|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I said "My biggest objection to "gun control" is that it includes the issue of forcing children on psychotropic drugs." and Straggler responded "I assume you have data to back this claim up? International comparisons showing a link between gun control laws and the number of children on psychotic drugs in different nations, for example?"
There was a big study (of a million people over multiple years)showing massive increases in acts of violence in Sweden just released 6 months ago. The hypothesis was that SSRIs would be found to not increase acts of violence. Here is text from the introduction to the study results.
quote: The evidence was a very large increase in acts of violence. Here is another scientific work that just came out.
quote: There is much more text in the article. I did a (messed up) thread on a congresscritter who supports forcing kids on drugs. That is the godawful Timothy Murphy of Pennsylvania. The thread was a mess but here it is. It was a few weeks before this Telegraph article. EvC Forum: Does Republican Congressman Tim Murphy use fraudulent science? People were wondering if there was scientific fraud going on today (in a thread on objectivity started by Percy), so I got the idea for the thread on Timothy Murphy and SSRIs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
LamarkNewAge writes: The evidence was a very large increase in acts of violence. What the study (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Violent Crime: A Cohort Study | PLOS Medicine) actually said about the youngest age group was this:
quote: A "very large increase" and a "significant association" are not the same thing. The statistical correlation doesn't translate naturally into some magnitude of increase, I'm not sure myself how to interpret it. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
This new study debunks the whole "good guy with a gun" meme. Not surprisingly there seems to be no evidence to support the "good guy with a gun" myth. Guns are rarely used in self defense. Now before you ammosexuals make some claim of the deterrent effect, the study looks at that too.
quote:Self-Defense Gun Use is Rare, New VPC Study Confirms | Violence Policy Center Full study Now anyone have any scientific studies showing this study is incorrect? That is right, ammosexuals do not do or want scientific studies on gun violence.Blackout: How the NRA suppressed gun violence research Science? We don't need no stinkin' science.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: Are you going to tell those 163,600 people that they shouldn't have be allowed to defend themselves with a firearm?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And there's always the question of how many such incidents get reported too. Reading a biography of Merle Haggard recently, ran across an account of how he was on stage performing and saw way at the back of the crowd, it was an outdoor arena of some sort, his friend Bonnie being accosted by a man. Haggard let the band do its thing, left the stage and confronted the man with a gun. I'm sure that was never reported.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Are you going to address the study or just build more strawman arguments?
Are you going to ask the NRA to validate their claim that 2.5 million Americans use guns in self-defense against criminal attackers each year?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
We are talking evidence Faith not anecdotes. You have a way of coming in and shitting all over threads, please do not do that here.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Are you going to address the study or just build more strawman arguments? I am addressing the study: It shows that more people are defending themselves from violent crime with firearms than are being killed by them. That's great news, firearms are actually helping make us safer.
Are you going to ask the NRA to validate their claim that 2.5 million Americans use guns in self-defense against criminal attackers each year? No, fuck the NRA, I don't give a shit what they say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi Faith.
Faith writes: Reading a biography of Merle Haggard recently, ran across an account of how he was on stage performing and saw way at the back of the crowd, it was an outdoor arena of some sort, his friend Bonnie being accosted by a man. Haggard let the band do its thing, left the stage and confronted the man with a gun. I'm sure that was never reported. It apparently got reported somewhere in a biography. But, if people really are serious about demonstrating that firearms work for self-defense, isn't it incumbent upon them to report it so they have the data they need? -Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
For me your bullet points didn't add up to debunking the "good guy with gun" meme. It seems like debunking would require showing that guns intended for defensive use in some way increase rather than decrease danger. Maybe I'm missing something?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Cat Sci writes: I am addressing the study: It shows that more people are defending themselves from violent crime with firearms than are being killed by them. While I didn't follow how the Theodoric's bullet points supported his contention, neither do I follow how they support yours. Again, maybe I'm missing something. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It apparently got reported somewhere in a biography. But, if people really are serious about demonstrating that firearms work for self-defense, isn't it incumbent upon them to report it so they have the data they need? The incident occurred back in the 80s or 90s.I have no idea if Haggard was a big gun rights guy or not. He apparently felt the need to have a gun with him when he was on the road, but that incident is the only time it was brought up at all. I would suppose there are many such unreported incidents, that's all. Perhaps as it becomes more of an issue they will get reported more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
The NRA argument is that there are millions of examples that good guys with guns stop bad guys with a gun. This study shows that there are not millions of examples. Yes maybe I over sold the study. The point I was trying to make, albeit poorly, is that scientific studies show a different portrayal about guns than what the NRA is selling.
Thank you for calling me out on a poorly worded and poorly defended post.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
~160,000 people defended themselves against violent crime with a firearm during a period where ~90,000 (3 years * 30,000 per year) people would have been killed by a firearm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
160,000 people defended themselves against violent crime with a firearm during a period where ~90,000 (3 years * 30,000 per year) people would have been killed by a firearm. Taking these numbers at face value still falls short of an argument in my opinion. Surely violent crimes include things like robberies, car jackings for example. What generally happens to people who don't have guns when they encounter such situations? How many of these defenses involve people with guns getting into encounters that the rest of us don't get into? How many of those defenses involve avoiding an ass whopping in a fight only an idiot would have gotten into in the first place. Because God forbid anyone take whooping with impunity. The 90,000 number seems to stand on its own merits. However the 160,000 number needs quite a bit of parcing out before we can see some kind of balance between the relative safety involved with having or not having a gun. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024