ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gun control issues , gun control laws

Reply
Old 11th July 2017, 09:28 AM   #41
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,827
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Hard to tell since it's all but illegal to collect real information on it. Strange, that.
No, it isn't.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 10:08 AM   #42
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,354
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Do you have any actual evidence to support this? Plenty of stuff which is claimed as "common sense" turns out to be false.
What is this, some kind of skeptics site? Hoplophobes are having an emotional moment here!
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 10:09 AM   #43
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,136
Hm .. amount of accidental shootings in US seem very high, but then when no training is required, it will be.
I see two quite different 'use of the gun' .. one is against general crime .. some wants to mug you, maybe rape you, but is not after your life as primary goal .. the second is terrorism .. some is after your life as primary goal.
These two are way different, and people often mix them together.
First one is way more common .. and just showing your gun will typically be sufficient to defend yourself. Not necessarily to lower the crime rate though, as the thug might just attack someone else 5 minutes later.
The second one is very rare, and even chance somebody armed will be nearby is low. Even lower is the chance he will be willing to intervene. And then there are more and more popular cases where shooting just wont do you much good, like suing car to plow through crowd.
I think nobody can expect much reduction in terrorism attacks with concealed carry. Even general crime might be impacted just a little. Still if I get mugged, or in the middle of mass shooting .. I will be damn sorry I don't have a gun. I wouldn't care about crime rate of a country .. I would care about surviving and defending my family, if nobody else.
I wonder, besides general crime stats .. how much less often are gun owners victims of crime ?
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 10:19 AM   #44
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,852
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Funny you didn't ask about the numbers used when the argument was in support of CC.
Are you under some sort of impression that I'm in favour of CC? Should I obsessively read every post on the forum and call absolutely every single one on their inaccuracies lest you find me guilty of hypocrisy? Or are you just miffed that someone dared to call you on your "common sense" comment, something that usually doesn't fly here?

Quote:
And the point was made that there are no numbers so neither side is supported.
Then don't make such silly claims.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 10:38 AM   #45
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
The OP used the false dichotomy that there are only two relevant stats, both stats were in places where violence went down. There ought to be two more data points- where crime stayed the same, and where it went up. What were the changes in the CCW rates where crime went up?
I'd like to see this data as well.

States where the conceal-carry laws are extremely tight - what were the crime rates then - hopefully before and after the tougher laws went into effect.
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha!
Eqinsu Ocha!
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 10:40 AM   #46
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,803
"The Stanford team found precisely the opposite: "Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws," they write, "violent crime is estimated to be 13-15 percent higher than it would have been without the RTC law."

So far I've run through the Vice article, went to the Trace (anti-gun violence advocate) website who worked with Vice on the article, but the closest I've got to the actual paper is this:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23510

I'm very interested to see how somebody came up with the percentages in the above quote.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 10:44 AM   #47
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,354
Originally Posted by C_Felix View Post
I'd like to see this data as well.

States where the conceal-carry laws are extremely tight - what were the crime rates then - hopefully before and after the tougher laws went into effect.
A further test for causation should be: how many offences were committed by CCW holders?

If the crime rate goes up 10.00%, but only 0.05% of crime involves a CCW holder, then it's obviously something else that is causing crime to rise.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 10:48 AM   #48
AJM8125
Potsing whiled runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ignore
Posts: 19,290
Quote:
In the four decades that the modern, militant gun rights movement has been around....<snip>


That plus all the hypotheticals and the fact that the article was produced in partnership with The Trace, a Michael Bloomberg publication, tells me all I need to know.

For those of you who don't know, Mr. Bloomberg is vehemently opposed to concealed carry. Except when it comes to his personal safety, that is. Then it's ok to surround himself with the concealed firearms carried by his private security team. 24/7.

Yup.
__________________
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 10:54 AM   #49
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,473
You are aware that the NRA lobbied hard so that the CDC and other agencies were banned from collecting data on gun deaths.
__________________
"eventually we will get something done."
- Donald J. Trump
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 10:55 AM   #50
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
You are aware that the NRA lobbied hard so that the CDC and other agencies were banned from collecting data on gun deaths.
Hell they successfully blocked the ATF from using computers.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 11:22 AM   #51
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,827
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
You are aware that the NRA lobbied hard so that the CDC and other agencies were banned from collecting data on gun deaths.
No, they were not.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 11:51 AM   #52
AJM8125
Potsing whiled runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ignore
Posts: 19,290
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And even if they were, it's no excuse for making up their own facts.
__________________
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 01:29 PM   #53
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 5,868
Originally Posted by Bikewer View Post
We have a LOT of shootings here in St. Louis. Hardly a weekend goes by without a dozen or so people getting shot. These are all gang/drug related and almost all confined to a very small area of the city.
I find that remarkable and sad at the same time. St Louis is a city with a population of about 315,000, similar to Christchurch here in NZ, (about 380,000.) Christchurch has a drug and gang problem too; more P-Labs very km2 than any other city in NZ, and gangs like Black Power, Bandidos, King Cobras, Mongrel Mob etc, the usual groups of scumbags and thugs that infest any medium sized city.

In 13 years of living in that city (1986 to 1998) I can recall perhaps a dozen incidences of gun violence, about one per year. Even when Christchurch was later known as the murder capital of New Zealand (it was nicknamed "Crimechurch") the rate of murders was still very low compared with other similar sized cities in the USA, .
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 01:37 PM   #54
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,136
Btw. I can't find percentage of gun owners per state .. most statistics show guns per capita .. which is something quite different, and IMHO not so relevant .. anyone knows ?
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 02:16 PM   #55
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,513
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Historically, the German police having a monopoly on violence worked out so well.
Since we're Godwinning the thread anyway... The rise of Nazi Germany came about because the German police *didn't* have a monopoly on violence. Hitler's SA goons started out as thugs deployed by the party to disrupt rival political rallies and events. The Nazi party rose to power on the back of such political violence, outside of any legitimate police authority or government control.

Incidentally, this is why I find the political violence of the "antifa" crowd so depressingly ironic. Their use of violence to suppress and intimidate political speech they don't like is literally a fascist tactic.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 04:06 PM   #56
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,803
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Hell they successfully blocked the ATF from using computers.
To establish a database of firearms owners.

ATF would love to blame their record keeping deficiencies on the NRA.

Unfortunately for ATF (more accurately at the time, the ATTU Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit) they have never been very good at record keeping and they really dropped the ball with the NFA registrations that were submitted during the 30 day amnesty in '68.

Individuals registered their previously unregistered MG's etc w/o penalty and w/o the $200.00 transfer tax. Owners received their registration(s) and tax stamps and went their merry way.

Years later, folks with papered guns were accused of being in possession of unregistered MG's or other NFA weapons or devices. If they had their paperwork in hand they were generally OK, but not always.

This became a huge issue in the licensed NFA dealer community, because in compliance inspections ATF examiners were alleging that dealers were in possession of these unregistered weapons when they didn't just have official ATF registrations and tax stamps in hand, they had original or copies of the original 1968 registration paperwork.

How'd this happen?

It has since come to light that in at least two time periods, the 1968 amnesty and the run up to the May 19th, 1986 cut off date for registration of transferable MG's, ATF clerical employees destroyed existing NFA registration paperwork in an effort to cut down on their workload, below is the Office of Inspector General report from 1998:

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/IG_r...A_registry.txt

The response from Eric Larson, who has spearheaded the investigation into deficiencies with the NFRTR:

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/IG_report_response2.txt

Lo and behold, the Chief of the ATF NFA branch sticks both feet in his mouth, on video go to 1:17:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


ATF is underfunded, but they were underfunded long before any question of 2nd Amendment rights were involved, and they've also been the victim of their own employees not taking proper care to perform their responsibilities, and that is no fault of the NRA either.

Give them funding, give them all Apple computers, it's not going to change the institutional mentality there.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

Last edited by BStrong; 11th July 2017 at 04:08 PM.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 04:14 PM   #57
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 55,573
Originally Posted by Bikewer View Post
So, it's fairly obvious that "good guys with guns" do indeed succeed in protecting themselves or others or in stopping criminal activity, and on a fairly ongoing basis.
No-one ever claimed that it never happens. The fact that it does happen doesn't change the conclusion that the rate of gun violence would be lower without RTC laws.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 04:18 PM   #58
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 55,573
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Wait... how can they know what would've happened under a hypothetical alternate reality scenario?
They used four different methods of statistical modelling, including the one used by Lott in his book. This was stated in paragraph 5.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 05:34 PM   #59
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,354
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
. The fact that it does happen doesn't change the conclusion that the rate of gun violence would be lower without RTC laws.
No, that's self evident garbage as the crimes aren't being committed by ccw holders.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 06:17 PM   #60
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,180
Art:
You are invited to take off your blinkers and read "the armed citizen" columns that are extracted from local news reports. Unlike the fear mongering of "oh, dear, another murderer" this collection of un screamed incidents (published monthly in the NRA's rag) points to three things that happen: armed citizen scares off cook; armed citizen gets control of situation until cops come; armed citizen shoots crook. (sometimes lethal, sometimes not).

I've been getting that rag for about 10 years now. In paper form. There are between 12 and 15 of these reports, citing which city's news report it comes from, that paint a very different picture form the nonsense you spout.

There are people out there preventing crime and in some cases helping the cops apprehend people who are out there screwing with their fellow citizens.

Take off your blinders. To the people, it matters to have the choice not to be a victim. Having that choice matters. Some people don't prefer that option.

Your confirmation bias is sad. GO read the last ten years of that column. That's 10 x 12 and 12 ~ 1400+ incidents that may inform you, if you can be bothered to take the effort.
Skeptic? Not. Willfully ignorant.
======================================
(The rest of the monthly offering in the NRA rag is political noise, which I have no time for; occasionally interesting historical articles that relate a particular fire arm to a time in history, often to do with military campaigns or hunting; advertisements for a whole lot of stuff (mostly ignore); and the occasional "collectors corner" article where one can find out about well preserved firearms that are very old.

There are also a variety benchmark tests for weapons and ammo that I no longer care about, as I've got all of the firearms I need at the moment.
I've cut out enough reviews for 9mms such that if I do want to buy one last one, I know what to choose from. Odds are, I won't.
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

Last edited by Darth Rotor; 11th July 2017 at 06:23 PM.
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 06:35 PM   #61
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,053
Full disclosure; I am a multiple firearm owner. More a collector really.

I do not hunt.

I am not now, never have been and likely never will be a member of the NRA.

Because I can read and have a better-than-average grasp of history I understand that the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution was designed to address a national (and now impractical and obsolete) military requirement, not a personal desire to hunt ducks. That said, nearly my entire collection are ex-military firearms,... just in case. My Lee Enfield's could come in handy if The Hun invades.

I do not carry although I have thought about getting a permit to do so simply to save on paperwork and hassle given the way purchasing laws are in my state.

I do not keep a firearm loaded and ready for action to defend my home or family - all are safely locked up at all times. I am a responsible gun owner.

That said, in a truly free society any law abiding citizen that wants to own one or more firearms should be able to own one or more firearms. 'Eff off, I like guns,' is a perfectly valid reason to own a gun,... in a truly free society.

People who don't like guns do not have the right to decide that those of us who do can't have them, just because they don't like guns,... in a truly free society.

The NRA doesn't seem to get that.

20-odd years ago the NRA decided for political reasons that to justify the right to own guns they needed to push a right to self defense (using guns).
In the process they created a whole new market for whole new types of firearms designed specifically for personal protection - which couldn't have upset the NRA's main contributors too much.

The NRA party line that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun is bollocks. Do good guys (or gals) with guns sometimes stop bad guys with guns? Yeah, but it isn't all that common. On the flip side statistically it is far more likely that gun will harm the owner or someone the owner knows/loves rather than a baddie. Not the best argument for personal protection. Of course if one is a responsible gun owner and keeps their firearms unloaded and locked up then they are far less likely to harm themselves or a loved one,... but that makes the firearm all but useless for self defense.

That said, if someone is convinced that they need a firearm to protect themselves, their loved ones and/or property and they are a law abiding citizen they should be allowed to have a firearm for protection,... in a truly free society. Even if that increases risk of injury or death. Freedom isn't all moon beams and sparkly unicorns.

Keeping in mind that the primary purchase of regulation is to get the legislator re-elected, restricting the ability of law abiding persons to purchase firearms is going to have eff-all effect on the rate of firearm violence and little on the incidence of accidental death or injury (I will concede it might have some impact on the rate of suicides but by how much is debatable. There are better ways to dramatically reduce gun violence than making it illegal for law abiding people to engage in something they enjoy.

That's my $0.02 worth
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 07:03 PM   #62
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,827
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
On the flip side statistically it is far more likely that gun will harm the owner or someone the owner knows/loves rather than a baddie.
The statistics you refer to are aggregate statistics which include gun ownership by baddies. They do not indicate a higher risk of harm for someone who is not a member of a gang or otherwise engaged in criminal activity.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 07:16 PM   #63
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,726
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I already know how this is going to end, but...

The Good Guy with a Gun Theory, Debunked



Here are a couple more relevant quotes from the article, which you should totally go read:







The upshot of this last point is that while violent crime statistics have been falling all over America, it has fallen more slowly in states that have "Shall Issue" laws.

Since this is a comprehensive and rigorous study, backed by forty years' worth of crime data, I expect that those members on this forum who have previously repeated the NRA's propaganda that gun ownership reduces crime to change their minds, completely recant this idea, and start arguing for greater gun control, now that we have hard scientific evidence to support it.

*beat*

Hahaha. Who am I kidding? Of course they won't.
Not seeing what other possible conflating factors were investigated, for example the presence of lead in pollution and paint, and it's gradual eradication.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 11:03 PM   #64
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,042
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Here is a response (from Lott himself)
Lott is known data forger. I would not believe him if he said the sky was blue.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 11:12 PM   #65
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,732
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Lott is known data forger. I would not believe him if he said the sky was blue.
In all the years since his books have come out and of all the attempted refutations of his conclusions, I have never once heard this before.

What's the evidence you got that informs your statement?
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 11:13 PM   #66
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,042
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your question itself is nonsensical. Why are you considering only cases where the firearm was actually discharged? Guns can have a significant effect on a situation even without being discharged. Shouldn't those cases be included too? Yes, obviously they should. So why do you want to ignore them?
Your objection is nonsensical. The questions were not related to defensive gun use (fired or not). They were related to injury and death due to guns, period. The accidental discharge of a gun has absolutely nothing to do with defense.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 11:15 PM   #67
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,042
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
From the 2013 CDC study....
Do you have a link for that?
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 11:23 PM   #68
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,042
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Wait... how can they know what would've happened under a hypothetical alternate reality scenario?
By evaluating (and possibly extrapolating) existing data. For example, if 189 people drowned swimming in a local creek in a town with no swimming holes and 230 drowned after 14 swimming pools were built, one could make a make a reasonable extrapolation about the "alternate reality" of no swimming pools when in fact some pools did exist.

Kinda line economists use Ceteris paribus to describe alternate scenarios.

Last edited by SezMe; 11th July 2017 at 11:25 PM.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 11:40 PM   #69
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,042
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
For those of you who don't know, Mr. Bloomberg is vehemently opposed to concealed carry. Except when it comes to his personal safety, that is. Then it's ok to surround himself with the concealed firearms carried by his private security team. 24/7.

Yup.
I'm pretty sure you would agree that there is a world of difference between private security carrying in order to protect a person who gets death threats and some ordinary Joe carrying a concealed weapon.

You attempted comparison has no value in its attempt to portray Bloomberg as a hypocrite.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 11:49 PM   #70
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,042
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Hahahahaha. You didn't read that link, did you? It specifically states that the work was based on Delaware state data. For example, this is a quote from the text:
Quote:
Our fieldwork demonstrates that data across Delaware agencies can be linked and that linking data has value in allowing service providers to better understand the multiple risk factors for violence involvement that need to be addressed,particularly among young men.
That's got nothing to do with the CDC.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 12:15 AM   #71
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,042
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
That said, in a truly free society any law abiding citizen that wants to own one or more firearms should be able to own one or more firearms. 'Eff off, I like guns,' is a perfectly valid reason to own a gun,... in a truly free society.

People who don't like guns do not have the right to decide that those of us who do can't have them, just because they don't like guns,... in a truly free society.
<snip>

That said, if someone is convinced that they need a firearm to protect themselves, their loved ones and/or property and they are a law abiding citizen they should be allowed to have a firearm for protection,... in a truly free society.
In this you have just substituted your own bias ("law abiding citizen") for the NRA's (just about anybody) or the anti-gun nuts (nobody). What makes your particular criterion better than anyone else's?

And does a jay walking ticket debar someone from being able to buy a gun? After all, she is not "law abiding". Yeah, I know that's a silly question but it raises the very important question about what "law abiding" really means.

Also, what limits would you place on the definition of a "gun". Can a "law abiding" citizen care these:


Again, it's a silly question but it raises the issue of what kind of gun any "law abiding" citizen should be able to own.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 12:17 AM   #72
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,042
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The statistics you refer to are aggregate statistics which include gun ownership by baddies. They do not indicate a higher risk of harm for someone who is not a member of a gang or otherwise engaged in criminal activity.
[Citation needed]
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 12:21 AM   #73
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,042
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
In all the years since his books have come out and of all the attempted refutations of his conclusions, I have never once heard this before.

What's the evidence you got that informs your statement?
It's a reasonable question. Most of the site are not from sources that might be deemed unbiased. Well, in the gun debate what sites are unbiased. Anyway, this is just the introduction.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 12:34 AM   #74
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,473
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Since we're Godwinning the thread anyway... The rise of Nazi Germany came about because the German police *didn't* have a monopoly on violence. Hitler's SA goons started out as thugs deployed by the party to disrupt rival political rallies and events. The Nazi party rose to power on the back of such political violence, outside of any legitimate police authority or government control.

Incidentally, this is why I find the political violence of the "antifa" crowd so depressingly ironic. Their use of violence to suppress and intimidate political speech they don't like is literally a fascist tactic.
Ha ! a rare 100% agreement .

Paramilitary group are often used in support or the creation of fascist governement, to deal with the more innoficial dirty work.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 02:33 AM   #75
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,434
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The statistics you refer to are aggregate statistics which include gun ownership by baddies. They do not indicate a higher risk of harm for someone who is not a member of a gang or otherwise engaged in criminal activity.
Unfortunately, the real world doesn't break down into neat little groups labelled 'goodies' and baddies'. Try watching that Youtube video linked earlier.
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 03:15 AM   #76
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
To establish a database of firearms owners.
To computerize records they are legally required to maintain. Not a database of fire arms owners, but records of the sales that they are again, required to maintain.

The goal is to make the data useless.


It seems your basic argument is that any collection of gun data is wrong and all guns need to be anonymous and untraceable. That does fit with the NRA's goals. All gun owners need to be able to quickly sell off their guns to criminals, it is a basic american right as is the right for that to have no legal consequences for you ever.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

Last edited by ponderingturtle; 12th July 2017 at 03:19 AM.
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 03:42 AM   #77
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,852
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
They used four different methods of statistical modelling, including the one used by Lott in his book. This was stated in paragraph 5.
This doesn't answer my question. How do you determine what would've happened in another reality?
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 03:45 AM   #78
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,852
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
By evaluating (and possibly extrapolating) existing data. For example, if 189 people drowned swimming in a local creek in a town with no swimming holes and 230 drowned after 14 swimming pools were built, one could make a make a reasonable extrapolation about the "alternate reality" of no swimming pools when in fact some pools did exist.
But then, you'd say "230 people died after these swimming pools were installed, compared to 189 in the same amount of time prior to their installation." not "only 189 people would've died if these pools weren't there!". You just can't know the latter.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 04:25 AM   #79
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,827
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
[Citation needed]
Funny, you never asked for a citation from Mark F. Your request for citation is dishonest. I might still dig it up later, but it's clear that you're trying to apply a hypocritical standard of evidence.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 04:26 AM   #80
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,827
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
This doesn't answer my question. How do you determine what would've happened in another reality?
1. Put some numbers in a statistics program
2. ????
3. Predict alternate realities!
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.