my god, I’VE BEEN MURDERED!!!”

Which do you think is the more likely last words of someone who has just been shot and senses his own imminent death? I just don’t see the victim making a big issue over being gunned down instead of bludgeoned or stabbed. Heck, I’d personally rather be shot than bludgeoned. Any crazy folks out there, with a strong desire to murder me, please use a room full of nitrogen gas. But, failing that, gun me down don’t bludgeon or drown me.

I’m willing to accept that “gun homicides” might be reduced by tighter gun restrictions. But if homicides don’t go down, you haven’t saved lives. All you’ve done, really, is save murderers the cost of ammo. Woot.

And so, in that document, we see that he gives the rates of gun homicides from 1968 to 1988. On the left of the graph, he says, “HOMICIDES PER MONTH”, but then the details of the graph specify, “Oh yeah, actually just the homicides [sub]by firearm[/sub] per month”.

So here’s the actual homicide rate in Washington DC over time:

Crime in Washington, D.C.

Oh my gosh, surprisingly, the homicide rate went up in 1968!? Why I’ve never looked at this paper before and I had no idea that this example with Washington DC would follow the pattern that I’ve seen historically, but shockingly just as I am unsurprised to see that the wool was pulled over my eyes when I look at a global warming conspiracy theorist’s research paper, I am unsurprised to discover that the homicide rate was actually lower before 1968, when the gun law was passed, and higher afterward. I was unsurprised to find that the paper would switch from “homicide” to “gun homicide”. And, I would be unsurprised to find the same pattern if you were to toss up any other random research that was anti-guns.*

Certainly it was the case in the last one I bothered to look at:

Gun control working well in Connecticut

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18445197&postcount=60

Maybe there’s other statistical shenanigans out there being used, but this one appears to be working for the users.

• Though, since I haven’t looked into it, I am willing to accept that suicide rates are higher with guns. It may also be a lie, I just don’t care enough to look because I’m not anti-suicide so I can’t be bothered to argue the subject.

[Gotlift]

@Habeed

Probably nothing. Even if you could start a draconian gun control regimen tomorrow, there’s almost as many guns circulating as there are citizens.

Still, this is supposed to be the straight dope, and the straight dope seems to be that being awash in weapons leads to more violence. That is the result of virtually every study done on it. Maybe the numbers are compiled by liberal anti-gun staticians, but that’s the dope.

Even if you could ban guns there would still be guns in our society. Pretty much every pro gun argument spells out that you will only take legally owned guns, which is exactly why people refuse the idea of databases for gun ownership.

Dude, you better check your dope dealer’s “facts”. Legal Gun ownership does not lead to more crime, in fact just the opposite.

Just Facts - Gun Control

[GusNSpot]

@Habeed

Probably nothing. Even if you could start a draconian gun control regimen tomorrow, there’s almost as many guns circulating as there are citizens.

Still, this is supposed to be the straight dope, and the straight dope seems to be that being awash in weapons leads to more violence. That is the result of virtually every study done on it. Maybe the numbers are compiled by liberal anti-gun staticians, but that’s the dope.

Which leads me to this question for Habeed: Do you or anyone in your household have or have access to a firearm of any sort? Without going out and buying, renting, stealing or getting one from a willing neighbor or friend if you asked for one?

[Habeed]

@GusNSpot

Which leads me to this question for Habeed: Do you or anyone in your household have or have access to a firearm of any sort? Without going out and buying, renting, stealing or getting one from a willing neighbor or friend if you asked for one?

No. I believe the overwhelming number of studies that all show that purchasing a firearm will reduce my life expectancy. I have a taser and a plan to run if someone invades my home. I believe in statistics, not gut feelings. Every study done on personal ownership of a firearm indicates that it reduces how long you are going to live on average.

Also, I live in a nice suburban area with prompt police response times. So the marginal benefit from being able to shoot an intruder is outweighed by the constant risk of an accident or suicide.

[Gotlift]

@Habeed

No. I believe the overwhelming number of studies that all show that purchasing a firearm will reduce my life expectancy. I have a taser and a plan to run if someone invades my home. I believe in statistics, not gut feelings. Every study done on personal ownership of a firearm indicates that it reduces how long you are going to live on average.

Also, I live in a nice suburban area with prompt police response times. So the marginal benefit from being able to shoot an intruder is outweighed by the constant risk of an accident or suicide.

You keep saying every study done… with all due respect, that is subjective B.S. But, I do support your choice not to exercise your 2nd amendment right. All I ask is that people respect my decision to exercise that right instead of pretending that as a gun owner I am some credible threat to them.

I live in a pretty respectable part of town as well and on July 28th, two blocks away from my house there was a home invasion. The homeowner survived after shooting the suspect. You plan on running and that is fine, but my wife and kids can’t keep up with me and I’d rather stick around to protect them. I prefer prevention so I am aware of my surroundings and my house is not an easy target with a well advertised alarm system, a conspicuously mounted camera, and a storm door to provide an extra barrier for a home invader to overcome. But in the unlikely event that it does happen I would rather be prepared and have a chance than to think of my family suffering when I had the right to protect them and didn’t.

[Habeed]

@Gotlift

You keep saying every study done… with all due respect, that is subjective B.S. But, I do support your choice not to exercise your 2nd amendment right. All I ask is that people respect my decision to exercise that right instead of pretending that as a gun owner I am some credible threat to them.

I live in a pretty respectable part of town as well and on July 28th, two blocks away from my house there was a home invasion. The homeowner survived after shooting the suspect. You plan on running and that is fine, but my wife and kids can’t keep up with me and I’d rather stick around to protect them. I prefer prevention so I am aware of my surroundings and my house is not an easy target with a well advertised alarm system, a conspicuously mounted camera, and a storm door to provide an extra barrier for a home invader to overcome. But in the unlikely event that it does happen I would rather be prepared and have a chance than to think of my family suffering when I had the right to protect them and didn’t.

Cite, please. I said every. single. study. Find a credible study showing otherwise. Note the one where they just called up random people and asked if they had used a gun to stop a crime is not a good study. I want, say, relative statistics on :

1. Unarmed people who died in a home invasion
2. Armed people who saved themselves in a home invasion
3. Armed people who had their guns stolen by the invader, were shot by the cops, or shot one of their kids in an accident.

As Far as I know, #2 is dwarfed by #3 by a factor of over 100 times. For every person who whips out a gun and saves themselves, there’s someone who shoots someone by accident, is shot by the cops in a raid, or has their own gun used against them.

I don’t need to produce cites as every study ever done with good methodology confirms this. It’s essentially a fact. All you have to do to prove me wrong is find 1 study showing otherwise.

What you are quoting is an anecdote. It has no statistical meaning, just like if I tell you about my day job making money playing Roulette in the casino and how my incredible luck means I clear a million a year, you should know not to try to do the same thing. (and also you should know not to lend me money, I am not likely to repay)

[GusNSpot]

@Habeed

No.

::: snip :::::

Also, I live in a nice suburban area with prompt police response times. So the marginal benefit from being able to shoot an intruder is outweighed by the constant risk of an accident or suicide.

Thanks for the reply.

[Gotlift]

@Habeed

Cite, please. I said every. single. study. Find a credible study showing otherwise. Note the one where they just called up random people and asked if they had used a gun to stop a crime is not a good study. I want, say, relative statistics on :

1. Unarmed people who died in a home invasion
2. Armed people who saved themselves in a home invasion
3. Armed people who had their guns stolen by the invader, were shot by the cops, or shot one of their kids in an accident.

As Far as I know, #2 is dwarfed by #3 by a factor of over 100 times. For every person who whips out a gun and saves themselves, there’s someone who shoots someone by accident, is shot by the cops in a raid, or has their own gun used against them.

I don’t need to produce cites as every study ever done with good methodology confirms this. It’s essentially a fact. All you have to do to prove me wrong is find 1 study showing otherwise.

What you are quoting is an anecdote. It has no statistical meaning, just like if I tell you about my day job making money playing Roulette in the casino and how my incredible luck means I clear a million a year, you should know not to try to do the same thing. (and also you should know not to lend me money, I am not likely to repay)

One, I’m not trying to convince you that buying a gun is safer than you think, but if you click the link I posted it shows statistics where gun control laws have caused an increase in crime and relaxing handgun bans and other laws decrease crime. If you actually believe owning a gun shortens your lifespan then I can’t imagine how you climb into a car everyday, since it is an absolute statistical fact that more people get killed in car accidents… But whatever.

[up_the_junction]

Anyone watch the Worth Athletic Champs yesterday? The relays?

They have this cute thing now where each relay team comes into the stadium as a foursome and pose a little in front of the cameras before getting to the race.

All the teams come in and do their own thing, most just waving a little, some with little routines (like all rocking an imaginary baby because one of them became a parent while at the event).

The USA womens 400m relay team comes out and poses/points with four imaginary guns. I guess that probably even makes sense in the US. It’s like a country lost.

[doorhinge]

@Habeed

No. I believe the overwhelming number of studies that all show that purchasing a firearm will reduce my life expectancy.

@Habeed

Cite, please. I said every. single. study. Find a credible study showing otherwise. Note the one where they just called up random people and asked if they had used a gun to stop a crime is not a good study. I want, say, relative statistics on :

1. Unarmed people who died in a home invasion
2. Armed people who saved themselves in a home invasion
3. Armed people who had their guns stolen by the invader, were shot by the cops, or shot one of their kids in an accident.

As Far as I know, #2 is dwarfed by #3 by a factor of over 100 times. For every person who whips out a gun and saves themselves, there’s someone who shoots someone by accident, is shot by the cops in a raid, or has their own gun used against them.

I don’t need to produce cites as every study ever done with good methodology confirms this. It’s essentially a fact. All you have to do to prove me wrong is find 1 study showing otherwise.

(post shortened, underline and bold added)

If you don’t have to produce cites, then no one should have to produce cites. According to your example. :smack:

[doorhinge]

@up_the_junction

Anyone watch the Worth Athletic Champs yesterday? The relays?

They have this cute thing now where each relay team comes into the stadium as a foursome and pose a little in front of the cameras before getting to the race.

All the teams come in and do their own thing, most just waving a little, some with little routines (like all rocking an imaginary baby because one of them became a parent while at the event).

The USA womens 400m relay team comes out and poses/points with four imaginary guns. I guess that probably even makes sense in the US. It’s like a country lost.

Are you sure that’s what happened?

Did WDBJ have a news crew at the “Worth Athletic Champs” (whatever that is)?

[Muffin]

Doorhinge, I’m assuming that you have the ability to recognise a typo/autofill, and are just being snarky, but in case you are being honest in your question, try googling International Amateur Athletic Federation, and watch the evening of day six of their World Championships which are presently underway.

[Muffin]

Confused my six and nine. Check out the 4x400 women’s finals of day nine. Charlies’ Angels posing, pretending to point handguns.

Now how about producing the original of your birth certificate.

[doorhinge]

@Muffin

Confused my six and nine. Check out the 4x400 women’s finals of day nine. Charlies’ Angels posing, pretending to point handguns.

Now how about producing the original of your birth certificate.

@Muffin

Doorhinge, I’m assuming that you have the ability to recognise a typo/autofill, and are just being snarky, but in case you are being honest in your question, try googling International Amateur Athletic Federation, and watch the evening of day six of their World Championships which are presently underway.

Your provided link doesn’t have a working video. According to that site -

The uploader has not made this video available in your country.

The following link does work in the U.S.A. and I assume that’s what you were trying to provide.

- YouTube

At 1:45 Richards-Ross, Hastings, Felix, and McCorory emulate Charlie’s Angels.

I’m not responsible for what someone else posts. If you believe “Worth Athletic Champs” was a typo/autofill for "IAAF World Athletics Championships 2015 Beijing, I’m fine with that.

Rumor has it that I don’t have a birth certificate, only a date of manufacture.

Can you provide a working link to your baking directions?

[Esox_Lucius]

@doorhinge

Ahem, in a thread about the shooting murder of two WDBJ employees and the wounding of the interviewee, Colibri introduced knives as a possible choice of mass murderers. Eye, doorhinge, introduced bombings, and ewe, Esox Lucious, introduced vehicular murder.

You consider those to be deflections. I don’t. One of the things that mass murderers have in common is their decision to murder en masse. Blaming an inanimate object for the murders is absurd. It should be obvious that mass murders will find a way to murder others. Mass murderers are people. People who justified the murder of people.

First, characterizing opposition to guns as blaming the actual hunks of metal is small and childish and misrepresents the argument. We don’t blame atoms for the atomic bomb, either.

Second, guns, not bombs or knives, are used in the overwhelming majority of spree killings and murders in general because they’re so freaking easy. For the general populace, nothing comes close to guns for ease of use and efficiency as deadly weapons. That in itself distinguishes guns from other weapons. (In case it needs repeating, pointing out that distinction is not blaming guns.)

If you want to lower the murder rate, and I’m sure you do as a member of civilized society;), you’d focus on by far the foremost means of murder, not on much lesser means. There’s nothing nefarious or underhanded about it. We apply the same simple logic to any problem. You don’t fix the door when your house is on fire. More to your point, you don’t let the fire burn because the door needs fixing too. If someone opposed drunk driving laws because a few drivers still run stop signs, you’d dismiss him as an idiot, right? But when it comes to guns, that’s passed off as reasonable thinking.

If death by knives or bombs or pillows gets to the same level as death by guns, then we can talk about them. Until then, they’re just deflection, or misrepresentation, or dishonesty, call it what you will.

[doorhinge]

@Esox_Lucius

First, characterizing opposition to guns as blaming the actual hunks of metal is small and childish and misrepresents the argument. We don’t blame atoms for the atomic bomb, either.

Second, guns, not bombs or knives, are used in the overwhelming majority of spree killings and murders in general because they’re so freaking easy. For the general populace, nothing comes close to guns for ease of use and efficiency as deadly weapons. That in itself distinguishes guns from other weapons. (In case it needs repeating, pointing out that distinction is not blaming guns.)

If you want to lower the murder rate, and I’m sure you do as a member of civilized society;), you’d focus on by far the foremost means of murder, not on much lesser means. There’s nothing nefarious or underhanded about it. We apply the same simple logic to any problem. You don’t fix the door when your house is on fire. More to your point, you don’t let the fire burn because the door needs fixing too. If someone opposed drunk driving laws because a few drivers still run stop signs, you’d dismiss him as an idiot, right? But when it comes to guns, that’s passed off as reasonable thinking.

If death by knives or bombs or pillows gets to the same level as death by guns, then we can talk about them. Until then, they’re just deflection, or misrepresentation, or dishonesty, call it what you will.

Horse. Shit. Murderers murder. You want to blame inanimate objects for the actions of murderers. Your door didn’t burn your house down. Hunks of metal didn’t jump up and pop a cap in yo azz. You’re correct that we don’t blame atoms for the atomic bomb.

You, of course, are still free to deflect, misrepresent, or blame inanimate objects for the actions of murderers.

And before I dismiss you , I have no idea what your drunk driving/stop signs example is suppose to represent?

[bup]

@doorhinge

You, of course, are still free to deflect, misrepresent, or blame inanimate objects for the actions of murderers.

Except that nobody’s doing that. Nobody’s saying the guns themselves are responsible. You’re just deliberately misinterpreting.

[doorhinge]

@bup

Except that nobody’s doing that. Nobody’s saying the guns themselves are responsible. You’re just deliberately misinterpreting.

Read post #55 again. Some people do not want to talk about knives or bombs or pillows as murder weapons. Only guns.

[bup]

@doorhinge

Read post #55 again. Some people do not want to talk about knives or bombs or pillows as murder weapons. Only guns.

…which does nothing to contradict my statement that “nobody’s saying the guns themselves are responsible.”

[Esox_Lucius]

@doorhinge

I have no idea what your drunk driving/stop signs example is suppose to represent?

Drunk driving was causing too many accidents so laws were enacted to reduce their numbers, with successful results. Far fewer accidents were caused by running stop signs, so nothing extra needed to be done about it.

Now substitute “gun deaths” for “drunk driving” and “knife deaths” for “running stop signs”, and you have what would normally happen. That’s the way things are done. Except with guns.

It’s worth noting that in creating laws against drunk driving, no one “blamed” alcohol. However, it’s very possible that some alcoholics accused lawmakers of blaming it. Addicts can be irrational that way.