Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am, I'm saying the populations you are comparing aren't comparable in the way that you are comparing them. That is the basis of all statistics, and the basis of all abuse of statistics.

 Da Boss wrote:
I am, I'm saying the populations you are comparing aren't comparable in the way that you are comparing them. That is the basis of all statistics, and the basis of all abuse of statistics.

DUDE you brought it up. So you're impugning yourself.

 Da Boss wrote:
I am, I'm saying the populations you are comparing aren't comparable in the way that you are comparing them. That is the basis of all statistics, and the basis of all abuse of statistics.

I see what you're saying here, and agree with you for the most part. In order to get an accurate feel for prevalence of use, we would need first to define "in use."

The handgun that I carry every single day...is that "in use" even though I'm not pulling the trigger? How about the rifle next to the bed that the homeowner keeps there in case of a home invasion? It's not so easy to define using a firearm as it is to define using a car.

Yes, exactly. It's almost as if the comparison is not useful.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yes, exactly. It's almost as if the comparison is not useful.

The entire discussion is useless. RKBA is a constitutionally protected right, and your right to protect yourself is morally correct.

Debating away someone's right to self-defense is one of the most morally reprehensible things one human being can do to another.

I'm not pro gun control, I'm anti bad arguments.

Have all the guns you like, it doesn't bother me.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm not pro gun control, I'm anti bad arguments.

Have all the guns you like, it doesn't bother me.

 Da Boss wrote:
That said I'm pro gun control in Europe but not in the US.

Edit: So you're fine with taking away your countrymen's form of self defense (Where you might actually have a say) but in the US where your opinion actually doesn't count you don't mind.

"countrymen's form of self defence" is a bit much. There's far fewer guns available in Europe, which results in fewer firearm related deaths in most EU countries (AFAIK). There's no need for firearms for self defence here, and most people want restrictions. Just makes sense.

Plus, I owned a gun from age 16, for hunting. It's not like you can't get one, you just need a license to do so and a reason for it's use. For most people, self defence isn't seen as a reasonable use because the risk of being attacked and needing to defend yourself with deadly force is just too low.

Totally different situation in the US from what I understand, so I (shock) have a different opinion.

 Da Boss wrote:
Totally different situation in the US from what I understand, so I (shock) have a different opinion.

Not as bad as you would think, but our paranoia about crime is a lot higher, and we have mythologized firearms in a way Europe hasn't.

 Da Boss wrote:
"countrymen's form of self defence" is a bit much. There's far fewer guns available in Europe, which results in fewer firearm related deaths in most EU countries (AFAIK). There's no need for firearms for self defence here, and most people want restrictions. Just makes sense.

Plus, I owned a gun from age 16, for hunting. It's not like you can't get one, you just need a license to do so and a reason for it's use. For most people, self defence isn't seen as a reasonable use because the risk of being attacked and needing to defend yourself with deadly force is just too low.

I think this may even come down to area... I was stationed in Wiesbaden, which is generally very nice, and my personal carry "self-defense" weapon that I felt I needed would be fingernail clippers. However, when I visited Berlin, we drove through some areas that I would only have felt safe at night in, if I were driving an Abrams tank

I've also seen "reports" about areas of Marseilles where I, as a white guy, simply CANNOT enter. These areas have been literally overrun and "fortified" by various Muslim immigrants. Things are to the point where even the French police forces cannot enter these areas.


The same is true in the US. The town I grew up in is generally pretty safe, and even though I might Concealed Carry there (if I had the license), I do not feel compelled to do so. Compare that with areas of say, Chicago, or LA, etc.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The town I grew up in is generally pretty safe, and even though I might Concealed Carry there (if I had the license), I do not feel compelled to do so. Compare that with areas of say, Chicago, or LA, etc.

Which, somewhat ironically (and I would add, unfortunately), also happen to both be places where it is rather difficult for the average citizen to get a concealed carry license.

CCW permits are just a formality in a lot of places. I would be willing to bet less than half of the people that carry a handgun on them on a daily basis bother to apply for a CCW permit, especially in states like Maryland, where it's almost impossible to get a permit.

I'm not saying breaking the law is acceptable, but if you have a real need to defend yourself, perhaps it's better to break a few laws than be dead in the street, or raped, or any number of horrible things that could have possibly been avoided. I don't know how the law works in the situation that you end up killing someone in self-defense with a pistol you were not allowed to carry though.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
CCW permits are just a formality in a lot of places. I would be willing to bet less than half of the people that carry a handgun on them on a daily basis bother to apply for a CCW permit, especially in states like Maryland, where it's almost impossible to get a permit.

I'm not saying breaking the law is acceptable, but if you have a real need to defend yourself, perhaps it's better to break a few laws than be dead in the street, or raped, or any number of horrible things that could have possibly been avoided. I don't know how the law works in the situation that you end up killing someone in self-defense with a pistol you were not allowed to carry though.

You get the first half of being judged by 12 rather than be carried by 6.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Time to prove your theory on the decline of "gun awareness," or cease calling others' posts "silliness."

So first you say gun accidents are because liberals got gun education taken out of schools, and then you say gun accidents are on a decrease.

Yeah, exactly what I'm talking about. Nonsense from people who don't give a gak that they're spouting nonsense, who just end up preventing a sensible conversation.

I know that as an Australian, you expect the government to shake it for you after you go to the bathroom, but we do things a bit differently here in America.

You don't actually know much about Australia, do you?

 sebster wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Time to prove your theory on the decline of "gun awareness," or cease calling others' posts "silliness."

So first you say gun accidents are because liberals got gun education taken out of schools, and then you say gun accidents are on a decrease.

Yeah, exactly what I'm talking about. Nonsense from people who don't give a gak that they're spouting nonsense, who just end up preventing a sensible conversation.

I know that as an Australian, you expect the government to shake it for you after you go to the bathroom, but we do things a bit differently here in America.

You don't actually know much about Australia, do you?

Assigning attributions has nothing to do with frequency, however I have demonstrated a temporal connection. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing except the fact that you know nothing about this topic.

Time for you to prove your theory or step away from the keyboard.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Assigning attributions has nothing to do with frequency, however I have demonstrated a temporal connection.

Your temporal connection is connecting declining rates of accidents with durn librals stopping gun courses in schools. To the extent that mashing together vague ideas with loose connections could be seen as evidence of anything, its establishing the opposite of what you claimed.

You have established absolutely nothing except the fact that you know nothing about this topic.

Time for you to prove your theory or step away from the keyboard.

My theory? I have one? My only claim here is that your theory is nonsense.

I mean, to the extent that I've theorised anything, it's that the rural population has declined relative to the suburban population, and that the rural population typically has a much higher knowledge of guns than the suburban population. And if you're asking me to prove either of those two things... well that would be quite sad. Ridiculous and sad.

Anyhow, this is stupid. I just wrote a little piece about how gun control debates get dragged in to the ridiculous by ridiculous people, preventing sensible discussion, and here I am, trying to bring some sense to a ridiculous argument. It's something that happens to me too often, and a few times before from you, nuggz.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Yes, exactly. It's almost as if the comparison is not useful.

The entire discussion is useless. RKBA is a constitutionally protected right, and your right to protect yourself is morally correct.

Debating away someone's right to self-defense is one of the most morally reprehensible things one human being can do to another.

That is a clever new argument!

We can't have gun control because it is morally reprehensible to talk about it.

I thought free speech was mentioned somewhere in the constitution?

 Ahtman wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Government can't possibly prevent people from being dumbasses. Any attempt to try will be...well...dumbassed.

People said the same thing about drunk driving but we have drastically cut that down in the last 40 years.

Not by stricter licensing or sales measures.

It's largely been a victory of activist groups like MADD rather than a government success.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Government can't possibly prevent people from being dumbasses. Any attempt to try will be...well...dumbassed.

People said the same thing about drunk driving but we have drastically cut that down in the last 40 years.

Not by stricter licensing or sales measures.

It's largely been a victory of activist groups like MADD rather than a government success.

You could also look at seat belt usage, air bags and other safety improvements as to why there are less fatalities due to DUIs.



Auto fatalities over all are down, it isn't just fatalities due to drunk driving.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Yes, exactly. It's almost as if the comparison is not useful.

The entire discussion is useless. RKBA is a constitutionally protected right, and your right to protect yourself is morally correct.

Debating away someone's right to self-defense is one of the most morally reprehensible things one human being can do to another.

That is a clever new argument!

We can't have gun control because it is morally reprehensible to talk about it.

I thought free speech was mentioned somewhere in the constitution?

Free speech is mentioned in the constitution, and nowhere did I write that you can't talk about things that are morally reprehensible.

For example, if you really wanted to curb gun violence in the US, you could start by removing all African Americans from the United States as they commit a disproportionate number of murders. We shouldn't do this, as it's morally reprehensible, but we should feel free to talk about it. And, unlike banning guns, committing genocide against African Americans might actually do something to swing the numbers.

To be clear, I am not advocating this.

Let's on with the gun debate, then!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's on with the gun debate, then!

Sure. So, if you really want to make things happen, it's time to start deporting African Americans. Let's not be stingy while we're violating peoples' civil rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

Homicide

According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and Native Americans and Asians 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most murders were intraracial, with 84% of white homicide victims murdered by whites, and 93% of black victims murdered by blacks.[32][33]

We could cut the homicide rate in half just by implementing this one common sense measure!

@Nuggz: I get that you are making a "modest proposal" type sardonic point but it concerns a sensitive issue. If possible, I'd suggest using a different metaphor. Thanks!

 Manchu wrote:
@Nuggz: I get that you are making a "modest proposal" type sardonic point but it concerns a sensitive issue. If possible, I'd suggest using a different metaphor. Thanks!

As someone whose people were disarmed by law, then herded at gunpoint (ironically) into gas chambers and ovens, I assure you that gun control is no less sensitive an issue for many people.

Portion control is a pretty sensitive topic for me...
(just lightening things up)

 Manchu wrote:
@Nuggz: I get that you are making a "modest proposal" type sardonic point but it concerns a sensitive issue. If possible, I'd suggest using a different metaphor. Thanks!

And for some, the 2nd Amendment is no less sensitive. So why not provide the special warnings for those things?

 Frazzled wrote:
Portion control is a pretty sensitive topic for me...
(just lightening things up)

Perhaps the Gov't should install an electronic scale at the entryway to all Golden Corral, and other "all you can eat" establishments, to prevent overly large people from hurting themselves further by eating too much at one of these places?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Portion control is a pretty sensitive topic for me...
(just lightening things up)

Perhaps the Gov't should install an electronic scale at the entryway to all Golden Corral, and other "all you can eat" establishments, to prevent overly large people from hurting themselves further by eating too much at one of these places?

Pretty sure this is on the Bloomberg Checklist.

Well, I mentioned that gun control debates often aren't very constructive because so many people in the debate tend to make such ridiculous arguments. And shortly after I make that point there are people honestly comparing gun control to genocide. So um... yeah.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

As someone whose people were disarmed by law, then herded at gunpoint (ironically) into gas chambers and ovens, I assure you that gun control is no less sensitive an issue for many people.

So your (I assume) Jewish heritage informs your understanding of what it is to be "American"?

 djones520 wrote:

And for some, the 2nd Amendment is no less sensitive. So why not provide the special warnings for those things?

Because the people that view gun issues as equivalent to racial issues are wrong.