Summations Only

That's rich coming from a subject to a crown

I linked to it before:http://www.reddit.com/r/dguFor some strange reason, /r/ogu is private. I've applied for access.

Meh, count me out.Are you still standing by this?:

quote:

---

A gun-packing good guy getting the jump on a criminal is a myth. It's so rare that it's considered amazing every time it happens.

---

Its neither a myth, nor considered amazing every time it happens.

But you didn't ask me how I would reduce every single conceivable death by a gun.And you just purposefully brought up examples that couldn't be prevented by any other way than removing the gun from the equation.So we're not even talking about the same thing. And your question wasn't even an honest one.I won't address it again.Anyways, you identify a person who is willing to use their gun illegally by the fact that they did do just that, and then you slap them with a really harsh sentence.You're not going to identify people who are willing to use their gun illegally at some point in the future. Okay, what are the odds?Are we talking the difference between 0.0000001% and 0.00001%? Think Alaska, Montana, the Dakotas... Think dangerous wildlife, think hunting. Okay, so were not talking about the same thing.Your using that stat as a metric for making the decision for other people as a group in whether or not they should have guns.I'm using the stat as a metric for making the decision for myself in whether or not I should have a gun.I stand by the fact that it is not your decision to make for other people. Or they might decide to just not commit the crime. I don't believe that, nor do I believe that it is something that you know. It worked for drunk driving. Since MADD, drunk driving incidents have halved. Part of the solution was stronger punishment. That's absurd, and hypocritical.If someone brings up driving deaths then you reply that you are capable of caring about more than one thing. But if someone disagrees with your idea for gun control, then they are only capable of caring about one thing and one thing only. Get real.

I don't see the point. I already was willing to grant you a ration of 1000:1 and move on.Again, what kind of odds are we talking about? Granting you the 1000:1 ratio, are we talking about 0.0000001% vs. 0.0001%? Okay then, why don't you go ahead and tell me what it is you are talking about and how you are going to measure it?I'm not going to waste my time trying to find cases to fit some unknown criteria so that you can nit pick them apart and discount them.But regardless, we're so far apart that I doubt this conversation is worth continuing. Like: I mean, that is so retarded that I don't even want to talk to you any more. A guy cutting the screen on your window and breaking into your house is certainly a threat. A huge threat. (And the perp was a visitor to a neighborhood residence, not the residence that got broken in to) Okay, yeah, I'm done with you.Good luck in your endeavor, you'll get no support from me.

Its doesn't even have to be an addict. Jerks have been setting up disliked acquaintances to be raided by the police for a while now. Its called Swatting.

All purchases? At a Federal level? I'd pass. The juice ain't worth the squeeze. I don't think it'd help a lot and it would cost too much.What about gifts? Can I buy my brother a shotgun for Christmas? Can someone give me a gun so long as I don't purchase it from them? Nope. Sure, I can't see why anybody would be against research unless it hurt their bottom line.

It's Latin: Reductio ad pistolium

Why is that the question? And what is the point of asking it? Well, obviously guns are more effective weapons. What's your point?

I'd rather not make false assumptions. I *think* I get the point, but it sounds ridiculous. So I figure I should get clarity from the author before explaining how stupid these questions are.Is that a bad strategy?

Not when you're trading loved ones' injuries and lives for the ones for armed robbers and home intruders that got shot. Especially when you have to assume that those people are willing to kill the victims.The law should lean heavily against the ones perpetrating the crimes and away from the victims, so if that means lumping the robbers, burglars and carjackers in there then that should be acceptable.It would take a significant amount of reduction in the total killed due to guns, for me to get on an approach that just aims to reduce all killed due to guns, in general. Especially when I see the approaches that have already been offered from that side, and how blindly draped they are and how insignificant the effects are that they produce.As your article ultimately exposes, this is an urban culture problem rather than a gun law problem.As per the OP, here is a list of selected quotes from your article:

quote:

---

Jean Peters Baker, the county prosecutor here, stood at her desk poring over Facebook photographs of young men posing with guns. One wore a grinning mask and pointed his gun at the camera. Another clasped guns in each hand. A third was laughing uproariously, his finger on the trigger of an assault rifle.

​

This is our reality, Ms. Peters Baker said, gesturing toward the pictures from recent investigations. I’m not talking about my uncle who still lives on a farm in central Missouri and uses a gun for hunting.

​

...

​

The changes tapped into profound differences between rural and urban Americans about guns.The state legislature is predominantly white, rural and suburban, but the effects of the laws it makes are felt largely in Missouri’s cities, where gun homicides are one of the biggest causes of death for young black men.

​

...

​

Valerie Dent, 62, a retired factory worker in St. Louis, helps make those calls in her city. Her sons, James and Steven, were shot and killed one morning last fall after coming home from working the night shift at a talcum powder factory. Gun violence, she said, has done more to grind up black families, like hers, than any kind of aggressive policing. As with Ms. Temple’s son’s case, her sons’ murders are unsolved.

​

It becomes a way of life to hear gunshots and close the door, Ms. Dent said. We get all in an uproar when the police kill someone. If we had that get-up-and-go on the black-on-black crimes, maybe we could stop some of this.

​

...

​

The big thing used to be having a fancy car and driving it around, Chief Dotson said. Now, it’s having a pistol with extended magazine and posting pictures of it on Facebook.

​

Jennifer M. Joyce, the top prosecutor in St. Louis, keeps a framed picture of a teenager from one of her recent cases posing with a gun.

​

It has reached the point in St. Louis where this guy can get a gun really easily, she said. He believes that gun is going to allow him to avenge the death of his buddy. But what we all know is that gun will either be the death of him or cause him to end up in prison.

---

The article spawned from one in the Journal of Urban Health.I'd love to see their data n'stuff, but it's $40.00 In the abstract is says that the study:

quote:

---

controls for changes in poverty, unemployment, crime, incarceration, policing levels, and other policies that could potentially affect homicides.

---

Given that this is an urban culture problem, wouldn't those be the things that would have a big impact on the gun deaths? You know, the poverty, unemployment, crime, incarceration, and policing levels? Aren't those the things that are having a bigger impact on the gun deaths in the urban culture? If the culture isn't even aware of the laws that are in place, then can they even be having an actual impact?So, if you control for those things, regardless, then you can find that there was:

quote:

---

an increase in annual firearm homicides rates of 1.09 per 100,000 (+23 %)

---

Since an increase of one is about a fifth, then you went from 5 per 100,000 to 6 per 100,000. How far outside the standard deviation is that? Given that Missouri has ~6 million people, 1 in 100,000 does add up to 60 people. That's not a whole lot, if it was put into perspective.If you consider that you're looking at Missouri’s 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase (PTP) handgun law, then the causation is way too hard to pin this correlation on. From your same article:

quote:

---

A lot of people didn’t even know there was a permit system, said Kevin L. Jamison, a lawyer in Missouri who concentrates on weapons cases.

​

Professor Webster said there was no way to tell for sure that the old system worked, because there was no central repository for permits, but that the rise in crime guns originally purchased in Missouri suggests that the previous law was effective.

---

Not only did the old system fail to show that worked, the urban culture problem wasn't even aware of the permit system that was in place. And given that the repeal of the permit system still meant that it was illegal to carry a firearm within the city limits of St. Louis, the urban culture still wasn't following the law anyways.So it makes even less sense to try to get that legislative side that is predominantly white, rural and suburban to agree with blanket restrictions that they are going to end up obeying anyways, despite that the problem wasn't even aware of them in the first place. On top of the fact, this isn't even their problem, specifically, to begin with; it's an black urban cultural one, not uncle farmer-hunter's! If these young black men are being raised in a culture that is anti-law, then blanket laws are not going to solve the problem. This is not an issue with gun laws, this is an urban culture problem. State-wide blanket laws will not solve it.Despite your good intentions, you are not helping.. Are you still standing by the claim that dgu is a myth that never happens?

It should affect where we focus our resolve, not the strength behind our blind charge.For Missouri, we need to work cooperatively to find ways to reduce the urban cultural problem that is causing gun deaths. Attack that exacerbation. We do not need state-wide blanket restrictions that are only going to be followed by the rural and suburban cultures. The urban culture not only does not follow the laws, they are not even aware of their existence, according to your article.A big part of the problem I have with your side's approach, is that you are zoomed too far out and are not focusing on the actual problem, but instead just want to pass sweeping legislation. That will only hurt people who are not a part of the problem and will do nothing to help the people that are. Not only that, it's legislation that probably won't get passed.But hey, statistics never lie and they say what they say - so you just cannot be wrong. And since your heart is in the right place, then you cannot be mislead. I realize this is a fruitless endeavor on my part, but you need to think about focused laws that address that real problem, not feel-good laws that don't help.That article just didn't get it. They talked about the repeal of the permit system, and how easy it is for young men to get guns, but what they failed to account for was that those men weren't following the law to begin with. So whether or not the law existed couldn't have had much of an affect on whether or not those men could get a gun. I'm talking about:

quote:

---

A gun-packing good guy getting the jump on a criminal is a myth. It's so rare that it's considered amazing every time it happens. Even in your neck of the "woods," it's a pipe dream that almost never comes true.

---

From Message 4021.Full context:

quote:

---

Me writes:

​

But I'm definitely willing to trade the lives of a handful of felony gang members fighting turf wars in the city to prevent the rape of my neighbor who writes children's' books.

​

What's the win/loss record on average citizens taking on gang members in your neighborhood? You know what's much more common? Innocent civilians being caught in the crossfire of a gun battle between gangs, or hit by a stray shot. You and the gangs need to lose your guns.

​

A gun-packing good guy getting the jump on a criminal is a myth. It's so rare that it's considered amazing every time it happens. Even in your neck of the "woods," it's a pipe dream that almost never comes true.

​

What does come true with a regular drumbeat is children and mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and family and friends dying who didn't have to, just because gun nuts love their guns.

---

Your picture is totally skewed. Most of the gun deaths are black men shooting other black men in the city. It is not more common for people to get caught in the crossfire.Until you get the picture right and offer legislation that addresses the real problem, you're never going to make any progress.And I stand by what I said:I'm willing to trade the lives of a handful of felony gang members fighting turf wars in the city to prevent the injury of my neighbors out here in the sticks.Reducing all of the guns from both of those groups, in an effort to reduce all gun deaths, is not an approach that I am willing to support. In fact, I think it is the wrong way to do it.

"hard data"You've got a loose correlation and a fallacy of division. Except that's exactly what your article talked about...The repeal of the PTP somehow caused black men to shoot each other

Why stop there? Most of the gun deaths are Earthlings shooting other Earthlings on Earth. The UK should disarm its military so that young black men in St. Louis will stop shooting each other.If you want to reduce guns deaths, then we need to reduce the total number of guns on Earth. There's a statistical correlation between the number of guns on Earth and the number of gun deaths on Earth, so if you care about reducing the number of gun deaths, then you will start reducing the number of guns in your military.

You're talking about 3000 posts ago from 3 years back?I explicitly said that a person could get a jump on me. You were saying that I could never see a criminal coming, and that's still bullshit.