Page 9 of 21 [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 21  Next

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

16 Mar 2017, 10:04 pm

Fugu wrote:
Raptor wrote:
So statistics are now hard science?
no, they're not 'now' hard science. they have always been science, so they can't become something they were already.
Quote:
Fugu wrote:
here's another quote for the benefit of the slow:

Quote:
More insights can be found in a 2013 book from Johns Hopkins University Press entitled Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis, edited by Daniel W. Webster and Jon S. Vernick, both professors in health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In addition to the 31,672 people killed by guns in 2010, another 73,505 were treated in hospital emergency rooms for nonfatal bullet wounds, and 337,960 nonfatal violent crimes were committed with guns. Of those 31,672 dead, 61 percent were suicides, and the vast majority of the rest were homicides by people who knew one another.

Misuse of statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics
no real rebuttal, just some lukewarm complaint about how statistics can be misused. next...


Yeah, whatev...
Where are all the dead bodies from all those guns y'all helped the gun industry sell in the past 8 years? Why didn't the streets run red with blood after the Assault Weapon Ban sunsetted in '06?


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

16 Mar 2017, 11:33 pm

Raptor wrote:
Where are all the dead bodies from all those guns y'all helped the gun industry sell in the past 8 years? Why didn't the streets run red with blood after the Assault Weapon Ban sunsetted in '06?
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf good point, there were 0 gun deaths post 2006 after all. :roll:
3 year average of 2005-7 is ~ 570000 killed. does that qualify as egregious or will you spin it as li(e)beral bias once more.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

17 Mar 2017, 3:14 am

NotThatClever13 wrote:
I do not believe I have fallen victim since I have never been pro or anti gun. I just believe in sensible policy.


How do you know what is "sensible"? I have a gunsmithing degree and have carried a gun every day since I was 21, and have studied the issues surrounding gun ownership extensively; what are your qualifications?

NotThatClever13 wrote:
Do you actually support the idea that people with no training or good sense should carry around weapons?


Again, do you have any actual statistics on how often legal carry of firearms goes awry? I'll give you a hint, it's not very often at all. Not only that, legal carriers are more law abiding than the police, shoot more criminals, and hit bystanders so seldom that I can't find any reliable numbers on the rate, because there aren't enough incidents to draw any trends from. Unlike the police, we don't have a union and a blue wall of silence to protect us when we have to use deadly force, so we're a lot more responsible when we do. That goes for "trained" and "untrained" carriers alike, there is no statistical difference between states that require training to acquire a carry license and those that don't.

NotThatClever13 wrote:
Stuff like https://www.yahoo.com/news/gun-owner-tr ... 23017.html happens all the time, it just isn't reported nationally.


If it happens all the time, then you should have no problem supporting that assertion, right?

NotThatClever13 wrote:
If we would allow the government to fund a non-bias study on the issue we might get some conclusions. The problem is no one wants to do that, especially the pro gun side, because they are afraid the data won't support their talking points.


Actually, they don't want tax dollars supporting what amounts to anti-gun advocacy from the CDC, which is exactly what happened to spur the current ban on funding such studies. They weren't even subtle about it, their "studies" read more like opinion pieces studded with emotional appeals and farcically bad methodology, among other issues.

NotThatClever13 wrote:
I'm also reminded of this. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2558180 Is it responsible for a person to leave loaded guns around where children can easily get a hold of them? I would say no. Something like keeping such items out of reach of children is just good sense to me but obviously some people need training to tell them that. Kind of sad really.


That's called a tragic accident, and they manage to happen to people all the time with all sorts of completely unrelated to firearms items, yet I don't see anyone calling for parents to forced into "training" for various household items that could possibly be dangerous in the hands of children. Sure, it's irresponsible to leave a loaded gun around a child, but it's also irresponsible to leave car keys where a youth could get them, yet fatal joyrides don't seem to inspire the same outrage and calls for legislation. It almost seems like a form of special pleading where guns are involved, especially among people with neither knowledge of or experience with them.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

17 Mar 2017, 3:23 am

Regarding this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -bad-idea/

Aside from being an obvious opinion piece cherry picking studies that support the author's views, it uses the common and dishonest anti-gun trick of only counting defensive shootings, when the vast majority of defensive gun use never involves the firing of a shot, merely production of the firearm, and is often not reported. According the Kleck study, there may be as many as 2,500,000 such defensive guns uses per year, far eclipsing criminal usage. Further, it contains nothing at all about misbehavior by legal carriers, and so completely fails to justify it's title regarding the dangers of arming untrained citizens, which is pretty par for the course with these things. I'm sure I could find even more issues if I dug into the underlying study, but when it's so dishonest and misleading right from the start, I don't see why anything else it says should be regarded as even the least bit credible.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Mar 2017, 11:53 am

Dox47 wrote:
Regarding this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -bad-idea/

Aside from being an obvious opinion piece cherry picking studies that support the author's views, it uses the common and dishonest anti-gun trick of only counting defensive shootings, when the vast majority of defensive gun use never involves the firing of a shot, merely production of the firearm, and is often not reported. According the Kleck study, there may be as many as 2,500,000 such defensive guns uses per year, far eclipsing criminal usage. Further, it contains nothing at all about misbehavior by legal carriers, and so completely fails to justify it's title regarding the dangers of arming untrained citizens, which is pretty par for the course with these things. I'm sure I could find even more issues if I dug into the underlying study, but when it's so dishonest and misleading right from the start, I don't see why anything else it says should be regarded as even the least bit credible.
Which Kleck study?
also it's really convenient that you dismiss the article as being biased but don't bother to counter with anything youself.

the studies cited by the SciAmerican article: http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstrac ... me.10.aspx
https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content ... ce-america (non-paywalled link: https://jhupress.files.wordpress.com/20 ... 3_updf.pdf)

some relevant quotes:

Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery wrote:
Objectives: Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

Methods: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

Results: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.


Reducing Gun Violence in America wrote:
Kellermann et al. examined approximately 400 homicide victims from three
metropolitan areas who were killed in their homes (Kellermann et al. 1993). All died from gunshot wounds. In 83% of the homicides, the perpetrator was identified; among these cases, 95% of the time, the perpetrator was not a stranger.
In only 14% of all the cases was there evidence of forced entry. After controlling for illicit drug use, fights, arrests, living alone, and whether the home was rented, the presence of a gun in the home remained strongly associated with an increased risk for homicide in the home.
Gun ownership was most strongly associated with an increased risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
...
Whereas most men are murdered away from home, most children, older adults, and women are murdered at home (Table 1.2). A gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicide victimization—with the greatest danger for women coming from their intimate partners.



NotThatClever13
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 201
Location: Daydream

17 Mar 2017, 12:17 pm

Dox47 wrote:
How do you know what is "sensible"? I have a gunsmithing degree and have carried a gun every day since I was 21, and have studied the issues surrounding gun ownership extensively; what are your qualifications?


Sensible would be having dangerous weapons stored in a manner that children cannot easily access them. Sensible would be ensuring people carrying weapons around are trained in their use and proper storage to prevent accidents.

Dox47 wrote:
Again, do you have any actual statistics on how often legal carry of firearms goes awry? I'll give you a hint, it's not very often at all. Not only that, legal carriers are more law abiding than the police, shoot more criminals, and hit bystanders so seldom that I can't find any reliable numbers on the rate, because there aren't enough incidents to draw any trends from. Unlike the police, we don't have a union and a blue wall of silence to protect us when we have to use deadly force, so we're a lot more responsible when we do. That goes for "trained" and "untrained" carriers alike, there is no statistical difference between states that require training to acquire a carry license and those that don't.

How do you know this if no one is allowed to study the issue? You also didn't answer my question. Do you think anyone should be allowed to carry loaded guns around, even those with no knowledge in how to handle and use them?



Dox47 wrote:
If it happens all the time, then you should have no problem supporting that assertion, right?


http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/30/us/idaho- ... r-toddler/
http://kboi2.com/news/local/parents-of- ... 11-16-2015
http://www.9news.com/news/crime/child-s ... /249835500
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/0 ... 92170.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2087795

There are certainly more, I could spend the whole day linking articles. Now if we would allow someone to study the issue we might have better data.

Dox47 wrote:
Actually, they don't want tax dollars supporting what amounts to anti-gun advocacy from the CDC, which is exactly what happened to spur the current ban on funding such studies. They weren't even subtle about it, their "studies" read more like opinion pieces studded with emotional appeals and farcically bad methodology, among other issues.


Then I'm sure you'd have no problem with finding an un-bias, non-partisan thrid party to conduct the study right? I'm truly interested in the unbiased facts so we can move forward with policy based on facts. You're in the privileged position of denying anyone the ability and funds to study an issue and then citing the fact there is no study to support their arguments.

Dox47 wrote:
That's called a tragic accident, and they manage to happen to people all the time with all sorts of completely unrelated to firearms items, yet I don't see anyone calling for parents to forced into "training" for various household items that could possibly be dangerous in the hands of children. Sure, it's irresponsible to leave a loaded gun around a child, but it's also irresponsible to leave car keys where a youth could get them, yet fatal joyrides don't seem to inspire the same outrage and calls for legislation. It almost seems like a form of special pleading where guns are involved, especially among people with neither knowledge of or experience with them.


So, someone storing kitchen knives under the couch cushions and under car seats would be a tragic accident too? No, it is not an accident when you can reasonably expect it to happen. Leaving loaded weapons all around the house and car is not responsible yet is far more common than it should be. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/ab ... H.90.4.588 If you think leaving loaded guns within the reach of children is a "tragic accident" then I don't really know what to say. Any gun owner I know would never do this and agrees it is horribly irresponsible to store weapons in such a way.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Mar 2017, 12:22 pm

NotThatClever13 wrote:
Any gun owner I know would never do this and agrees it is horribly irresponsible to store weapons in such a way.
Dox and Raptor both have emotional attachments to their popgun collections and will try strenuously to twist anything you post as 'biased' or something, all the while gleefully being hypocritical and not countering with anything but "lol ur wrong"



Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

17 Mar 2017, 12:28 pm

NotThatClever13 wrote:
Is it responsible for a person to leave loaded guns around where children can easily get a hold of them? I would say no. Something like keeping such items out of reach of children is just good sense to me but obviously some people need training to tell them that. Kind of sad really.

I feel this ties-in with what I was discussing with someone else, on this thread. There seems to be 3 basic "gun-toting" groups of people: "Gun Culture" people, people who one day decide they want a gun, for protection, and criminals.

"Gun Culture" people, like my family, teach their kids from day-one, practically, everything there is to know about guns, gun safety, gun care, shooting, etc., and these are the families, generally speaking, that can leave loaded guns in the house, without fear of a kid doing something stupid, with it. There's not a household in my family that hasn't had a gun, at some time or another, and NO ONE has EVER done something stupid with a gun; like, shoot their foot, or a little kid shooting their younger sibling.

The people who just all-of-a-sudden decide they want a gun for protection, don't usually have a lifetime culture, and these are the people who should NOT leave a loaded gun lying-around, cuz they're only thinking about what the gun means, for THEM (the adult), and never think about what a gun means for a CHILD (again, generally speaking----I'm sure there are some, where this doesn't apply).

Criminals are ALSO, IMO, people who are only thinking about what the gun is, to THEM----and, that seems to be: "I want something and this gun can get it for me".





_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)


Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

17 Mar 2017, 12:30 pm

Fugu wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Consider a 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that “every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Pistol owners' fantasy of blowing away home-invading bad guys or street toughs holding up liquor stores is a myth debunked by the data showing that a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt or a homicide than it is for self-defense.

WOW, a 19 year old study (2017 - 1998 =19). :roll:
Things must really be bad now after you liberals and your pet politicians have driven gun sales though the roof and created all those new gun owners. Wait, why arent the streets running red with blood as your antiquated article would have use believe if we were stupid????
good point, science does become meaningless after 5 years after all.

It's not "science", it's statistics----and, statistics change every year. If Joe Schmoe researched on the Internet, to get numbers regarding gun usage from every state, and then took a poll asking people why they have a gun (self defense, to hold-up a liquor store, or homicide, etc.), would you call that "science"----or, does Joe Schmoe need a lab coat, specifically----because I see no difference in their "studies"! !

Also, those numbers are conflated----IMO, unless those four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides, were committed in the home, they have nothing to do with each other.

Oftentimes, ASDers want consideration of their differences from NTs----why can't people consider the difference between responsible, law-abiding gun owners, and criminals?


Fugu wrote:
here's another quote(from the same link) for the benefit of the slow:
Quote:
More insights can be found in a 2013 book from Johns Hopkins University Press entitled Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis, edited by Daniel W. Webster and Jon S. Vernick, both professors in health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In addition to the 31,672 people killed by guns in 2010, another 73,505 were treated in hospital emergency rooms for nonfatal bullet wounds, and 337,960 nonfatal violent crimes were committed with guns. Of those 31,672 dead, 61 percent were suicides, and the vast majority of the rest were homicides by people who knew one another.

Again, you've conflated things, here. That book is about "Gun Violence"----by citing this, you're comparing law-abiding, responsible gun owners, to criminals, and never the twain shall meet (generally speaking, of course).




_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Mar 2017, 12:55 pm

Campin_Cat wrote:
[It's not "science", it's statistics----and, statistics change every year. If Joe Schmoe researched on the Internet, to get numbers regarding gun usage from every state, and then took a poll asking people why they have a gun (self defense, to hold-up a liquor store, or homicide, etc.), would you call that "science"----or, does Joe Schmoe need a lab coat, specifically----because I see no difference in their "studies"! !
1) statistics are used throughout science, and is a field of science
2) i didn't post some random blog, I posted a major published(and cited) article.
Quote:

Also, those numbers are conflated----IMO, unless those four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides, were committed in the home, they have nothing to do with each other.
you must have not read this part(literally the first sentence I posted, to boot):
>>
Consider a 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that “every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
<<
Quote:
Oftentimes, ASDers want consideration of their differences from NTs----why can't people consider the difference between responsible, law-abiding gun owners, and criminals?[/b]
Fugu wrote:
here's another quote(from the same link) for the benefit of the slow:
Quote:
More insights can be found in a 2013 book from Johns Hopkins University Press entitled Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis, edited by Daniel W. Webster and Jon S. Vernick, both professors in health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In addition to the 31,672 people killed by guns in 2010, another 73,505 were treated in hospital emergency rooms for nonfatal bullet wounds, and 337,960 nonfatal violent crimes were committed with guns. Of those 31,672 dead, 61 percent were suicides, and the vast majority of the rest were homicides by people who knew one another.

Again, you've conflated things, here. That book is about "Gun Violence"----by citing this, you're comparing law-abiding, responsible gun owners, to criminals, and never the twain shall meet (generally speaking, of course).
I've not conflated anything, i'm posting statistics on gun fatalities. your comment about Responsible Gun Owners is meaningless, as there are no such persons represented in these studies.



Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

17 Mar 2017, 1:11 pm

Fugu wrote:
your comment about Responsible Gun Owners is meaningless, as there are no such persons represented in these studies.

I know----that was my point!! LOL








_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Mar 2017, 1:14 pm

Campin_Cat wrote:
Fugu wrote:
your comment about Responsible Gun Owners is meaningless, as there are no such persons represented in these studies.

I know----that was my point!! LOL
uh ok. please tell me how someone can commit gun violence and remain a Responsible Gun Owner, preferably reading my entire post this time around.



Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

17 Mar 2017, 1:19 pm

Fugu wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
Fugu wrote:
your comment about Responsible Gun Owners is meaningless, as there are no such persons represented in these studies.

I know----that was my point!! LOL
uh ok. please tell me how someone can commit gun violence and remain a Responsible Gun Owner, preferably reading my entire post this time around.

LOL Now you're proving MY point----COOL!! LOL




_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Mar 2017, 1:25 pm

Campin_Cat wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
Fugu wrote:
your comment about Responsible Gun Owners is meaningless, as there are no such persons represented in these studies.

I know----that was my point!! LOL
uh ok. please tell me how someone can commit gun violence and remain a Responsible Gun Owner, preferably reading my entire post this time around.

LOL Now you're proving MY point----COOL!! LOL
if your point is that you can't read english very well, sure why not. it proves your point.



Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

17 Mar 2017, 3:46 pm

WOW, what a GIFT!!

Fugu wrote:
statistics can be skewed in a bunch of ways, especially when someone is cherrypicking data to prove a point.
http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=284904&p=6613657#p6613657

LOLOLOL TOO funny!!





_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Mar 2017, 3:59 pm

Campin_Cat wrote:
WOW, what a GIFT!!

Fugu wrote:
statistics can be skewed in a bunch of ways, especially when someone is cherrypicking data to prove a point.
http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=284904&p=6613657#p6613657

LOLOLOL TOO funny!!
yes, you're amusing. being a clown has that effect. please point out where I'm cherrypicking, now that you've established you can't prove your point owing to how you're digging up posts from over a year ago.