|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 18 2012 11:26 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 11:19 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:46 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:44 warshop wrote:
[quote]
But who's to say that this piece was objective in its evaluation...? Obviously, someone who advocates something will probably cite sources that are beneficial to its purpose.. That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves. If you need help with where to start, try here: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/To quote it: We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history. I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002Conclusion
Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Did you read the article? It's right there... http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Let me just tell you, that for an article to be regarded as valuable, it needs to peer reviewed. Has this article been peer reviewed? One of the writers, Gary Mauser, is a business and administration professor. He has studied psychology. I quote his website: He is a member of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation. I have a hard time thinking this person is objective (look at the Google Images of him). While what he states might not be false, it might well be very selective. This article provides little to support the correlations it presents. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm - Plenty of sources from law journals, gov't stat sites, doj, pretty much everything. But I know what you'll say: gunowners.org, it's already biased because of the point it's trying to make. Just look at sources. http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf - Same story here, plenty of sources for your liking http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/ - More here, and better yet just some debate basics in general. I've yet to see your peer reviewed article from Nature showing gun control works, though. (You should get on that.)
You fail to understand my point. I'm not stating the opposite (that gun control works), I'm merely stating that neither sides have anything demonstrable. I've read plenty of articles on both sides.
It's either sources are very biased (that Havard Law article is a good example [not saying that they provided false statement]; the fact that it was published in a well-known school's journal does not qualify to its validity), or sources that offer little to no value to their credibility (in order words, they do not support the correlations they've made nor have been peer reviewed).
Surely, a meta-analyst of the analysts present would be a proper (an analysts of all the analysts), although I doubt we're there yet.
|
My family and I own 40+ firearms. Most of which are hunting rifles and shotguns, some are hand guns (maybe 10 or so). None of which are of the "assault rifle" variety. You may ask why we own so many. Its not because we're some nut jobs that think we'll have to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government or those crazy people on the doomsday prep. shows. The majority of our firearms are passed down from generation to generation. We are avid hunters that not only respect the life of other human beings but also the wildlife that we harvest (I use the word "harvest" because we use the meat for food, whatever we kill). I am 27 and have been shooting/hunting since the 4th grade when my dad bought me my first 20 gauge single shot shotgun. My dad, being a moral, responsible, law-abiding citizen, taught me how to respect firearms and all of the safety and regulations that go with it. My parents live on a 400 acre ranch outside of a small town in central Texas. I now live in Dallas and have to work in the higher crime rate areas. I bought a small caliber (.380) semi-auto pistol that holds 7 rounds. I keep it in the glove box of my vehicle for personal protection. I plan to get my CHL (concealed handgun license) soon as my job requires me to be in and out of my vehicle frequently. I pray I never have to use it but in that dire circumstance of someone threatening my life I would rather be armed then unarmed.
Guns are not some evil thing that makes people do terrible things anymore then a match and a can of gasoline causes people to commit arson. When I hear of the tragedies of mass shootings I don't immediately jump to blame the weapon but become very concerned for our society's state of moral behavior. Hoping that our society would care enough about the mental wellness of its people is probably just as naive as thinking stricter gun laws in America would reduce the amount of guns in the wrong hands.
I know there will always be evil people in this world but I would rather work towards helping people mentally ill then give up my right to own family heirlooms. I only make this post to give insight as to why I stick up for my 2nd amendment right.
|
On December 18 2012 11:30 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 11:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2012 11:19 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 11:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2012 11:01 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides.
What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Do you know why quoting numbers is dangerous? The article he cited references a study by two Harvard Law criminologists with 150 citations (about 30-40 unique ones from a skim). I'm reading it right now. I don't like the idea behind the study very much. It doesn't actually prove "gun control is counterproductive" or at least it doesn't prove that gun control would be counterproductive in the United States. What it does show is that internationally incredibly stringent and total gun control tend to be not so hot. Of course, this ignores the point that this is not what most "anti-gun" or gun control people are advocating. They also look at pure rate of gun ownership and don't even mention automatic weapons in the paper, which is the public square issue at the moment. Of course, the simplest way to show that the paper itself rejects the blanket theses "gun control is counterproductive" is that it in NO way supports the lessening of current restrictions on guns. Zip, zero, nada. It shows no correlation, not a negative one. And of course, the ACRU article only mentions this at the VERY end of the article. To quote the article: "But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive." Thank you for at least taking the due diligence to read it. That much is all any one can ask for. You brought up automatic weapons. Let's just say they're as good as banned, and only 20-50,000 dollars and an extensive 8 week check by the ATF will land you one. The Harvard criminologists don't say that. Page 670 Woah, woah. Page 670 talks about conceal and carry. This does not show that gun control is counterproductive. You can have strictly controlled guns with conceal and carry. Again: higher number of people with guns does not mean that guns are not as controlled.Edit: That's also not the conclusion of the criminologists, it's research done by other people (Lott 1997). Why not just cite the other people in the ACRU article? Because the research is a decade old and it isn't spicy. My fault there, I'm trying to argue with many people at a time, so while you're doing that alone I have these other guys to contend with as well. I'll try to give your point more time when I can. As for the study itself I feel like it has not lost worth any of it's value because it still refutes the argument that gun control is effective.
Understandable. I still take the study with a grain of salt. But I don't think you'll end up agreeing with me, and most people don't when I'm reviewing academic papers. I'm probably too critical about it, but that comes from having to have read a lot and having interacted with the people that write them. I'm a little peeved they didn't test for a non-linear fit (the top four murder rate countries contain both the highest and lower rates of gun ownership, and the lowest four contain a slightly-above-the mean amount that makes me think there may be a pattern there) but the central assumption of their paper that lower # of guns = stricter control just doesn't jibe with reality for me.
Their most compelling points in the paper run temporally in the UK, but don't relate to just gun control-they relate to gun *banning*. There's also no temporal analysis of the impact of light or gatekeeper gun control, only stringent control (which is mostly because that's a LOT easier to measure).
Also, fyi, I'd drop the gunfacts site from that list in the future. Most of the links 404, which sucks, or are covered in the other ones.
|
Following duscussion in this thread for the last few days, this reminded me of recent ZvT balance discussion. There, some people argued that nerfing infestor or generally Zerg is the way to balance the game. Other people argued that buffing Terran tier 3 is the way to go. Here on gun thread, some anti-gun people argue that nerfing citizens and thus potential criminals as well by gun control makes a safer society, while other pro-gun people argue that buffing citizens with guns to fight those ciriminals is acatually better. I have to emphasize that I KNOW that this problem is not that simple and there are many other points, but I am intrigued by similarity in these discussions. Supposedly, everyone wants a balanced ZvT = safer society, but their approaches are totally different.
If I may continue with a forced starcraft analogy, 2nd amendment argument sounds like ZvP where some pro-gun people argue that nerfing approach for ZvT results in imbalance in another match-up = against constitutional rights, which anti-gun people who are more concerned with ZvT balance = safety in society don't emphasize as much. Real life issues are not exactly starcraft balance issues, but discussion patterns are quite similar in my eyes. That is the most interesting thing for me reading you guys' awesome discussion here.
|
On December 18 2012 11:37 warshop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 11:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 11:19 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:46 Nagano wrote:[quote] That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves. If you need help with where to start, try here: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/To quote it: We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history. I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002Conclusion
Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Did you read the article? It's right there... http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Let me just tell you, that for an article to be regarded as valuable, it needs to peer reviewed. Has this article been peer reviewed? One of the writers, Gary Mauser, is a business and administration professor. He has studied psychology. I quote his website: He is a member of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation. I have a hard time thinking this person is objective (look at the Google Images of him). While what he states might not be false, it might well be very selective. This article provides little to support the correlations it presents. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm - Plenty of sources from law journals, gov't stat sites, doj, pretty much everything. But I know what you'll say: gunowners.org, it's already biased because of the point it's trying to make. Just look at sources. http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf - Same story here, plenty of sources for your liking http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/ - More here, and better yet just some debate basics in general. I've yet to see your peer reviewed article from Nature showing gun control works, though. (You should get on that.) You fail to understand my point. I'm not stating the opposite (that gun control works), I'm merely stating that neither sides have anything demonstrable. I've read plenty of articles on both sides. It's either sources are very biased (that Havard Law article is a good example [not saying that they provided false statement]; the fact that it was published in a well-known school's journal does not qualify to its validity), or sources that offer little to no value to their credibility (in order words, they do not support the correlations they've made nor have been peer reviewed). Surely, a meta-analyst of the analysts present would be a proper (an analysts of all the analysts).
Nothing "demonstrable"? One side presents a whole array of arguments supported by facts and resources. The other a knee-jerk emotion and a guns-are-bad mentality. I'd say there's a difference here.
You put an unreachable ceiling on this topic because you don't seek the truth. You seek a reaffirmation of the belief you already have. I'm trying my best here to support my position, but you do nothing to argue yours.
This whole thread has been very 1 sided in terms of, at the very least, the attempt at trying to back up the claim with facts. The problem is, there have been many, as I showed just a few examples of, examples in the past showing gun control doesn't work.
But you are looking for a castle in the air.
|
On December 18 2012 11:37 warshop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 11:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 11:19 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 09:46 Nagano wrote:[quote] That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves. If you need help with where to start, try here: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/To quote it: We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history. I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002Conclusion
Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Did you read the article? It's right there... http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Let me just tell you, that for an article to be regarded as valuable, it needs to peer reviewed. Has this article been peer reviewed? One of the writers, Gary Mauser, is a business and administration professor. He has studied psychology. I quote his website: He is a member of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation. I have a hard time thinking this person is objective (look at the Google Images of him). While what he states might not be false, it might well be very selective. This article provides little to support the correlations it presents. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm - Plenty of sources from law journals, gov't stat sites, doj, pretty much everything. But I know what you'll say: gunowners.org, it's already biased because of the point it's trying to make. Just look at sources. http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf - Same story here, plenty of sources for your liking http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/ - More here, and better yet just some debate basics in general. I've yet to see your peer reviewed article from Nature showing gun control works, though. (You should get on that.) You fail to understand my point. I'm not stating the opposite (that gun control works), I'm merely stating that neither sides have anything demonstrable. I've read plenty of articles on both sides. It's either sources are very biased (that Havard Law article is a good example [not saying that they provided false statement]; the fact that it was published in a well-known school's journal does not qualify to its validity), or sources that offer little to no value to their credibility (in order words, they do not support the correlations they've made nor have been peer reviewed). Surely, a meta-analyst of the analysts present would be a proper (an analysts of all the analysts).
I think that even a meta-analysis would be somewhat skewed because the analyses themselves rely on the same assumptions and are predominantly done by the same people. The only good way to talk about gun control is a continuum. Most analyses have to rely on comparisons (bad bad bad BAD to do because of the lack of adequate predictive modeling across countries) or longitudinal studies using dubious-at-best measurements of efficacy because of the confounding variables.
Then add the fact that no one really agrees what "gun control" really means and the fact that there are lots and lots of organizations with a vested interest in guns funding research (and this does have *some* impact), well, you have some pretty rough stuff.
|
The really frustrating thing about this thread and the whole gun debate is that people can't stick with an argument. They hop from one to another to another.
For example, if the first argument is that guns kill, and you mention other things that kill, they immediately change the argument to "yeah but those things have good uses." And if you point out uses for guns, the argument becomes "yeah but the stats show they are not efficient for those uses." And so on ad nauseum in a circle forever...
|
On December 18 2012 11:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 11:37 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 11:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 11:19 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:[quote] I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.[quote] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002[quote] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Did you read the article? It's right there... http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Let me just tell you, that for an article to be regarded as valuable, it needs to peer reviewed. Has this article been peer reviewed? One of the writers, Gary Mauser, is a business and administration professor. He has studied psychology. I quote his website: He is a member of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation. I have a hard time thinking this person is objective (look at the Google Images of him). While what he states might not be false, it might well be very selective. This article provides little to support the correlations it presents. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm - Plenty of sources from law journals, gov't stat sites, doj, pretty much everything. But I know what you'll say: gunowners.org, it's already biased because of the point it's trying to make. Just look at sources. http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf - Same story here, plenty of sources for your liking http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/ - More here, and better yet just some debate basics in general. I've yet to see your peer reviewed article from Nature showing gun control works, though. (You should get on that.) You fail to understand my point. I'm not stating the opposite (that gun control works), I'm merely stating that neither sides have anything demonstrable. I've read plenty of articles on both sides. It's either sources are very biased (that Havard Law article is a good example [not saying that they provided false statement]; the fact that it was published in a well-known school's journal does not qualify to its validity), or sources that offer little to no value to their credibility (in order words, they do not support the correlations they've made nor have been peer reviewed). Surely, a meta-analyst of the analysts present would be a proper (an analysts of all the analysts). I think that even a meta-analysis would be somewhat skewed because the analyses themselves rely on the same assumptions and are predominantly done by the same people. The only good way to talk about gun control is a continuum. Most analyses have to rely on comparisons (bad bad bad BAD to do because of the lack of adequate predictive modeling across countries) or longitudinal studies using dubious-at-best measurements of efficacy because of the confounding variables. Then add the fact that no one really agrees what "gun control" really means and the fact that there are lots and lots of organizations with a vested interest in guns funding research (and this does have *some* impact), well, you have some pretty rough stuff.
I cannot disagree there.
|
On December 18 2012 11:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 11:37 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 11:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 11:19 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:[quote] I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.[quote] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002[quote] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Did you read the article? It's right there... http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Let me just tell you, that for an article to be regarded as valuable, it needs to peer reviewed. Has this article been peer reviewed? One of the writers, Gary Mauser, is a business and administration professor. He has studied psychology. I quote his website: He is a member of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation. I have a hard time thinking this person is objective (look at the Google Images of him). While what he states might not be false, it might well be very selective. This article provides little to support the correlations it presents. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm - Plenty of sources from law journals, gov't stat sites, doj, pretty much everything. But I know what you'll say: gunowners.org, it's already biased because of the point it's trying to make. Just look at sources. http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf - Same story here, plenty of sources for your liking http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/ - More here, and better yet just some debate basics in general. I've yet to see your peer reviewed article from Nature showing gun control works, though. (You should get on that.) You fail to understand my point. I'm not stating the opposite (that gun control works), I'm merely stating that neither sides have anything demonstrable. I've read plenty of articles on both sides. It's either sources are very biased (that Havard Law article is a good example [not saying that they provided false statement]; the fact that it was published in a well-known school's journal does not qualify to its validity), or sources that offer little to no value to their credibility (in order words, they do not support the correlations they've made nor have been peer reviewed). Surely, a meta-analyst of the analysts present would be a proper (an analysts of all the analysts). I think that even a meta-analysis would be somewhat skewed because the analyses themselves rely on the same assumptions and are predominantly done by the same people. The only good way to talk about gun control is a continuum. Most analyses have to rely on comparisons (bad bad bad BAD to do because of the lack of adequate predictive modeling across countries) or longitudinal studies using dubious-at-best measurements of efficacy because of the confounding variables. Then add the fact that no one really agrees what "gun control" really means and the fact that there are lots and lots of organizations with a vested interest in guns funding research (and this does have *some* impact), well, you have some pretty rough stuff.
If you're the party trying to implement a law, the burden of proof that the law will work is upon YOU. So far, nothing proposed will do that. "Assault weapon" ban? Will not work. High-capacity magazine ban? Will not work. Completely gun ban? Ruled unconstitutional.
These are the solutions being pushed, yet none of them even chip at the problem they were created to solve.
They are knee jerk solutions aimed at making those pushing them look better politically. You are solving nothing, only further stripping away the rights of citizens.
|
To all the people who want to universally ban all private ownership of guns. How many of you smoke? How many of you drink? How many of you drive cars? How many of you take recreational drugs? All of you are outrageously hypocritical. Irresponsible use of all of the above kills countless more people than guns kill innocent people. In fact, a good deal of the gun violence is a result of the things mentioned.
|
I think it'd be funny to make all ammunition clips only hold 1 bullet. Would serve the same purpose, but prevent too much abuse.
|
|
|
On December 18 2012 11:45 Nagano wrote: Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 11:37 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 11:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 11:19 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:04 warshop wrote:[quote] I thank you for that post, but I stand by the fact that his source is unreliable. It only states one side of the debate, which is to advocate guns. A good source would post both sides and be unbiased of such. Isn't that what your source states? To objectively quantity the value of one's source? You are right though, the number of information available to us these days are outstanding. I'll cite a few ones for instance : 1993 - International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.[quote] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/2006 - The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002[quote] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/ This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides. What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Did you read the article? It's right there... http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Let me just tell you, that for an article to be regarded as valuable, it needs to peer reviewed. Has this article been peer reviewed? One of the writers, Gary Mauser, is a business and administration professor. He has studied psychology. I quote his website: He is a member of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation. I have a hard time thinking this person is objective (look at the Google Images of him). While what he states might not be false, it might well be very selective. This article provides little to support the correlations it presents. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm - Plenty of sources from law journals, gov't stat sites, doj, pretty much everything. But I know what you'll say: gunowners.org, it's already biased because of the point it's trying to make. Just look at sources. http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf - Same story here, plenty of sources for your liking http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/ - More here, and better yet just some debate basics in general. I've yet to see your peer reviewed article from Nature showing gun control works, though. (You should get on that.) You fail to understand my point. I'm not stating the opposite (that gun control works), I'm merely stating that neither sides have anything demonstrable. I've read plenty of articles on both sides. It's either sources are very biased (that Havard Law article is a good example [not saying that they provided false statement]; the fact that it was published in a well-known school's journal does not qualify to its validity), or sources that offer little to no value to their credibility (in order words, they do not support the correlations they've made nor have been peer reviewed). Surely, a meta-analyst of the analysts present would be a proper (an analysts of all the analysts). Nothing "demonstrable"? One side presents a whole array of arguments supported by facts and resources. The other a knee-jerk emotion and a guns-are-bad mentality. I'd say there's a difference here. You put an unreachable ceiling on this topic because you don't seek the truth. You seek a reaffirmation of the belief you already have. I'm trying my best here to support my position, but you do nothing to argue yours. This whole thread has been very 1 sided in terms of, at the very least, the attempt at trying to back up the claim with facts. The problem is, there have been many, as I showed just a few examples of, examples in the past showing gun control doesn't work. But you are looking for a castle in the air.
If he is looking for a castle in the air I think you are fighting with windmills.
Look, the American gun control debate is currently about reducing gunshows, possibly increasing requirements for owning a gun re: mental health screens during purchase, restricting availability of high killcount weapons, and maybe (MAYBE) availability of ammunition. There aren't studies showing that any of those things don't work.
There are studies about conceal and carry-but who's screaming about conceal and carry right now? I mean, hell, maybe if he'd tried to get a conceal and carry permit they would have caught the guy. There are studies about banning guns-but very few people think that's sensible.
I mean, heck, the ultimate pro-gun counter-example of Sweden limits total number of guns, has multiple requirements for owning a gun and has no concealed carry. That sounds like gun control to me.
|
On December 18 2012 11:45 Orek wrote:
Following duscussion in this thread for the last few days, this reminded me of recent ZvT balance discussion. There, some people argued that nerfing infestor or generally Zerg is the way to balance the game. Other people argued that buffing Terran tier 3 is the way to go. Here on gun thread, some anti-gun people argue that nerfing citizens and thus potential criminals as well by gun control makes a safer society, while other pro-gun people argue that buffing citizens with guns to fight those ciriminals is acatually better. I have to emphasize that I KNOW that this problem is not that simple and there are many other points, but I am intrigued by similarity in these discussions. Supposedly, everyone wants a balanced ZvT = safer society, but their approaches are totally different.
If I may continue with a forced starcraft analogy, 2nd amendment argument sounds like ZvP where some pro-gun people argue that nerfing approach for ZvT results in imbalance in another match-up = against constitutional rights, which anti-gun people who are more concerned with ZvT balance = safety in society don't emphasize as much. Real life issues are not exactly starcraft balance issues, but discussion patterns are quite similar in my eyes. That is the most interesting thing for me reading you guys' awesome discussion here.
Hope you're enjoying this as much as I enjoy reading your write-ups in the SC section :D
|
On December 18 2012 12:05 killa_robot wrote:
I think it'd be funny to make all ammunition clips only hold 1 bullet. Would serve the same purpose, but prevent too much abuse.
If you're a criminal, this won't affect you. Very easy to modify a magazine.
|
On December 18 2012 12:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 11:45 Nagano wrote: On December 18 2012 11:37 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 11:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 11:19 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:07 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
This is why quoting numbers doesn't work. In firearm related deaths nationwide, nearly half are from suicides.
What else you got.. You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Did you read the article? It's right there... http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Let me just tell you, that for an article to be regarded as valuable, it needs to peer reviewed. Has this article been peer reviewed? One of the writers, Gary Mauser, is a business and administration professor. He has studied psychology. I quote his website: He is a member of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation. I have a hard time thinking this person is objective (look at the Google Images of him). While what he states might not be false, it might well be very selective. This article provides little to support the correlations it presents. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm - Plenty of sources from law journals, gov't stat sites, doj, pretty much everything. But I know what you'll say: gunowners.org, it's already biased because of the point it's trying to make. Just look at sources. http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf - Same story here, plenty of sources for your liking http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/ - More here, and better yet just some debate basics in general. I've yet to see your peer reviewed article from Nature showing gun control works, though. (You should get on that.) You fail to understand my point. I'm not stating the opposite (that gun control works), I'm merely stating that neither sides have anything demonstrable. I've read plenty of articles on both sides. It's either sources are very biased (that Havard Law article is a good example [not saying that they provided false statement]; the fact that it was published in a well-known school's journal does not qualify to its validity), or sources that offer little to no value to their credibility (in order words, they do not support the correlations they've made nor have been peer reviewed). Surely, a meta-analyst of the analysts present would be a proper (an analysts of all the analysts). Nothing "demonstrable"? One side presents a whole array of arguments supported by facts and resources. The other a knee-jerk emotion and a guns-are-bad mentality. I'd say there's a difference here. You put an unreachable ceiling on this topic because you don't seek the truth. You seek a reaffirmation of the belief you already have. I'm trying my best here to support my position, but you do nothing to argue yours. This whole thread has been very 1 sided in terms of, at the very least, the attempt at trying to back up the claim with facts. The problem is, there have been many, as I showed just a few examples of, examples in the past showing gun control doesn't work. But you are looking for a castle in the air. If he is looking for a castle in the air I think you are fighting with windmills. Look, the American gun control debate is currently about reducing gunshows, possibly increasing requirements for owning a gun re: mental health screens during purchase, restricting availability of high killcount weapons, and maybe (MAYBE) availability of ammunition. There aren't studies showing that any of those things don't work. There are studies about conceal and carry-but who's screaming about conceal and carry right now? I mean, hell, maybe if he'd tried to get a conceal and carry permit they would have caught the guy. There are studies about banning guns-but very few people think that's sensible. I mean, heck, the ultimate pro-gun counter-example of Sweden limits total number of guns, has multiple requirements for owning a gun and has no concealed carry. That sounds like gun control to me.
You've gotta be joking me. The main law being pushed right now is Dianne Feinstein's renewal of the AWB.
|
On December 18 2012 12:07 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 12:05 killa_robot wrote:
I think it'd be funny to make all ammunition clips only hold 1 bullet. Would serve the same purpose, but prevent too much abuse. If you're a criminal, this won't affect you. Very easy to modify a magazine.
Well they are criminals. I'd be more surprised if they didn't try to modify them. Though I doubt ALL of them would go through the effort.
|
On December 18 2012 12:09 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 12:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2012 11:45 Nagano wrote: On December 18 2012 11:37 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 11:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 11:19 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:25 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 10:12 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 10:10 warshop wrote:
[quote]
You do understand that, the gunowners source is a huge quote of numbers? My point is, the only thing the anti-gun crowd uses is number of deaths, failing to mention a large chunk of it comes from suicides. As you look, you'll begin to see what I'm saying though. The anti-gun crowd is severely lacking in evidence from sources of ALL kinds. It's just not a close matchup. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ I'm sorry, but what you just posted has no references nor citations to any work. Did you read the article? It's right there... http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Let me just tell you, that for an article to be regarded as valuable, it needs to peer reviewed. Has this article been peer reviewed? One of the writers, Gary Mauser, is a business and administration professor. He has studied psychology. I quote his website: He is a member of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation. I have a hard time thinking this person is objective (look at the Google Images of him). While what he states might not be false, it might well be very selective. This article provides little to support the correlations it presents. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm - Plenty of sources from law journals, gov't stat sites, doj, pretty much everything. But I know what you'll say: gunowners.org, it's already biased because of the point it's trying to make. Just look at sources. http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf - Same story here, plenty of sources for your liking http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/ - More here, and better yet just some debate basics in general. I've yet to see your peer reviewed article from Nature showing gun control works, though. (You should get on that.) You fail to understand my point. I'm not stating the opposite (that gun control works), I'm merely stating that neither sides have anything demonstrable. I've read plenty of articles on both sides. It's either sources are very biased (that Havard Law article is a good example [not saying that they provided false statement]; the fact that it was published in a well-known school's journal does not qualify to its validity), or sources that offer little to no value to their credibility (in order words, they do not support the correlations they've made nor have been peer reviewed). Surely, a meta-analyst of the analysts present would be a proper (an analysts of all the analysts). Nothing "demonstrable"? One side presents a whole array of arguments supported by facts and resources. The other a knee-jerk emotion and a guns-are-bad mentality. I'd say there's a difference here. You put an unreachable ceiling on this topic because you don't seek the truth. You seek a reaffirmation of the belief you already have. I'm trying my best here to support my position, but you do nothing to argue yours. This whole thread has been very 1 sided in terms of, at the very least, the attempt at trying to back up the claim with facts. The problem is, there have been many, as I showed just a few examples of, examples in the past showing gun control doesn't work. But you are looking for a castle in the air. If he is looking for a castle in the air I think you are fighting with windmills. Look, the American gun control debate is currently about reducing gunshows, possibly increasing requirements for owning a gun re: mental health screens during purchase, restricting availability of high killcount weapons, and maybe (MAYBE) availability of ammunition. There aren't studies showing that any of those things don't work. There are studies about conceal and carry-but who's screaming about conceal and carry right now? I mean, hell, maybe if he'd tried to get a conceal and carry permit they would have caught the guy. There are studies about banning guns-but very few people think that's sensible. I mean, heck, the ultimate pro-gun counter-example of Sweden limits total number of guns, has multiple requirements for owning a gun and has no concealed carry. That sounds like gun control to me. You've gotta be joking me. The main law being pushed right now is Dianne Feinstein's renewal of the AWB.
AWB is restricting availability of high killcount weapons...
|
can't we just compromise and say that people are allowed to own guns but not to carry them
|
On December 18 2012 12:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 12:09 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 12:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 18 2012 11:45 Nagano wrote: On December 18 2012 11:37 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 11:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 11:19 warshop wrote:Let me just tell you, that for an article to be regarded as valuable, it needs to peer reviewed. Has this article been peer reviewed? One of the writers, Gary Mauser, is a business and administration professor. He has studied psychology. I quote his website: He is a member of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation. I have a hard time thinking this person is objective (look at the Google Images of him). While what he states might not be false, it might well be very selective. This article provides little to support the correlations it presents. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm - Plenty of sources from law journals, gov't stat sites, doj, pretty much everything. But I know what you'll say: gunowners.org, it's already biased because of the point it's trying to make. Just look at sources. http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf - Same story here, plenty of sources for your liking http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/ - More here, and better yet just some debate basics in general. I've yet to see your peer reviewed article from Nature showing gun control works, though. (You should get on that.) You fail to understand my point. I'm not stating the opposite (that gun control works), I'm merely stating that neither sides have anything demonstrable. I've read plenty of articles on both sides. It's either sources are very biased (that Havard Law article is a good example [not saying that they provided false statement]; the fact that it was published in a well-known school's journal does not qualify to its validity), or sources that offer little to no value to their credibility (in order words, they do not support the correlations they've made nor have been peer reviewed). Surely, a meta-analyst of the analysts present would be a proper (an analysts of all the analysts). Nothing "demonstrable"? One side presents a whole array of arguments supported by facts and resources. The other a knee-jerk emotion and a guns-are-bad mentality. I'd say there's a difference here. You put an unreachable ceiling on this topic because you don't seek the truth. You seek a reaffirmation of the belief you already have. I'm trying my best here to support my position, but you do nothing to argue yours. This whole thread has been very 1 sided in terms of, at the very least, the attempt at trying to back up the claim with facts. The problem is, there have been many, as I showed just a few examples of, examples in the past showing gun control doesn't work. But you are looking for a castle in the air. If he is looking for a castle in the air I think you are fighting with windmills. Look, the American gun control debate is currently about reducing gunshows, possibly increasing requirements for owning a gun re: mental health screens during purchase, restricting availability of high killcount weapons, and maybe (MAYBE) availability of ammunition. There aren't studies showing that any of those things don't work. There are studies about conceal and carry-but who's screaming about conceal and carry right now? I mean, hell, maybe if he'd tried to get a conceal and carry permit they would have caught the guy. There are studies about banning guns-but very few people think that's sensible. I mean, heck, the ultimate pro-gun counter-example of Sweden limits total number of guns, has multiple requirements for owning a gun and has no concealed carry. That sounds like gun control to me. You've gotta be joking me. The main law being pushed right now is Dianne Feinstein's renewal of the AWB. AWB is restricting availability of high killcount weapons...
Which is what, exactly? CT had an "assault weapon" ban since 1994. There was a federal AWB in 1994.
Want to know the weapon used in the highest kill count shooting? VA Tech -- 2 pistols.
Let me repeat that again, Cho used a glock and a p22. Both handguns.
Columbine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
