Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,208 Year: 5,465/9,624 Month: 490/323 Week: 130/204 Day: 4/26 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
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 60 of 5179 (684024)
12-15-2012 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
12-15-2012 12:17 AM


After I cry my eyes out over these horrific murdering rampages I yell to whomever is listening, online or off, WHERE ARE ALL OUR UPRIGHT CITIZEN GUN OWNERS TO PROTECT PEOPLE WHEN WE NEED THEM?
Yeah, remarkable, isn't it? There are over 300 million civilian firearms in the USA, so out of all the nations on Earth American citizens should be the most securely protected against being shot. Why doesn't it work out like that? It's a mystery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 12-15-2012 12:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 12-15-2012 3:34 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 85 of 5179 (684066)
12-15-2012 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
12-15-2012 3:34 AM


Here we have this right, which was really regarded as a duty in earlier days, to be armed for our own protection and the protection of our neighbors, and we aren't using it.
You know, I bet even in the golden days of the Founding Fathers primary school teachers didn't take their muskets into class to defend against potential school shootings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 12-15-2012 3:34 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 12-15-2012 6:25 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 135 of 5179 (684163)
12-16-2012 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Faith
12-16-2012 4:20 AM


Re: Second Amendment
ABE: For reference to the thinking of the Constitutional framers, here's an early draft of the amendment proposed by Madison ...
So why did they scrub this early draft? What you have there is a version of a second amendment that in the end Madison did not put forward and Congress did not adopt. Whatever the intentions of the Founders, I don't think the evidence of what they deliberately decided not to do can have evidential value except in the negative --- if they considered saying that, and ultimately decided not to say that, it's probably not what they wanted to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 4:20 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Jon, posted 12-16-2012 12:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 271 of 5179 (684385)
12-17-2012 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Jon
12-16-2012 12:13 PM


Re: Second Amendment
I don't think this holds. Whenever we look at the originally-proposed versions of early parts of the Constitution, they are always clear, specific, and inline with the mindset we'd expect from post-revolutionaries.
The versions that end up in the actual document, however, are always the distilled trash we'd expect as the byproduct of political haggling. If we are looking for intentnot sure why we are, but if we are, the final version is really not the place to look.
So you're guessing that Madison himself wanted the clause, but he had to drop it because Congress would never have passed it?
Well in that case, again, the omission of the clause tells us what the amendment as actually passed meant. The fact that Congress would only pass it without that clause (if you are right) would be indicative of what they meant it to mean when they voted for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Jon, posted 12-16-2012 12:13 PM Jon has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 304 of 5179 (684432)
12-17-2012 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by crashfrog
12-17-2012 2:54 PM


Re: And so the pendulum swings again.
So if the vast majority of gun owners already follow this practice, what's the point in legislating it? Under what regime do you anticipate creating the first law that would be followed with 100% compliance?
The vast majority of people don't commit murder, so what's the point in legislating against it? Under what regime do you anticipate creating the first law that would be followed with 100% compliance?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2012 2:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 309 of 5179 (684441)
12-17-2012 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by crashfrog
12-16-2012 10:02 AM


The Clackamas, Oregon mall guy - whose mass shooting has largely disappeared from the news as a result of this latest one, and also because, having been stopped by the actions of a concealed-carry permit holder ...
But that's not true, is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 10:02 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2012 3:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 315 by Percy, posted 12-17-2012 3:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 324 of 5179 (684461)
12-17-2012 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by crashfrog
12-17-2012 3:46 PM


No, it is true.
Right, a man with a gun took cover in a store rather than shooting the guy. So then the guy shot himself because he was frightened of being shot by someone who was in no position to shoot him. And we know this because ... ?
I mean, that's almost a textbook-perfect case of how concealed-carry could abort a mass shooting scenario. Otherwise you're left with arguing for the possibility that a guy stole an AR-15, loaded up with hundreds of rounds, a side-arm, and a fully-loaded tactical load-bearing vest, bagged all of two people, and said "huh, I guess that's enough" and decided to eat one.
He fired off at least twenty shots, despite his rifle jamming, and police were on the scene within a minute after the shooting started. As to what crazy people are thinking, I don't know, but I do know that it is usual for them to stop shooting other people after a while and shoot themselves instead. Most of them don't actually conduct a body count first and check pulses to see if they've killed enough people.
That doesn't make any sense to me. Clearly, the Clackamas shooter killed himself when he encountered armed resistance.
Which he didn't.
It remains to be seen whether you'll adapt your position to new information ...
I did. First I believed you. Then I found out the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2012 3:46 PM crashfrog has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 329 of 5179 (684469)
12-17-2012 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Faith
12-17-2012 4:10 PM


Re: Does banning guns reduce gun deaths?
I keep hearing different sets of statistics from the two sides of this dispute so that I no longer trust any statistics. The gun control people always claim that the statistics show crimes being reduced where guns are prohibited, and the keep-and-bear-arms side always claims that the statistics show a rise in crime when they are prohibited -- which to my mind is the more likely effect. But some statistics are getting falsified. How are we to know which are true?
Ask to see the source. The real statistics will ultimately originate from someone in a position to keep count, such as the police. The made-up statistics won't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 4:10 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Panda, posted 12-17-2012 4:40 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 349 of 5179 (684513)
12-17-2012 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by crashfrog
12-17-2012 5:01 PM


He executed his planned suicide at the first sign of resistance. The loaded Glock pointed at him was that resistance.
So, he shot himself to prevent himself from being shot? Why didn't he use his gun for self-defense? Oh, right, because the guy with the Glock wasn't pointing it at him, he was too busy hiding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2012 5:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 663 of 5179 (685199)
12-21-2012 12:32 AM


All the countries with a Human Development Index over 73% ("very high" according to UNDP) are represented. Figures are taken from the WP articles:
* List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia
* List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia
* Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia
Following the links will show where they got their figures from.

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2012 7:37 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 674 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2012 7:54 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 695 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2012 1:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 698 of 5179 (685284)
12-21-2012 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 695 by New Cat's Eye
12-21-2012 1:04 PM


First thoughts: Looks like someone hit it with a shotgun.
I think the trend is fairly clear.
I see there are 47 countries in the Very High category.
That's how many points the guy said were on the graph. I'll see if I can find out what happened to the rest.
ETA: It must be because WP doesn't provide figures for some countries, e.g. Lichtenstein is in the Very High category of the HDI, but WP has no figures for guns per capita.
And then if I look down to where it goes below 73%, i find that to be country number 77.
What's up with that?
It must be that .73 was a typo for .793.
Who are "they"?
Wikipedia.
Where'd you get the image from?
Some guy. A biologist, I think. It hardly matters if he's using figures from Wikipedia.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2012 1:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 699 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2012 1:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 1065 by xongsmith, posted 01-02-2013 2:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 700 of 5179 (685288)
12-21-2012 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 699 by New Cat's Eye
12-21-2012 1:39 PM


Its probably due to overlap. For example, Latvia and Chile both have values of (0.805, 0.003), Luxembor and the EU are both at (0.867, 0.002).
Also see the edit to my post.
What do you think the R2 value is?
I don't. R2 values are high on the list of things I don't think about, just below the fact that cigarettes are bad for me and just above Newt Gingrich naked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 699 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2012 1:39 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 716 of 5179 (685309)
12-21-2012 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by AZPaul3
12-21-2012 3:30 PM


... then it wouldn't matter if he used a gun or an axe.
Yes it would. There is actually a reason why people buy guns rather than axes. Guns are more effective. Otherwise they could save a whole lot of money, and the National Ax Association would be bigger than the NRA. There'd be big savings for the Army, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by AZPaul3, posted 12-21-2012 3:30 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by vimesey, posted 12-21-2012 5:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 717 of 5179 (685311)
12-21-2012 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 703 by crashfrog
12-21-2012 2:21 PM


Re: Would this be enough?
Murders happen overwhelmingly because one individual wants another individual dead, and once that guy is dead, they're done murdering. And whether a gun is around, or a knife or a necktie or a pair of bare hands, is really very immaterial to that.
But I don't see any way to so restrict him, without also restricting his victim, and I very much want his victim armed with a handgun and ten rounds [...] I want the right people to die instead of the wrong ones, Rahvin. Maybe that's the difference we can't bridge, here.
Killings in self-defense happen overwhelmingly because one individual wants to defend himself against an assailant, and once that guy is dead, they're done self-defending. And whether a gun is around, or a knife or a necktie or a pair of bare hands, is really very immaterial to that.
Remember, guns don't protect people, people protect people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 703 by crashfrog, posted 12-21-2012 2:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 731 by crashfrog, posted 12-21-2012 9:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 722 of 5179 (685324)
12-21-2012 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 720 by kofh2u
12-21-2012 5:21 PM


Re: OK, liberals, "overwhelming, killers use illegal guns..."
So what you're saying is that if there were no legal guns, there would consequently be far fewer illegal guns, 'cos criminals would have no-one to steal them from?
Yeah, that sounds about right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 720 by kofh2u, posted 12-21-2012 5:21 PM kofh2u 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