|
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 April 30 2013 14:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:Forgot to respond to this. To be fair, you did ask me several times. I just finished reading that survey/paper: Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 08:59 kmillz wrote:
Gun control activists were unhappy with the National Self Defense Survey's results, which show that "Every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal."
In a 1994 TV news taping, Handgun Control, Inc.’s, spokesman, Sandy Cooney, called the National Self Defense Survey “obscene” and threw ad hominem slurs at its lead researcher, professor of criminology, Dr. Gary Kleck. Since Kleck is an impartial social scientist with no links to gun advocates or manufacturers — in fact he’s a liberal Democrat — it appears that Kleck’s only sin was doing research which produced results that challenged the gun-control agenda of Handgun Control, Inc., the "Million" Moms, and similar organizations.
So, to refute the results of the National Self Defense Survey, two pro-gun-control researchers, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, were given funding by the Clinton administration's Department of Justice to do their own survey of Defensive Gun Uses, to attempt to prove that the National Self Defense Survey's estimate was too high.
Unfortunately for advocates of gun control, the Cook-Ludwig survey produced results about the same as the National Self Defense Survey and -- in one remarkable paragraph -- suggested that their methodology was too conservative and that the Defensive Gun Use figure could even be doubled:
"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs[emphasis added]."
Survey It appears you stopped reading when they introduced the work that produced the 2.5/4.7M figures. Why? In the very next section the authors explain that the 2.5/4.7M figures should be scrutinized. They proceed to describe -- wait for it -- the false positive and telescoping effects which are very well understood through the lens of epidemiology, and which affect this sort of data too. + Show Spoiler +estimates one believes, only a small frac-
tion of adults have used guns defensively
in 1994. The only question is whether
that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would
conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100
(as indicated by the NSPOF estimate
based on Kleck and Gertz's criteria).
Any estimate of the incidence of a rare
event based on screening the general
population is likely to have a positive
bias. The reason can best be explained
by use of an epidemiological frame-
work.
15
Screening tests are always sub-
ject to error, whether the "test" is a
medical examination for cancer or an
interview question for DGUs. The er-
rors are either "false negatives" or
"false positives." If the latter tend to
outnumber the former, the population
prevalence will be exaggerated.
The reason this sort of bias can be ex-
pected in the case of rare events boils
down to a matter of arithmetic. Sup-
pose the true prevalence is 1 in 1,000.
Then out of every 1,000 respondents,
only 1 can possibly supply a "false
negative," whereas any of the 999 may
provide a "false positive." If even 2 of
the 999 provide a false positive, the
result will be a positive bias—regard-
less of whether the one true positive
tells the truth.
Respondents might falsely provide a
positive response to the DGU question
for any of a number of reasons:
• They may want to impress the inter-
viewer by their heroism and hence ex-
aggerate a trivial event.
• They may be genuinely confused due
to substance abuse, mental illness, or
simply less-than-accurate memories.
• They may actually have used a gun
defensively within the last couple of
years but falsely report it as occurring
in the previous year—a phenomenon
known as "telescoping."
Of course, it is easy to imagine the
reasons why that rare respondent who
actually did use a gun defensively
within the time frame may have de-
cided not to report it to the inter-
viewer. But again, the arithmetic
dictates that the false positives will
likely predominate.
In line with the theory that many DGU
reports are exaggerated or falsified, we
note that in some of these reports, the
respondents' answers to the followup
items are not consistent with respon-
dents' reported DGUs. For example, of
the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting
the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz
DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated
that the circumstance of the DGU was
rape, robbery, or attack—but then re-
sponded "no" to a subsequent ques-
tion: "Did the perpetrator threaten,
attack, or injure you?"
The key explanation for the difference
between the 108,000 NCVS estimate
for the annual number of DGUs and
the several million from the surveys
discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids
the false-positive problem by limiting
DGU questions to persons who first re-
ported that they were crime victims.
Most NCVS respondents never have a
chance to answer the DGU question,
falsely or otherwise.
Unclear benefits and costs from
gun uses. What makes it an oddity survey? Is that your personal opinion or is there something criticized by other criminologists regarding methodology, etc?
It isn't my opinion, it is the fact that all of the other surveys are pretty consistent with each other despite varying methodologies. I think all data should be scrutinized, including all of the surveys which produced consistent results, however there are flaws in Hemenways findings just as there are flaws in the findings of the other surveys.
Thank you for addressing my question. I'm a reasonable person if you give me the same respect I give you. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I really am trying to have a reasonable discussion because this is a topic that is very important to me.
|
Well I hope you realize and admit that you were wrong to provide this Survey as something in support of DGUs = 2.5 to 4.7M. That very paper you provided demands scrutiny toward the high numbers claim, and even proceeds to explain why that claim is very flawed in an easy to comprehend way. It only stops short of outright tossing it out the window entirely. It is plainly clear you did not read what you linked entirely, sorry.
On April 30 2013 14:14 kmillz wrote:
there are flaws in Hemenways findings just as there are flaws in the findings of the other surveys.
What are the flaws? For example, the flaws in the 2.5/4.7M results survey are related to epidemiological errors: telescoping and false positive bias, as described by criminologists, including those who authored the paper you linked me in your attempt to promote those numbers. Please elaborate.
Repeating this for emphasis:
The NSPOF-based estimate of millions of DGUs
each year greatly exaggerates the true
number, as do other estimates based
on similar surveys. Much debated is
whether the widespread ownership of
firearms deters crime or makes it more
deadly—or perhaps both—but the
DGU estimates are not informative in
this regard.
For other purposes, the NSPOF is a reliable resource.
--- From the exact same paper you 'countered' me with (it's actually in support  )
(note: NSPOF-based estimate are the 2.5 - 4.7M estimate figures)
|
I carry a gun in my pants and it's called my D. Locked and loaded and ready to spray on your mum's face bitches
Make it legal.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 30 2013 14:24 FallDownMarigold wrote:Well I hope you realize and admit that you were wrong to provide this Survey as something in support of DGUs = 2.5 to 4.7M. That very paper you provided demands scrutiny toward the high numbers claim, and even proceeds to explain why that claim is very flawed in an easy to comprehend way. It only stops short of outright tossing it out the window entirely. It is plainly clear you did not read what you linked entirely, sorry. Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 14:14 kmillz wrote:
there are flaws in Hemenways findings just as there are flaws in the findings of the other surveys.
What are the flaws? For example, the flaws in the 2.5/4.7M results survey are related to epidemiological errors: telescoping and false positive bias, as described by criminologists, including those who authored the paper you linked me in your attempt to promote those numbers. Please elaborate. Repeating this for emphasis: Show nested quote +
The NSPOF-based estimate of millions of DGUs
each year greatly exaggerates the true
number, as do other estimates based
on similar surveys. Much debated is
whether the widespread ownership of
firearms deters crime or makes it more
deadly—or perhaps both—but the
DGU estimates are not informative in
this regard.
For other purposes, the NSPOF is a reliable resource.
--- From the exact same paper you 'countered' me with (it's actually in support ) (note: NSPOF-based estimate are the 2.5 - 4.7M estimate figures)
I'll put it in a spoiler, it's a post from the last page:
+ Show Spoiler +On April 30 2013 13:57 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 13:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Too many assumptions. I'd rather not continue talking to you. In the future when I post relevant information I will not be responding to you. Fine with me. There are plenty of different surveys used to come to different conclusions on the number of defensive gun uses, and Hemenways method comes to the lowest number out of all of them: Show nested quote +Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Getz cite between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64-65[2][3] Low end estimates by Hemenway cite approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65[6] The basis for the studies, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), vary in their methods, time-frames covered, and questions asked.[7] DGU questions were asked of all the NSDS sample.[3] Due to screening questions in the NCVS survey, only a minority of the NCVS sample were asked a DGU question.[8] Besides the NSDS and NCVS surveys, ten national and three state surveys summarized by Kleck and Gertz gave 764 thousand to 3.6 million DGU per year.[3] Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year.[9]
Another survey including DGU questions was the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NSPOF, conducted in 1994 by the Chiltons polling firm for the Police Foundation on a research grant from the National Institute of Justice. NSPOF projected 4.7 million DGU per year by 1.5 million individuals after weighting to eliminate false positives.[8] Discussion of over the number and nature of DGU and the implications to gun control policy came to a head in the late 1990s.[10][11] Wikipedia ^ Information on Defensive Gun Uses and why the NCVS's (and Hemenway's) methods are flawed: Show nested quote +The huge difference between the NCVS estimates and the rest of the surveys likely arises because the NCVS only allows people to volunteer whether they have used a gun defensively once they answered that they were indeed “victimized” by a crime. Obviously, those who used a gun to successfully prevent an attack may not view themselves as having been victims. Others disagree with this and claim that the difference is due to the wording of questions regarding how the victims respond to
crime.
Conclusion
With the exception of the National Crime Victimization Survey, the surveys provide
surprisingly consistent evidence on the annual rate of defensive gun use. Yet, despite
general interest in the topics of guns and a fair number of surveys that examine defensive
gun use generally, surprising few surveys have attempted to break down who people use
their guns when they defend themselves from threats of violent crime. Obviously more
work can be done on this topic. The surveys and methods are available for others to
replicate further and examine why these finer breakdowns of survey results appear to
produce somewhat different results. Source: What Surveys Can Help Us Understand About Guns? (This is the last source from the wikipedia page) I'll go ahead and trust the consistent results until more surveys with improved methodology come out. Strange to me that you would focus on the one oddity survey and willingly ignore all of the other ones that produce greater results.
The last bit, that source particularly.
|
Is that in response to what I just said about your misunderstanding of the paper you provided? Or is this shifting to something else? Sort of an abrupt switch from discussing what you were saying with that survey to some wikipedia stuff. I'm not sure what I am supposed to be doing on wikipedia given that there is little detailed information there.
Edit: Nevermind, it was a short wikipedia page, went ahead and checked it.
This part seems good to me:
"Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year."
Given that my original intent was to object to the claim of DGUs on the order of millions (the one you were defending), I think I'm satisfied with going with 250,000-370,000. I'm not absolutely married to Hemenway's ~70,000-100,000 figure/year in order to counter the claims made by the likes of the NRA that there are "13 seconds between each DGU in the US"
Moving along, this is also important, and allows the focus to shift from which survey is more accurate to what DGU numbers leave us with, period:
+ Show Spoiler +
Even if one were clever enough to design a questionnaire that would weed out error, a problem in in- terpreting the result would remain. Should the number of DGUs serve as a measure of the public benefit of pri- vate gun possession, even in prin- ciple? When it comes to DGUs, is
more better? That is doubtful, for two kinds of reasons:
• First, people who draw their guns to defend themselves against perceived threats are not necessarily innocent victims; they may have started fights themselves or they may simply be mis- taken about whether the other persons really intended to harm them. Survey interviewers must take the respondent's word for what happened and why; a competent police investigation of the same incident would interview all par- ties before reaching a conclusion.
• Second and more generally, the number of DGUs tells us little about the most important effects on crime of widespread gun ownership. When a high percentage of homes, vehicles, and even purses contain guns, that presumably has an important effect on the behavior of predatory criminals. Some may be deterred or diverted to other types of crime. Others may change tactics, acquiring a gun them- selves or in some other way seeking to preempt gun use by the intended vic- tim.16 Such consequences presumably have an important effect on criminal victimization rates but are in no way reflected in the DGU count.
--- your survey
|
On April 30 2013 14:36 FallDownMarigold wrote:Is that in response to what I just said about your misunderstanding of the paper you provided? Or is this shifting to something else? Sort of an abrupt switch from discussing what you were saying with that survey to some wikipedia stuff. I'm not sure what I am supposed to be doing on wikipedia given that there is little detailed information there. Edit: Nevermind, it was a short wikipedia page, went ahead and checked it. This part seems good to me: "Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year." Given that my original intent was to object to the claim of DGUs on the order of millions (the one you were defending), I think I'm satisfied with going with 250,000-370,000. I'm not absolutely married to Hemenway's ~70,000-100,000 figure/year in order to counter the claims made by the likes of the NRA that there are "13 seconds between each DGU in the US" Moving along, this is also important, and allows the focus to shift from which survey is more accurate to what DGU numbers leave us with, period: + Show Spoiler +
Even if one were clever enough to design a questionnaire that would weed out error, a problem in in- terpreting the result would remain. Should the number of DGUs serve as a measure of the public benefit of pri- vate gun possession, even in prin- ciple? When it comes to DGUs, is
more better? That is doubtful, for two kinds of reasons:
• First, people who draw their guns to defend themselves against perceived threats are not necessarily innocent victims; they may have started fights themselves or they may simply be mis- taken about whether the other persons really intended to harm them. Survey interviewers must take the respondent's word for what happened and why; a competent police investigation of the same incident would interview all par- ties before reaching a conclusion.
• Second and more generally, the number of DGUs tells us little about the most important effects on crime of widespread gun ownership. When a high percentage of homes, vehicles, and even purses contain guns, that presumably has an important effect on the behavior of predatory criminals. Some may be deterred or diverted to other types of crime. Others may change tactics, acquiring a gun them- selves or in some other way seeking to preempt gun use by the intended vic- tim.16 Such consequences presumably have an important effect on criminal victimization rates but are in no way reflected in the DGU count.
--- your survey
I'll compromise on 250,000 to 370,000 and say that's a fair estimation when averaging all of the surveys findings. I was never married to the 2.5 million figure either, just pointing out that the study that pointed out it's flaws had some holes in it's own. I only mentioned the 4.7 million figure to bring to light the fact that some studies actually found the 2.5 million figure to be conservative, just to contrast what your study's findings had said. I wasn't trying to say conclusively what the right figure was by any means.
|
On April 30 2013 06:58 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 06:29 Nachtwind wrote:On April 30 2013 06:28 kmillz wrote:On April 30 2013 06:21 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2013 05:51 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 18:36 Excludos wrote:On April 29 2013 12:07 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 11:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios. I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical  I kinda agree with that. But simply carrying a gun can aggravate potential robbers to become violent whereas otherwise they might not have. And even if you managed to kill the assailant, you've still killed someone in a scenario whereas someone might not have died. The scenarios where a gun would help is where the criminal is set on killing you no matter what, or, like you said, where you encounter someone else being robbed from a distance. But I'd say the negative sides of carrying outweighs that heavily. (the above + rather big chance of accidently killing yourself or someone you know from neglecting safety (because there is no requirement of training before buying a weapon)). edit: So many typoes. Don't mock, I'm sick  P.S pollen sucks. Well I was more referring to stopping someone who is being attacked (like somebody you care about most likely) than some stranger being robbed, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to shoot someone who is robbing a stranger. Using a gun defensively doesn't necessarily mean shooting them. Simply drawing the gun is often enough to scare off common thugs. Yeah, I've mentioned that before in this thread as well. People keep equating "concealed carry" to "shooting robbers and costing unnecessary deaths" and anything beyond that is just too much hypothetical for them to discuss. The moment someone shot someone because out of nervous reaction this argument is done. Just because you aren't willing to have a discussion about other possible outcomes doesn't mean the argument is "done".
You either shoot them from 21 feet away from you, or you're tackled and raped without time to pull out your weapon. Or they already have a weapon since its a neighborhood where guns are common and they already have it pointed at you and when you pull out your gun they get nervous and shoot you. Which scenario do you prefer?
|
On April 30 2013 14:13 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:Heart disease kills more than alcohol, why didn't you pick that instead. Or cancer. Or diabetes. I don't think it's a strong argument to say "X kills more than Y, therefore we should not focus on addressing Y until X is solved" I was thinking the same thing, unless there are stats to show that people under the influence of alcohol cause three times the number of deaths to other people. If you want to drink yourself to death that your choice, and if the government doesn't like it they will just raise the taxes on alcohol so they can make more money off of you, or at least that is what they do in Australia.
Being born has a 100% death rate. We should discourage human breeding too
At least if we're going to do the statistics game of which causes more deaths--being born beats all other stats.
|
On April 30 2013 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:Heart disease kills more than alcohol, why didn't you pick that instead. Or cancer. Or diabetes. I don't think it's a strong argument to say "X kills more than Y, therefore we should not focus on addressing Y until X is solved"
I didn't use heart disease because that is not a conscious decision. You can't really legislate against heart disease.
But even if you exclude all the medical problems caused by alcohol, it STILL causes 44k traffic fatalities each year. My point is that if the goal is to save lives, why not try to get the biggest bang for your legislative buck?
Either your goal is to save lives, in which case you want to save as many as possible, or you have some other goal, which means all your cries about the innocent lives lost are nonsense. You can't have it both ways.
On April 30 2013 23:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 06:58 kmillz wrote:On April 30 2013 06:29 Nachtwind wrote:On April 30 2013 06:28 kmillz wrote:On April 30 2013 06:21 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2013 05:51 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 18:36 Excludos wrote:On April 29 2013 12:07 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 11:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios. I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical I kinda agree with that. But simply carrying a gun can aggravate potential robbers to become violent whereas otherwise they might not have. And even if you managed to kill the assailant, you've still killed someone in a scenario whereas someone might not have died. The scenarios where a gun would help is where the criminal is set on killing you no matter what, or, like you said, where you encounter someone else being robbed from a distance. But I'd say the negative sides of carrying outweighs that heavily. (the above + rather big chance of accidently killing yourself or someone you know from neglecting safety (because there is no requirement of training before buying a weapon)). edit: So many typoes. Don't mock, I'm sick P.S pollen sucks. Well I was more referring to stopping someone who is being attacked (like somebody you care about most likely) than some stranger being robbed, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to shoot someone who is robbing a stranger. Using a gun defensively doesn't necessarily mean shooting them. Simply drawing the gun is often enough to scare off common thugs. Yeah, I've mentioned that before in this thread as well. People keep equating "concealed carry" to "shooting robbers and costing unnecessary deaths" and anything beyond that is just too much hypothetical for them to discuss. The moment someone shot someone because out of nervous reaction this argument is done. Just because you aren't willing to have a discussion about other possible outcomes doesn't mean the argument is "done". You either shoot them from 21 feet away from you, or you're tackled and raped without time to pull out your weapon. Or they already have a weapon since its a neighborhood where guns are common and they already have it pointed at you and when you pull out your gun they get nervous and shoot you. Which scenario do you prefer?
You can pull a gun when someone's on top of you. It's not like you have to be able to hold the gun straight out in front of you to fire. If the thug is on you, you just have to get the gun out of it's holster. It's not like its hopeless if he gets to you before you can draw.
|
On April 30 2013 23:58 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:Heart disease kills more than alcohol, why didn't you pick that instead. Or cancer. Or diabetes. I don't think it's a strong argument to say "X kills more than Y, therefore we should not focus on addressing Y until X is solved" I didn't use heart disease because that is not a conscious decision. You can't really legislate against heart disease. But even if you exclude all the medical problems caused by alcohol, it STILL causes 44k traffic fatalities each year. My point is that if the goal is to save lives, why not try to get the biggest bang for your legislative buck? Either your goal is to save lives, in which case you want to save as many as possible, or you have some other goal, which means all your cries about the innocent lives lost are nonsense. You can't have it both ways. Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 23:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 30 2013 06:58 kmillz wrote:On April 30 2013 06:29 Nachtwind wrote:On April 30 2013 06:28 kmillz wrote:On April 30 2013 06:21 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2013 05:51 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 18:36 Excludos wrote:On April 29 2013 12:07 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 11:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios. I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical I kinda agree with that. But simply carrying a gun can aggravate potential robbers to become violent whereas otherwise they might not have. And even if you managed to kill the assailant, you've still killed someone in a scenario whereas someone might not have died. The scenarios where a gun would help is where the criminal is set on killing you no matter what, or, like you said, where you encounter someone else being robbed from a distance. But I'd say the negative sides of carrying outweighs that heavily. (the above + rather big chance of accidently killing yourself or someone you know from neglecting safety (because there is no requirement of training before buying a weapon)). edit: So many typoes. Don't mock, I'm sick P.S pollen sucks. Well I was more referring to stopping someone who is being attacked (like somebody you care about most likely) than some stranger being robbed, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to shoot someone who is robbing a stranger. Using a gun defensively doesn't necessarily mean shooting them. Simply drawing the gun is often enough to scare off common thugs. Yeah, I've mentioned that before in this thread as well. People keep equating "concealed carry" to "shooting robbers and costing unnecessary deaths" and anything beyond that is just too much hypothetical for them to discuss. The moment someone shot someone because out of nervous reaction this argument is done. Just because you aren't willing to have a discussion about other possible outcomes doesn't mean the argument is "done". You either shoot them from 21 feet away from you, or you're tackled and raped without time to pull out your weapon. Or they already have a weapon since its a neighborhood where guns are common and they already have it pointed at you and when you pull out your gun they get nervous and shoot you. Which scenario do you prefer? You can pull a gun when someone's on top of you. It's not like you have to be able to hold the gun straight out in front of you to fire. If the thug is on you, you just have to get the gun out of it's holster. It's not like its hopeless if he gets to you before you can draw.
Um... Traffic accidents are such a big deal that entire sections of the police force in America is designated just to sit on streets and highways and watch people driving around. That's equivalent to registering all guns and having the cops visit your house every few months. Which I personally would love--but I know is something pro-gun people would hate.
Also, if you're going to try pulling something out while being attacked, that means you dropped your hands and they grab your head and bash in the ground because you don't have your hands up to keep them off you. hand-to-hand combat is better at keeping you safe from ambushes than a gun.
Hearing someone break into your house giving you time to pull out your gun and prepare yourself is another matter--but in the hypothetical woman is about to raped scenario--the gun won't help much unless you pull it out early--in which case you'll get into the stand your ground case in Florida where a guy shot a defenseless kid in self defense because he was wearing a hoodie.
|
On May 01 2013 01:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 23:58 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2013 13:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:Heart disease kills more than alcohol, why didn't you pick that instead. Or cancer. Or diabetes. I don't think it's a strong argument to say "X kills more than Y, therefore we should not focus on addressing Y until X is solved" I didn't use heart disease because that is not a conscious decision. You can't really legislate against heart disease. But even if you exclude all the medical problems caused by alcohol, it STILL causes 44k traffic fatalities each year. My point is that if the goal is to save lives, why not try to get the biggest bang for your legislative buck? Either your goal is to save lives, in which case you want to save as many as possible, or you have some other goal, which means all your cries about the innocent lives lost are nonsense. You can't have it both ways. On April 30 2013 23:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 30 2013 06:58 kmillz wrote:On April 30 2013 06:29 Nachtwind wrote:On April 30 2013 06:28 kmillz wrote:On April 30 2013 06:21 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2013 05:51 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 18:36 Excludos wrote:On April 29 2013 12:07 kmillz wrote:[quote] I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical I kinda agree with that. But simply carrying a gun can aggravate potential robbers to become violent whereas otherwise they might not have. And even if you managed to kill the assailant, you've still killed someone in a scenario whereas someone might not have died. The scenarios where a gun would help is where the criminal is set on killing you no matter what, or, like you said, where you encounter someone else being robbed from a distance. But I'd say the negative sides of carrying outweighs that heavily. (the above + rather big chance of accidently killing yourself or someone you know from neglecting safety (because there is no requirement of training before buying a weapon)). edit: So many typoes. Don't mock, I'm sick P.S pollen sucks. Well I was more referring to stopping someone who is being attacked (like somebody you care about most likely) than some stranger being robbed, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to shoot someone who is robbing a stranger. Using a gun defensively doesn't necessarily mean shooting them. Simply drawing the gun is often enough to scare off common thugs. Yeah, I've mentioned that before in this thread as well. People keep equating "concealed carry" to "shooting robbers and costing unnecessary deaths" and anything beyond that is just too much hypothetical for them to discuss. The moment someone shot someone because out of nervous reaction this argument is done. Just because you aren't willing to have a discussion about other possible outcomes doesn't mean the argument is "done". You either shoot them from 21 feet away from you, or you're tackled and raped without time to pull out your weapon. Or they already have a weapon since its a neighborhood where guns are common and they already have it pointed at you and when you pull out your gun they get nervous and shoot you. Which scenario do you prefer? You can pull a gun when someone's on top of you. It's not like you have to be able to hold the gun straight out in front of you to fire. If the thug is on you, you just have to get the gun out of it's holster. It's not like its hopeless if he gets to you before you can draw. Um... Traffic accidents are such a big deal that entire sections of the police force in America is designated just to sit on streets and highways and watch people driving around. That's equivalent to registering all guns and having the cops visit your house every few months. Which I personally would love--but I know is something pro-gun people would hate. Also, if you're going to try pulling something out while being attacked, that means you dropped your hands and they grab your head and bash in the ground because you don't have your hands up to keep them off you. hand-to-hand combat is better at keeping you safe from ambushes than a gun. Hearing someone break into your house giving you time to pull out your gun and prepare yourself is another matter--but in the hypothetical woman is about to raped scenario--the gun won't help much unless you pull it out early--in which case you'll get into the stand your ground case in Florida where a guy shot a defenseless kid in self defense because he was wearing a hoodie.
I'm guessing you are referring to the Trayvon shooting, which I'm not going to get into but you are obviously clueless on that case. As far as comparing THAT anecdote to a completely different hypothetical scenario, you lost me. Apples and moonrocks.
You need to stop living in the "either this or that" world.
|
Hearing someone break into your house giving you time to pull out your gun and prepare yourself is another matter--but in the hypothetical woman is about to raped scenario--the gun won't help much unless you pull it out early--in which case you'll get into the stand your ground case in Florida where a guy shot a defenseless kid in self defense because he was wearing a hoodie.
Look what we have here guys....
Another backseat news-watching judge and jury.
|
On May 01 2013 03:13 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +
Hearing someone break into your house giving you time to pull out your gun and prepare yourself is another matter--but in the hypothetical woman is about to raped scenario--the gun won't help much unless you pull it out early--in which case you'll get into the stand your ground case in Florida where a guy shot a defenseless kid in self defense because he was wearing a hoodie.
Look what we have here guys.... Another backseat news-watching judge and jury.
I don't even know what to make of his comparison of a woman rape scenario and the Trayvon Martin shooting. Is the woman rape victim supposed to be Zimmerman and is the rapist supposed to be Trayvon?
|
On May 01 2013 03:31 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 03:13 stevarius wrote:
Hearing someone break into your house giving you time to pull out your gun and prepare yourself is another matter--but in the hypothetical woman is about to raped scenario--the gun won't help much unless you pull it out early--in which case you'll get into the stand your ground case in Florida where a guy shot a defenseless kid in self defense because he was wearing a hoodie.
Look what we have here guys.... Another backseat news-watching judge and jury. I don't even know what to make of his comparison of a woman rape scenario and the Trayvon Martin shooting. Is the woman rape victim supposed to be Zimmerman and is the rapist supposed to be Trayvon?
If someone is attacking you, at 21 feet you don't have time to pull out your gun.
This leaves two options of shoot someone from a distance--Travyon case. Or get attacked.
he suggested you can pull out your gun while they're on top of you--in which case you have no hands to defend yourself and you're fucked.
In either case--self defense classes would be a better way to protect yourself than trying to brandish a weapon and hope you don't shoot someone who was just walking around.
|
On May 01 2013 03:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 03:31 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 03:13 stevarius wrote:
Hearing someone break into your house giving you time to pull out your gun and prepare yourself is another matter--but in the hypothetical woman is about to raped scenario--the gun won't help much unless you pull it out early--in which case you'll get into the stand your ground case in Florida where a guy shot a defenseless kid in self defense because he was wearing a hoodie.
Look what we have here guys.... Another backseat news-watching judge and jury. I don't even know what to make of his comparison of a woman rape scenario and the Trayvon Martin shooting. Is the woman rape victim supposed to be Zimmerman and is the rapist supposed to be Trayvon? If someone is attacking you, at 21 feet you don't have time to pull out your gun. This leaves two options of shoot someone from a distance--Travyon case. Or get attacked. he suggested you can pull out your gun while they're on top of you--in which case you have no hands to defend yourself and you're fucked. In either case--self defense classes would be a better way to protect yourself than trying to brandish a weapon and hope you don't shoot someone who was just walking around.
What if they are fat and slow? Do we change that number to 15 feet? If its Usain Bolt is it 26 feet? I'm not even going to go beyond that because there are just way too many different possibilities and it will just get ridiculous. This is why black and white thinking is unproductive in a discussion.
Again, you obviously don't even know what happened in that case so I would suggest you stop talking about it. If you would like to learn more about what actually happened you can read about it here
Self defense classes would be a great way to protect yourself, I would suggest BJJ personally, 9/10 people don't even know what to do once they are on the ground. However if someone is much larger and stronger than you, it may not even matter how good you are at defending yourself and a gun may be necessary.
|
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6118/381.long
By the early 1990s, a series of CDC-funded studies had indicated that easy access to guns and keeping firearms at home increases homicide and suicide rates. "The fact that gun ownership was being identified as a risk factor for violent death legitimately raised the possibility" that gun policies might need to change, Wintemute says. The National Rifle Association (NRA) swung into action to stifle that threat. For gun-possession advocates, Wintemute says, "It made perfect sense to try to prevent that evidence from being collected in the first place." Contending that CDC was pursuing a gun control agenda rather than unbiased science, former U.S. Representative Jay Dickey (R–AR), who described himself then as "NRA's point person in Congress," convinced the House to cut $2.6 million from the CDC budget: the precise amount that the agency's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control was slated to spend on gun violence research that year. (In The Washington Post last July, Dickey, who lost his House seat in 2000, wrote that he has since become an advocate of research on preventing firearms injuries.)
The 1996 legislation prohibited CDC and the National Institutes of Health from conducting research that might "advocate or promote gun control." Coupled with the funding cut, the proscription cast a pall over the field, Teret says. Although his program has survived on private funding, the CDC ban "was devastating for the field of gun violence prevention," he says. Many young researchers, Teret says, ditched firearms studies in favor of other public health issues.
As a result, from 1996 to 2010, academic papers published on gun violence fell by 60%, according to a review released last week by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. Today, fewer than a dozen public health researchers in the United States focus primarily on gun-related violence, says Wintemute, who funds his group's research out of his own pocket. CDC and the teams it funded were not the only victims. Beginning in 2003, a series of riders on budget bills called the Tiahrt Amendments restricted the collection and distribution of gun-related crime data by the Department of Justice. Although some restrictions have since been removed, others remain. For example, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service must destroy background checks on gun buyers within 24 hours of using them, and journalists and researchers are not allowed to access data that the agencies collect.
|
On May 01 2013 03:54 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 03:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 03:31 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 03:13 stevarius wrote:
Hearing someone break into your house giving you time to pull out your gun and prepare yourself is another matter--but in the hypothetical woman is about to raped scenario--the gun won't help much unless you pull it out early--in which case you'll get into the stand your ground case in Florida where a guy shot a defenseless kid in self defense because he was wearing a hoodie.
Look what we have here guys.... Another backseat news-watching judge and jury. I don't even know what to make of his comparison of a woman rape scenario and the Trayvon Martin shooting. Is the woman rape victim supposed to be Zimmerman and is the rapist supposed to be Trayvon? If someone is attacking you, at 21 feet you don't have time to pull out your gun. This leaves two options of shoot someone from a distance--Travyon case. Or get attacked. he suggested you can pull out your gun while they're on top of you--in which case you have no hands to defend yourself and you're fucked. In either case--self defense classes would be a better way to protect yourself than trying to brandish a weapon and hope you don't shoot someone who was just walking around. What if they are fat and slow? Do we change that number to 15 feet? If its Usain Bolt is it 26 feet? I'm not even going to go beyond that because there are just way too many different possibilities and it will just get ridiculous. This is why black and white thinking is unproductive in a discussion. Again, you obviously don't even know what happened in that case so I would suggest you stop talking about it. If you would like to learn more about what actually happened you can read about it hereSelf defense classes would be a great way to protect yourself, I would suggest BJJ personally, 9/10 people don't even know what to do once they are on the ground. However if someone is much larger and stronger than you, it may not even matter how good you are at defending yourself and a gun may be necessary.
21 feet is just a maximum. Hiding behind a bush or wall reduces the distance to 1-2 feet, coming up from behind reduces it more, the person talking on the phone also reduces it. If you are a paranoid person, checking every person 21 feet from you just in case--then you become likely to be the person who shoots random kids in hoodies. If you are not the paranoid type--then you'll get attacked by someone a lot closer than 21 feet.
In both circumstances basic hand to hand training and aggressively using any tool near you from keys, to bags, to rocks would be as useful as trying to pull out a gun, unlatch its safety, and then aim.
|
Quit squabbling over the 21 ft figure. Obviously it may very, but it is the mean distance based on police training research
|
On May 01 2013 03:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 03:54 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 03:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 03:31 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 03:13 stevarius wrote:
Hearing someone break into your house giving you time to pull out your gun and prepare yourself is another matter--but in the hypothetical woman is about to raped scenario--the gun won't help much unless you pull it out early--in which case you'll get into the stand your ground case in Florida where a guy shot a defenseless kid in self defense because he was wearing a hoodie.
Look what we have here guys.... Another backseat news-watching judge and jury. I don't even know what to make of his comparison of a woman rape scenario and the Trayvon Martin shooting. Is the woman rape victim supposed to be Zimmerman and is the rapist supposed to be Trayvon? If someone is attacking you, at 21 feet you don't have time to pull out your gun. This leaves two options of shoot someone from a distance--Travyon case. Or get attacked. he suggested you can pull out your gun while they're on top of you--in which case you have no hands to defend yourself and you're fucked. In either case--self defense classes would be a better way to protect yourself than trying to brandish a weapon and hope you don't shoot someone who was just walking around. What if they are fat and slow? Do we change that number to 15 feet? If its Usain Bolt is it 26 feet? I'm not even going to go beyond that because there are just way too many different possibilities and it will just get ridiculous. This is why black and white thinking is unproductive in a discussion. Again, you obviously don't even know what happened in that case so I would suggest you stop talking about it. If you would like to learn more about what actually happened you can read about it hereSelf defense classes would be a great way to protect yourself, I would suggest BJJ personally, 9/10 people don't even know what to do once they are on the ground. However if someone is much larger and stronger than you, it may not even matter how good you are at defending yourself and a gun may be necessary. 21 feet is just a maximum. Hiding behind a bush or wall reduces the distance to 1-2 feet, coming up from behind reduces it more, the person talking on the phone also reduces it. If you are a paranoid person, checking every person 21 feet from you just in case--then you become likely to be the person who shoots random kids in hoodies. If you are not the paranoid type--then you'll get attacked by someone a lot closer than 21 feet. In both circumstances basic hand to hand training and aggressively using any tool near you from keys, to bags, to rocks would be as useful as trying to pull out a gun, unlatch its safety, and then aim.
What about struggles on the ground where you manage to fight your attacker off of you long enough to reach for your gun?
You also haven't addressed situations where someone is much larger and stronger than you. A small 120 lb woman is not going to fight off a 260 lb man without a gun or other deadly weapon.
On May 01 2013 04:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Quit squabbling over the 21 ft figure. Obviously it may very, but it is the mean distance based on police training research
I'm not squabbling over THAT figure, I'm disputing the oversimplification.
|
Thoughts on NRA vs. scientific research?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
