Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 961 of 5179 (686130)
12-29-2012 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 948 by Coyote
12-28-2012 9:40 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Hi Coyote
What we need is more dead criminals and fewer dead victims.
We can only do this by making the price of crime -- statistically -- much higher than it currently is.
Or we can reduce "dead victims" by reducing the overall numbers of criminals, and we can do this by having a more just social system that allows people to live more fulfilling lives without needing crime to augment their existence. Fewer criminals would mean fewer dead criminals and fewer dead victims.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 948 by Coyote, posted 12-28-2012 9:40 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 964 by kofh2u, posted 12-29-2012 1:07 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 962 of 5179 (686131)
12-29-2012 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 953 by Larni
12-29-2012 7:45 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
American's seem inculcated into the norm of owning or carrying guns. Over here in the UK if I knew someone was carrying a gun I would inform the police.
But not because it was against the law but because carrying a gun is aberrant behaviour (in the UK). You would have to be mentally disturbed to carry one on the street.
And sometimes even when we (Americans) suspect a gun owner of not being quite right in the head, we don't turn them in.
I have a neighbor who walks the neighborhood, mows the lawn, and works on his vehicle with two pistols strapped to his waist and a huge knife. A couple of weeks ago, in addition to two pistols, he also had some assault looking weapon on his back while he stood on his lawn surveying the neighborhood. I honestly don't even know if that's legal, but when you live in the rural American West, guns are part of everyday culture. As far as I know, no one calls to complain about him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 953 by Larni, posted 12-29-2012 7:45 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 963 by Faith, posted 12-29-2012 12:36 PM roxrkool has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 963 of 5179 (686137)
12-29-2012 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 962 by roxrkool
12-29-2012 11:44 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
If I were you I'd call the police, not to complain but just to ASK if what the guy is doing is legal or sounds suspicious to them. If they don't know about him they might want to.
What you are describing does not sound like your typical American gun owner to me. He sounds like he might be seriously paranoid, and that can be dangerous.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 962 by roxrkool, posted 12-29-2012 11:44 AM roxrkool has not replied

kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 964 of 5179 (686146)
12-29-2012 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 961 by RAZD
12-29-2012 11:32 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Or we can reduce "dead victims" by reducing the overall numbers of criminals, and we can do this by having a more just social system that allows people to live more fulfilling lives without needing crime to augment their existence. Fewer criminals would mean fewer dead criminals and fewer dead victims.
This is the right idea, but it would soon be interpreted to mean that poor people kill others with guns, rather than the truth.
The truth is that illegitimate babies create Single Mothers who therefore live in both financial poverty because of that, but so do the fatherless children they all raise in the same inner city neighborhoods.
Marriage is the best solution for both poverty and a high crime rate.
But the Church has been undermined and the LEFT has insisted that sexual promiscuity hurts no one.
What America needs is more of Bill Cosby.
White America needs to support Cosby as he talks bluntly in the present Politically Incorrect environment of criticizing women, Feminism, sexual promiscuity, the Gay efforts for more liberalism in sexual excesses, and the self defensive Black leadership which silences Cosby and any white politician who would raise this as an issue to be dealt with.
.
.
.
.In this CDA Report, the Fragile Families data are used to calculate how much marriage could reduce poverty among couples who are not married at the time of the child's birth. This analysis finds that marriage would dramatically reduce poverty among the non-married mothers who are romantically involved with the fathers at the time of the child's birth.
Specifically, if these mothers do not marry but remain single, about 55 percent will be poor. By contrast, if all the mothers married the child's father, the poverty rate would fall to less than 17 percent. Thus, on average, marriage would reduce the odds that a mother and a child will live in poverty by more than 70 percent.
Increasing Marriage Would Dramatically Reduce Child Poverty | The Heritage Foundation
Fatherless kids turn out to be 70% of all social problems including violent crime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 961 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2012 11:32 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 965 of 5179 (686148)
12-29-2012 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 948 by Coyote
12-28-2012 9:40 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
See the two posts I made previously in this thread, linking to very good articles on the subject. So far it looks like nobody has even bothered to read them.
How can you tell? Is it because no one has changed their minds?
The technique of posting a link and a single sentence imploring the group to "read this" is not real effective here. I just assume when I see an essentially bare link post from you, that the link points to the National Review or the Heritage Foundation web page, and I usually won't bother with it. This time I did read one of the articles, but I did not get to far into it. Perhaps I missed the point you were trying to make.
Perhaps if you quoted your favorite paragraph from the articles, and that favorite paragraph did not appear to be the same old wing nut stuff that was in the NRA press conference, you might get more readers. Stop using vinegar.
Perhaps I should just quote them in their entirety here?
The one article I looked at was quite lengthy. What do you think will happen if you post it here without throwing us a bone, i.e. some commentary that is not just like this:
What we need is more dead criminals and fewer dead victims
I doubt you can get anyone but the already convinced to read an article whose point is the above.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 948 by Coyote, posted 12-28-2012 9:40 PM Coyote has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 966 of 5179 (686149)
12-29-2012 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 943 by onifre
12-28-2012 6:45 PM


Re: ...one idiot to another....
Forget the law for a moment, just follow the logic.
Try to follow the logic of "most" not being the same as "all."
So, it follows that most people don't need to walk around in their day to day lives with a handgun.
Yes, but again, most is not all, and I haven't heard you propose policy that applies to most but to all. What about that aren't you getting?
A "few" people should however walk around with a gun. Those people are in law enforcement
No, many of them are not in law enforcement. Many of them are private citizens who need to walk around with a handgun for their own protection.
So what "few" people and where do they live, where it makes sense for them to carry a gun all day long?
Maybe they don't need it all day. Maybe they only need it a few hours during the day. Regardless, your proposed policy is that they shouldn't be allowed to carry it any hours during the day, even the hours that they need to.
Are paraplegics at greater risk of being killed or assaulted?
quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- People with disabilities are 50 percent more likely to be victims of violent crimes than are people without disabilities, according to a government study released Thursday.
The first national study of its kind found that a wide range of disabled people -- including blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, and others with physical and mental limitations -- were victims of assaults, rapes and robberies in 716,000 cases in 2007.
The study by the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics said instances of violence against disabled people occurred overall 1 times the rate of those without disabilities, but the numbers varied by age group.
That's from http://www.cnn.com/...CRIME/10/02/crimes.disabled/index.html. The actual study is
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4574

This message is a reply to:
 Message 943 by onifre, posted 12-28-2012 6:45 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 974 by onifre, posted 12-29-2012 2:15 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 967 of 5179 (686150)
12-29-2012 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 945 by Percy
12-28-2012 8:55 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
The personal feels much more real to you than statistics, but the reality is that percentages and probabilities based upon statistical sampling are a much, much better way to understand what is going on in the larger world outside our personal lives.
Sure, but we don't make decisions in the statistical aggregate that apply only to the nonexistent "average person.' We make decisions that apply to real people's lives, who experience conditions as a result of individual circumstance and not aggregate statistical inference. You're committing the Ecological Fallacy and hoping none of us will notice. But I did notice, because like you I'm familiar with the act of lying by statistics. Excuse me, unintentionally misleading by the act of statistics.
My position is that gun ownership makes one less safe, not more.
I don't disagree with this position. My point is that, regardless of this position being true, it doesn't follow that a lack of gun ownership makes everyone more safe instead of less. Under some circumstances, not owning a gun will make you demonstratively less safe. And that these circumstances are statistically significant enough not to legally preclude gun ownership.
In every way it's similar to the principle that forgoing vaccinations makes you less safe, not more; yet that lends no support to the contention that mandatory vaccination would make everyone more safe, not less. And for that reason, even though in the statistical majority of circumstances vaccination is a good idea, we don't force everyone to have vaccinations. Neither, then, are we justified in forcing everyone to disarm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 945 by Percy, posted 12-28-2012 8:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 983 by Percy, posted 12-29-2012 3:42 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 968 of 5179 (686151)
12-29-2012 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 946 by Percy
12-28-2012 9:28 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
But since a significant source of guns used in crimes is stolen guns, reducing the number of armed citizens should also reduce the number of armed criminals.
Only if you can't tell the difference between a function and its first derivative. I can, which is how I know you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 946 by Percy, posted 12-28-2012 9:28 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 969 of 5179 (686152)
12-29-2012 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 952 by Tangle
12-29-2012 6:10 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Talk of arming teachers and equiping kids with kevlar backpacks is an anathema to me and the idea that the solution is more guns is barking mad.
We on the "pro-legal gun ownership side" (if Coyote, Faith, CS, and others won't object to that description) have, I think, largely stipulated that armed teachers is likely to injure or kill more students than would be protected. I think that's pretty obvious.
But, you know, nobody ever hurt anybody with a kevlar backpack. Or with kevlar basically anything you could wear. So I'm always surprised when I see posts like yours, or the sentiments I saw after Aurora, where people wondered not only why a private citizen could buy an assault rifle but why they could buy a kevlar vest.
Really? Because you have a right not to be shot, is why. Because you have a right to prevent bullets from passing into your body. I understand the sentiment that private citizens shouldn't have weapons, even if I disagree with it, because we're talking about a form of defense, there, that involves aggressive injury of an assailant. Well, weapons don't discriminate like that.
But kevlar? The notion that private citizens should be forced by their government to allow themselves to be shot is absolutely insane, and just another example, in your case, of the meek, learned helplessness that attends UK-style utter disarmament of a people against criminal predation. People should just be able to break into your house. People should just be able to shoot bullets into your body. People should just lie down and accept all of that, bear all of that physical risk, because it's the cop's job to do something about it, not yours; yours is to lie down and pray that they get there in time. If not? Well, that's life, I guess.
So why not kevlar backpacks?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 952 by Tangle, posted 12-29-2012 6:10 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 973 by Faith, posted 12-29-2012 2:05 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 976 by Tangle, posted 12-29-2012 2:26 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 970 of 5179 (686153)
12-29-2012 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 955 by Faith
12-29-2012 7:55 AM


Re: An opinion on gun control -- Coyote's link
Faith, there's a well-known web browser you can use on the Mac, Linux, and PC called "Lynx"; what's well-known about it is that it is text-only. Doesn't show images at all. Traditionally it was used for viewing web pages through text-only, command-line interfaces, back when those were more common, but you may find it of use if you're still on dial-up (or an ancient computer) and modern web pages are a bit too much.
Just a suggestion. Lynx.browser.org is where it can be downloaded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 955 by Faith, posted 12-29-2012 7:55 AM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 971 of 5179 (686154)
12-29-2012 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 958 by Percy
12-29-2012 8:28 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
But Dr Adequate's chart plots gun deaths instead of murders, and Switzerland's gun death rate is consistent with its gun ownership rate.
And Norway? Sweden? Cyprus?
If the red line Y=X wasn't simply drawn on the chart, would you honestly see a trend at all? Also, shouldn't we be suspicious of the fact that as a result of how the axes are misaligned, the trendline indicates that the only way for a society to have zero gun deaths is to have a negative number of guns?
Anybody can draw a line on a chart inside a cloud of points, and the power of suggestion will cause you to believe that you're seeing a trend where there isn't one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 958 by Percy, posted 12-29-2012 8:28 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 986 by Percy, posted 12-29-2012 4:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 972 of 5179 (686156)
12-29-2012 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 960 by Coyote
12-29-2012 10:30 AM


Re: California gun sales jump; gun injuries, deaths fall
California gun sales jump; gun injuries, deaths fall
By Phillip Reese
Two caveats: State figures track gun sales, not ownership. They treat a family's first gun purchase the same as a collector's twelfth. Second, gun sales in California peaked in the early 1990s, as violent crime also peaked.

http://www.sacbee.com/.../california-gun-sales-increase.html
Just completing your quote.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 960 by Coyote, posted 12-29-2012 10:30 AM Coyote has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 973 of 5179 (686158)
12-29-2012 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 969 by crashfrog
12-29-2012 1:34 PM


Larry Correia's Blog on Gun Control
Hi Crash, thanks for the info about Lynx.
I have to say that I disagree with you about armed teachers, though. I do think teachers should be armed, and that blog post Coyote linked to that I had so much trouble loading gets into all that very persuasively in my opinion. It's near the top of the article so easy enough to find. It's hard to single out a particular paragraph to copy here.
Only teachers who WANT to be armed, of course, who volunteer to get the training and the licensing. I still think that picture of the rifle-toting Israeli teacher says it all, only here I think it should be concealed-carry, and only a few volunteers would be plenty.
Again, Larry Correia who wrote that blog makes the case very well, and he describes his own extensive experience that qualifies him probably better than anyone here to give an opinion, including owning a gun store that sold to the police and being an instructor for concealed carry permits, which he did for free for teachers in the state of Utah. He knows about the laws that regulate guns and he interprets the statistics in a way that makes sense to me finally. In fact he knows more than anybody else I've read on this subject. I've already passed his blog around and recommend it to everybody here as well.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 969 by crashfrog, posted 12-29-2012 1:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 975 by crashfrog, posted 12-29-2012 2:24 PM Faith has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 974 of 5179 (686160)
12-29-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 966 by crashfrog
12-29-2012 1:18 PM


Re: ...one idiot to another....
Yes, but again, most is not all, and I haven't heard you propose policy that applies to most but to all. What about that aren't you getting?
What policy do you know of that covers ALL people? That's a ridiculous requirement.
All I'm saying is, most people are not in danger so it follows that most people don't need to carry a handgun around.
Doing so would make them seem paranoid and delusional. It is NOT rational to carry a gun as you stated earlier.
ny of them are private citizens who need to walk around with a handgun for their own protection.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then. Can you reference someone (an average citizen) that needs to carry a handgun while walking around...?
Even if you're a jewelry store owner, who tend to carry guns, they can instead hire a security person who's job requires them to carry a gun, to do the job.
I don't see any scenarios where average citizens walking around the city need to be strapped.
People with disabilities are 50 percent more likely to be victims of violent crimes than are people without disabilities
From your link:
quote:
The study found that people with cognitive disabilities such as mental retardation, developmental disabilities and cerebral palsy represented the largest group of victims.
Those people, the largest group of victims, shouldn't be carrying guns.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 966 by crashfrog, posted 12-29-2012 1:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 977 by crashfrog, posted 12-29-2012 2:30 PM onifre has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 975 of 5179 (686162)
12-29-2012 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 973 by Faith
12-29-2012 2:05 PM


Re: Larry Correia's Blog on Gun Control
I do think teachers should be armed, and that blog post Coyote linked to that I had so much trouble loading gets into all that very persuasively in my opinion.
Well, I can respect that and disagree. I think under almost every possible circumstance it's a bad idea to have someone carrying a firearm in a room with children - but, the idea of an armed non-teacher, perhaps someone selected that day out of a rotating pool of staff and equipped with a concealed gun, strikes me as a reasonable compromise. As they say, the gun-wielding guard at Columbine couldn't stop the shooting, though he may have nevertheless saved lives by buying others time to evacuate; on the other hand, the gun-wielding principal of Pearl High School certainly did, and saved the lives of dozens of his students. (The weapon he used to do so would have been made illegal under many of the policies advocated in this thread.)
Regardless what we definitely need to do is stop putting up signs that say that a place is a gun-free zone. How completely fucking stupid is that? Crazy people are bringing guns to these places because they know that they won't meet armed resistance, because the signs say so. Can anyone make that make sense to me? What's the point of announcing it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 973 by Faith, posted 12-29-2012 2:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 979 by hooah212002, posted 12-29-2012 3:06 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 982 by Faith, posted 12-29-2012 3:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024