Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 743 of 5179 (685412)
12-22-2012 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 740 by crashfrog
12-22-2012 11:10 AM


Re: Would this be enough?
crashfrog writes:
And the statistics support this view. So reducing the prevalence of guns will reduce the homicide rate.
I realize you hold that view, but you've seemingly chosen to ignore the entire rest of my post that actually dealt with that view. Do you think you could go back and actually reply to it?
But what you quoted above isn't all I said. I guess you wanted a more detailed answer to the other stuff, but concerning the actual topic I think it was only necessary to say what I wrote: "In the absence of guns some potential murderers will simply shift to other means, but only some, and in the aggregate these other means are far less certain than guns." Not only will gun deaths due to suicide, homicide and accident decline with declining gun prevalence, but deaths by other means will not increase by anywhere near the same amount, whether or not the US is inherently more murderous.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 740 by crashfrog, posted 12-22-2012 11:10 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 749 by crashfrog, posted 12-22-2012 6:26 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 782 of 5179 (685670)
12-24-2012 8:22 PM


NRA's Wayne LaPierre Answers Critics on Firemen Shootings
Excerpt from today's Daily Planet:
Metropolis. NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre today responded to increased demands for gun control in the wake of the gun deaths of two firemen responding to a fire early this morning in Webster, NY. Two other firemen were wounded. At a hastily called press conference on Christmas Eve LaPierre called for the arming of all firemen, and for all fire responders to be accompanied by SWAT teams.
Said LaPierre, "Deranged and evil people possessed by voices and driven by demons walk among us, even at emergencies like fires and accidents. We must protect our gallant public servants, and that means that at all fires and accidents SWAT teams must go in first to secure the area, and only then should armed firefighters go in to fight the fire or armed EMTs go in to treat accident victims."
--Percy
PS - The above excerpt is, of course, fictional. I'm sure Wayne LaPierre is home with his family this Christmas Eve while in Webster, New York, widows and children mourn the loss of their husbands and fathers.

Replies to this message:
 Message 785 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-24-2012 10:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 800 of 5179 (685732)
12-26-2012 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 799 by Panda
12-25-2012 10:24 PM


AFDC Information
I poked around the Internet a bit for some AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) information. I only provide one link, but I was able to confirm the information at other websites. The black population figure isn't from the same year as the AFDC percent figure, but the difference isn't enough to matter.
Number of recipients of AFDC: 4.3 million
Percent of recipients who are black:39.8%
Number of recipients who are black:1.7 million
Number of black Americans:43.2 million
Percent of black Americans receiving AFDC:3.9%
AbE: The bottom line figure of 3.9% of blacks receiving AFDC aid is so different from Kof2hu's that I wonder if his percentage isn't for food stamps, which is a different program from AFDC. His figure would still be wrong, of course.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Use correct figure for black population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 799 by Panda, posted 12-25-2012 10:24 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 801 by jar, posted 12-26-2012 9:18 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 803 of 5179 (685739)
12-26-2012 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 802 by kofh2u
12-26-2012 11:32 AM


Re: ...one idiot to another....
Hi Kofh2u,
Your claim from Message 780 was this:
kofh2u in Message 780 writes:
We might then note that 70% of the Black Community is on Welfare...
The chart you just posted in rebuttal doesn't address this claim:
It looks like you trolled the Internet for a chart with a figure around 70% that was about black Americans. I think we all agree that statistics about black Americans exist whose value is approximately 70%, but you're being asked to support your claim that 70% of the black community is on welfare. The actual figure is 3.9%. Concerning the food stamp program, approximately 25% of blacks receive food stamp benefits.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 802 by kofh2u, posted 12-26-2012 11:32 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 804 by kofh2u, posted 12-26-2012 12:51 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 805 of 5179 (685746)
12-26-2012 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 804 by kofh2u
12-26-2012 12:51 PM


Re: ...one idiot to another....
kofh2u writes:
We might then note that 70% of the Black Community is on Welfare...
I am not certain that it makes it any less true that "We might then note that 70% of the Black Families are on Welfare"...
Lord only knows what you're trying to say. Suffice to say that you've provided no support for your claim that 70% of the black community is on welfare.
But the point I make is that inner city Blacks kill half of all people murdered in the USA when the whole Black community represents only 10% of the population.
You're not completely wrong. Blacks (that's all blacks, not just inner city blacks) comprise almost half of all arrests for homicide.
Furthermore, 70% of all killers have been raised in fatherless broken families,...
Since at least 50% of children experience the divorce of their parents before they turn 18, your 70% figure doesn't seem unreasonable. In fact, what makes me question it is that it came from you. Do you have a source for this figure?
...and 67% of the Black inner city families at least, if not most all, are dependent children of mothers on Welfare.
So now your claim is that 70% of inner city blacks are on AFDC. Any support for this claim?
Regardless of the statistical details of black homicide rates, take away the guns and the homicide rate will decline.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 804 by kofh2u, posted 12-26-2012 12:51 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 806 by kofh2u, posted 12-26-2012 2:13 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 810 of 5179 (685758)
12-26-2012 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 806 by kofh2u
12-26-2012 2:13 PM


Re: ...one idiot to another....
kofh2u writes:
...and 67% of the Black inner city families at least, if not most all, are dependent children of mothers on Welfare.
So now your claim is that 70% of inner city blacks are on AFDC. Any support for this claim?
... families...
Black FAMILIES...
Black FAMILIES, where these fatherless kids under age 22 are raised,... those kids who shoot people with illegal guns....
Okay, black FAMILIES. So, to repeat the question with your correction, any support for the claim that 67% of fatherless black families in inner cities are on AFDC?
By the way, once again you're citing 20-year old data with that image (that you inexplicably included since it has nothing to do with your black families on welfare claim). As I told you twice before, 1992 was a peek for youth crime - it's been declining ever since. And take away their guns and the youth homicide rate will plummet further.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 806 by kofh2u, posted 12-26-2012 2:13 PM kofh2u has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 816 of 5179 (685831)
12-27-2012 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 815 by crashfrog
12-27-2012 1:58 PM


Re: ...one idiot to another....
crashfrog writes:
Well, obviously, we should deny law-abiders the tools they need to participate in their own defense while not making any effective effort to seize arms from criminals.
I'm sure everyone here, regardless of their position on gun control, is an favor of law enforcement making an "effective effort to seize arms from criminals." But how do criminals acquire guns in the first place? According to Mayors Against Illegal Guns more than a half million guns are stolen each year:
  • Guns stolen from homes: Almost 600,000 guns are stolen each year from private homes, according to poll data on gun-owning households.
So one effective way of reducing criminals' access to guns would be to take them away from everyone else. This would also reduce the number of gun-related incidents of all types.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 815 by crashfrog, posted 12-27-2012 1:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 818 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-27-2012 3:26 PM Percy has replied
 Message 827 by crashfrog, posted 12-27-2012 4:41 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 820 of 5179 (685841)
12-27-2012 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 818 by New Cat's Eye
12-27-2012 3:26 PM


Re: ...one idiot to another....
Catholic Scientist writes:
How would that even be possible? I mean, besides just being unconstitutional, how would you go about taking them?
We just follow the instructions on their bumper stickers and pry them out of their cold dead hands.
Seriously, it's too early to begin considering concrete proposals for removing guns from circulation. We don't have the resolve, nor even a consensus interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Maybe a constitutional amendment is necessary first.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 818 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-27-2012 3:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 822 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-27-2012 4:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 899 of 5179 (686013)
12-28-2012 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 888 by crashfrog
12-28-2012 1:56 PM


Re: ...one idiot to another....
crashfrog writes:
In fact, you're the one saying that. You're the one saying that anybody who makes a decision to use a handgun to defend themselves is making the wrong decision, 100% of the time, and we need to stop them from doing that. I disagree. I don't think you can make that decision for people.
I think Onifre is making a probabilistic argument. It's the same as the argument for childhood vaccinations, where some children suffer adverse effects from the vaccination itself, but overall childhood mortality drops. Gun deaths will be greatly reduced if people do not have guns for personal defense. Some people will die who wouldn't had they been armed, but there will be dramatically fewer gun deaths.
We're going to have to make a similar decision about driving our cars sometime within the next 20 or 30 years. With cars under computer control automobile deaths will drop dramatically, but deaths will still occur due to software and hardware bugs, hardware failures and information errors/inaccuracies. Some will argue that they are safer when they have full control of their car, and maybe some of them will be right, but in the aggregate the more cars controlled by people the less safe everyone around them will be.
It's the same for guns. In the vast majority of situations, the mere presence of a gun makes everyone nearby less safe.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 888 by crashfrog, posted 12-28-2012 1:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 905 by crashfrog, posted 12-28-2012 2:49 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 913 of 5179 (686035)
12-28-2012 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 905 by crashfrog
12-28-2012 2:49 PM


Re: ...one idiot to another....
crashfrog writes:
I agree, but the problem is that outcomes aren't individually probabilistic. You don't get "50%" mugged or "24.3/100,000" murdered. You get either 0% murdered or 100% murdered. Likewise, you can't be 50% armed with a handgun.
You have to look at things statistically, not individually. Again, it's the same as the vaccination argument. Each individual child's parents may feel it is safer refusing the vaccination because it prevents exposure to the risks of the vaccination itself. But they're wrong. If too many parents feel this way then we get epidemics and greatly increased childhood mortality. This isn't hypothetical, we're already seeing increased measles outbreaks and associated increased mortality.
With guns, each individual may feel safer when armed for personal defense, but they're wrong. Gun owners are more likely to be gun victims than non-owners.
We already know that people are really bad about assessing risk, for example, many believing it is far more likely to be attacked by a shark than struck by lightning (you're 30 times more likely to be struck by lightning). We shouldn't let the common misconception that gun ownership increases safety guide our actions. The fact is that the more guns the more gun deaths, and only by reducing gun ownership will we reduce gun deaths.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 905 by crashfrog, posted 12-28-2012 2:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 917 by crashfrog, posted 12-28-2012 3:32 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 924 of 5179 (686054)
12-28-2012 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 917 by crashfrog
12-28-2012 3:32 PM


Statistical Blindness
crashfrog writes:
No, I don't. I have to defend myself individually, not statistically. I have to preserve my rights and my safety individually, not statistically.
Well, yes, that's the whole problem I just described. You seem to be an example of how people operating in what they perceive as in their own best interests make things worse for everyone, including themselves. You only *believe* you're safer if you own a gun. Just as statistically you're at greater risk of lung cancer if you smoke, statistically you're at greater risk of gun death if you own a gun.
Aren't you a person? Why should I accept you as "great at assessing risk" - better than all other Americans at it, apparently - when you can't even get the number of people who fear shark attacks more than lightning strikes right?
I didn't offer myself as an assessor of risk, I didn't offer a figure for the "number of people who fear shark attacks more than lightning strikes," the article you cited doesn't even mention lightning, and in your misplaced effort to find irrelevant errors you have entirely missed the point.
The point is that we know through statistical measures that people are poor at assessing risks. That's why people feel they're safer if they own a gun when they're not.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 917 by crashfrog, posted 12-28-2012 3:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 926 by Faith, posted 12-28-2012 4:34 PM Percy has replied
 Message 931 by crashfrog, posted 12-28-2012 5:25 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 927 of 5179 (686057)
12-28-2012 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 926 by Faith
12-28-2012 4:34 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Faith writes:
I don't really trust the statistics anyone has given here, but even if I believed that the correlation you are talking about actually exists, I know the right to gun ownership is not comparable to the example you give of vaccination but has repercussions you aren't taking into account.
You're criticizing an analogy for a quality inherent in virtually all analogies. If vaccinations were like guns in all respects than they would *be* guns. The analogy was offered because of something vaccinations and guns share, namely the triumph of perception over statistical realities.
The statistical reality is that the likelihood of gun death rises with gun ownership.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 926 by Faith, posted 12-28-2012 4:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 933 by crashfrog, posted 12-28-2012 5:30 PM Percy has replied
 Message 959 by Faith, posted 12-29-2012 8:40 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 945 of 5179 (686095)
12-28-2012 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 931 by crashfrog
12-28-2012 5:25 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
crashfrog writes:
You seem to be an example of how people operating in what they perceive as in their own best interests make things worse for everyone, including themselves.
But they don't. Sometimes they do make things better for themselves, and no worse for everyone else. It's only in the statistical aggregate that a single gun on the margin makes the entire nation worse off.
Yes, I understand. 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. Statistics help us understand whether the extrapolations we make based upon our own personal experiences and feelings have any validity, and often they don't. That's the lesson of the shark versus lightning risk assessment.
The factors that make gun ownership dangerous are not difficult to understand. The same people who forget their wallets and keys and lose their tempers also own guns. Did you (the impersonal you) remember to remove the shot from the chamber? Did you remember to set the safety? Do you never accidentally point it at someone? Is it locked in the gun cabinet? Is the key to the gun cabinet in a safe place? And its copy? How many people know where the keys are? Or is the gun in a drawer somewhere?
Then there's that first year of owning a gun, and you're all excited and do everything by the book, but it gets old after a while and you visit the shooting range less and less, and after a few years you're not sure where the gun even is. In some households everyone is sane and stable, other households not so much. Or maybe they start out sane and stable, then things change. Or maybe the household goes through good periods and bad periods. Do you have a temper? Anyone in your household have a temper? Do you have any mental issues? Anyone is your household have mental issues? Then sometimes there are visitors and guests.
And that's why households with guns are less safe than those without.
crashfrog writes:
But you propose to exercise your judgement for everybody.
No, I'm only advocating my position just as you're advocating yours. My position is that gun ownership makes one less safe, not more.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 931 by crashfrog, posted 12-28-2012 5:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 967 by crashfrog, posted 12-29-2012 1:24 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 946 of 5179 (686097)
12-28-2012 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 933 by crashfrog
12-28-2012 5:30 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
crashfrog writes:
Similarly, the risk of dying in a situation where a gun might have saved your life is not evenly distributed across all Americans.
Yes, of course some areas of the country are more prone to violent crime than others. But this is a statistical argument, so you'll need some statistical information showing if there are regions where those dangers outweigh the dangers of gun ownership. 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. Regions with higher risk of crime death will find that risk declining.
The ultimate irony is that gun purchases in response to fear of crime is that it increases your risk of gun death.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 933 by crashfrog, posted 12-28-2012 5:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 948 by Coyote, posted 12-28-2012 9:40 PM Percy has replied
 Message 968 by crashfrog, posted 12-29-2012 1:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 958 of 5179 (686122)
12-29-2012 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 948 by Coyote
12-28-2012 9:40 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Coyote writes:
Based on this, we need more trained and armed honest citizens, not fewer.
Since gun ownership increases the risk of gun death, your solution will increase gun deaths across the country.
What we need is more dead criminals and fewer dead victims.
Most gun deaths are not caused during the commission of a criminal act. Most people are killed by someone already known to them. Around 15% or 20% of people are killed by strangers, another 30 or 35% are killed by people of unknown relationship, and the rest are killed by intimate partners, household members, friends, neighbors, acquaintances and co-workers.
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.
Perhaps I should just quote them in their entirety here?
Please, no. The excerpt you previously posted left out the very necessary chart:
We've seen charts similar to this before, but because your version includes countries with incredibly high murder rates like Honduras (91.6) and El Salvador (69.2), the murder rates of countries like the US and Switzerland get flattened toward the bottom and no comparison can be made. Here's a more useful chart plotting gun deaths for western style countries, provided by Dr Adequate in Message 663:
Switzerland comes up a lot in these discussions because it has a high gun ownership rate but a low murder rate. But Dr Adequate's chart plots gun deaths instead of murders, and Switzerland's gun death rate is consistent with its gun ownership rate.
There's no escape from the fact that guns are inherently dangerous. Were people more reliable and less volatile this might not be a problem, but they're not, and so increasing proximity to a gun brings higher risk of gun death.
--Percy

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 971 by crashfrog, posted 12-29-2012 1:44 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024