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.
So you offer nothing but conjecture, dishonesty, strawmen, and when given verifiable facts you make no effort to read them much less rebut them but try and shoot the messenger instead of actual discussion. Next time I'll just stick with my better judgement.
Ashiraya wrote: I am done with the topic itself, but I do wonder:
What's with the 'us and them' attitude going on here and there ITT? The tone is really unpleasant. Are guns really such a sensitive topic? We're all friends here, so I see no motivation to sharpen one's points with various thinly and thickly veiled unpleasantries.
I was considering tossing in a dozen or so quotes as examples, but I do not think it will be necessary, and I am not here to point fingers.
As mentioned before when people who support the Second Amendment are constantly vilified as murderers in waiting, as unstable and just itching for an excuse to shoot people in cold blood, as irresponsible, as "ammosexuals", as domestic terrorists, as using guns to try and hide their ill endowment, that they should be more strictly monitored than pedophiles, as ignorant rednecks then when people with little knowledge about guns start advocating that they should have their rights removed (whether overnight or in piecemeal fashion) they tend to get defensive. Especially when this has been a long going struggle to ensure that people can exercise their lawful rights. No other Constitutional right is trampled over as much.
And no, at close range hand guns are NOT as deadly as rifles, by simple virtue of both the rounds and the velocity being lower.
That is splitting hairs though, at very close range the greater velocity is of very marginal benefit. A pistol is 'deadly enough' at close range. The point to bigger rounds and higher velocities is about accuracy and range, not about any kind of dissatisfaction about what a bullet will do to a human body when it hits.
Oh, I actually missed that part of the comment. Yeah, it crossed my mind as I was writing, as did the difficulty of aiming a rifle, and if armor was a relevant factor. In the end I didn't think it warranted an extra paragraph to go off on a tangent about, so I just wrote: 'probably' as deadly 'up close'. I guess that wasn't good enough though. It is splitting hairs, and it's also a little patronizing because I omitted it on purpose as something negligible and obvious.
So you offer nothing but conjecture, dishonesty, strawmen, and when given verifiable facts you make no effort to read them much less rebut them but try and shoot the messenger instead of actual discussion. Next time I'll just stick with my better judgement.
onstitutional right is trampled over as much.
I don't need to rebut your facts, they don't threaten anything I've said. Why don't you go rebut my facts?
And seriously I've had enough of your 'conjecture' and 'dishonesty' bs, if you can't post without getting angry and rude then just put me on ignore. As has been said many times, I'm not a threat to your rights, it's just a discussion, not a fight.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 04:46:30
Smacks wrote: I don't need to rebut your facts, they don't threaten anything I've said. Why don't you go rebut my facts?
And seriously I've had enough of your 'conjecture' and 'dishonesty' bs, if you can't post without getting angry and rude then just put me on ignore. As has been said many times, I'm not a threat to your rights, it's just a discussion, not a fight.
I'm not angry, and per your prior attempts to paint me as responding in an emotional manner I'm not about to cry either. Being rude would be demanding facts and then ignoring them and replying with a list of nonsense.
If anything I'm perhaps a little frustrated that I'm trying to interact with someone who claims to be impartial and want a discussion yet is doing everything in his power to act the opposite. You didn't present facts. You presented conjecture. You made arguments based on your opinions of the role that firearms play in society, in crime, children getting hold of them, and other more general myths. Each of these avenues you chose to pursue I provided evidence that your position was wholly incorrect. You chose not to engage with that. Instead you dismissed it out of hand and posted a list of random facts gleaned from the internet in what I assume is an attempt to be witty. Then you display your absolute ignorance by talking about assault rifle killings.
Saying you want a discussion is meaningless unless you actually want to engage with the subject matter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 05:36:45
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I'm not angry, and per your prior attempts to paint me as responding in an emotional manner I'm not about to cry either. Being rude would be demanding facts and then ignoring them and replying with a list of nonsense.
Because your list was nonsense. Look here is one of your facts (I did read quite a few FYI)
Fact: This 25-50% figure can only be achieved if you include those dealers not selling guns at these shows. These non-gun dealers include knife makers, ammunition dealers, accessories dealers, military artifact traders, clothing vendors, bumper sticker sellers, and hobbyists. In short, 50% of the vendors at shows are not selling firearms at all!
What has that got to do with anything? How is that relevant to anything that has been discussed in this topic? Why do I need to rebut that? Why do I even need to disagree with it?
It's just nonsense that you copy and pasted from a website.
EDIT: my facts were way more interesting and relevant. Did you know 40,000 people a year are injured by toilets?
You made arguments based on your opinions of the role that firearms play in society,in crime, children getting hold of them, and other more general myths
So all I have to do to win this argument is present evidence that at least one child has had an accident with a gun? That would be laughably easy to prove is not a myth.
Then you display your absolute ignorance by talking about assault rifle killings.
It was a minor mistake. I skimmed over the first part of the post, because I wasn't following that particular conversation. They were talking about repealing a law. I thought I saw assault rifles mentioned, as opposed to assault 'weapons' (which look exactly like assault rifles). And I commented on the last point. As much as you'd like to believe that's 'absolute ignorance', I'm already well aware that fully automatic weapons aren't in normal supply. It was just a mistake, and I already admitted it. It didn't actually make any difference to the point I was making, which was about making comparisons.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/08/29 06:36:26
So you offer nothing but conjecture, dishonesty, strawmen, and when given verifiable facts you make no effort to read them much less rebut them but try and shoot the messenger instead of actual discussion. Next time I'll just stick with my better judgement.
Ashiraya wrote: I am done with the topic itself, but I do wonder:
What's with the 'us and them' attitude going on here and there ITT? The tone is really unpleasant. Are guns really such a sensitive topic? We're all friends here, so I see no motivation to sharpen one's points with various thinly and thickly veiled unpleasantries.
I was considering tossing in a dozen or so quotes as examples, but I do not think it will be necessary, and I am not here to point fingers.
As mentioned before when people who support the Second Amendment are constantly vilified as murderers in waiting, as unstable and just itching for an excuse to shoot people in cold blood, as irresponsible, as "ammosexuals", as domestic terrorists, as using guns to try and hide their ill endowment, that they should be more strictly monitored than pedophiles, as ignorant rednecks then when people with little knowledge about guns start advocating that they should have their rights removed (whether overnight or in piecemeal fashion) they tend to get defensive. Especially when this has been a long going struggle to ensure that people can exercise their lawful rights. No other Constitutional right is trampled over as much.
It's not even 9am here and I just learned something today...
Oh, I actually missed that part of the comment. Yeah, it crossed my mind as I was writing, as did the difficulty of aiming a rifle, and if armor was a relevant factor. In the end I didn't think it warranted an extra paragraph to go off on a tangent about, so I just wrote: 'probably' as deadly 'up close'. I guess that wasn't good enough though. It is splitting hairs, and it's also a little patronizing because I omitted it on purpose as something negligible and obvious.
Well, it's not splitting hairs at all, because most of your info here is wrong
1. Rifles are far easier to accurately shoot than handguns and are no harder to bring to bear.
2. Rifle rounds are made to penetrate armor. Your standard hangun round is not.
3. Rifle rounds cause a far larger exit wound than a handgun round, if only because nearly all rifle rounds are designed to expand as they pass though soft tissue.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I'm not angry, and per your prior attempts to paint me as responding in an emotional manner I'm not about to cry either. Being rude would be demanding facts and then ignoring them and replying with a list of nonsense.
Because your list was nonsense. Look here is one of your facts (I did read quite a few FYI)
Fact: This 25-50% figure can only be achieved if you include those dealers not selling guns at these shows. These non-gun dealers include knife makers, ammunition dealers, accessories dealers, military artifact traders, clothing vendors, bumper sticker sellers, and hobbyists. In short, 50% of the vendors at shows are not selling firearms at all!
What has that got to do with anything?
How is that relevant to anything that has been discussed in this topic?
Why do I need to rebut that?
Why do I even need to disagree with it?
It's just nonsense that you copy and pasted from a website.
Bravo, you managed to completely omit the myth portion of that which would have provided the context that answers your questions. That fact is in relation to a mis-quoted statistic in relation to the alleged "gunshow loophole" and is pertinent when discussing how criminals obtain their firearms. A topic that you yourself brought up. Had you actually read it with an open mind, and not perusing an agenda that should have been evident. But that would only work on the basis you were as impartial as you claimed.
Smacks wrote: So all I have to do to win this argument is present evidence that at least one child has had an accident with a gun? That would be laughably easy to prove is not a myth.
Remember when I pointed out your tendency towards distorting my position and your tilting at windmills? You're doing it again. Read what I actually said, not what you wanted to hear.
Smacks wrote: It was a minor mistake. I skimmed over the first part of the post, because I wasn't following that particular conversation. They were talking about repealing a law. I thought I saw assault rifles mentioned, as opposed to assault 'weapons' (which look exactly like assault rifles). And I commented on the last point. As much as you'd like to believe that's 'absolute ignorance', I'm already well aware that fully automatic weapons aren't in normal supply. It was just a mistake, and I already admitted it. It didn't actually make any difference to the point I was making, which was about making comparisons.
Your ignorance has been evident throughout, as I have pointed out numerous times before.
I have said my piece and provided argument, evidence, and facts. You have done nothing of the sort and continue to attempt to twist everything I say while trying to operate under the guise of being reasonable. Despite requests from myself and others you have not provided a shred of evidence that the Second Amendment needs corrected, much less a single suggestion how that should be achieved. I will not be ignoring you, but I will also not be responding further while you continue this pointless charade.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: It's not even 9am here and I just learned something today...
Last week, a few groups in Texas staged an “open carry” walk in Fort Worth, TX that quickly became national news. This article is a startling update to this incident, and how “Moms Demand Action” has been lying about their demonstration. But before I can explain what transpired, a bit of background knowledge is required on the laws pertaining to carrying a gun in Texas.
Texas is a very unique state with firearms. It has a reputation for being very “firearms friendly,” but that’s not the case. Concealed carry is okay, but only with a valid Texas Concealed Handgun License. Open carry of a handgun is strictly forbidden, even with a valid Texas CHL. Now here’s where it gets interesting. The code making open carry of a handgun illegal, strictly applies to handguns. Not shotguns or rifles. So open carry of a long gun is completely legal. If we’re not getting silly enough yet, just wait, there’s more. There’s also a clause that makes open carry of a pre-1899 black powder revolver (or modern day replica of it) legal as well. So black powders, AR’s and AK’s are legal to open carry, but not your 9MM Glock. That’s the primary reason what happened in Fort Worth, happened. Activists are attempting to fix the broken system, so handgun open carry would be legal, as it is in 44 other states already.
Open Carry Texas was one of the groups participating in this open carry walk. All members were legal with either long guns, or pre-1899 black powder revolvers. The group eventually became hungry, and went to the local Jack in the Box for lunch. Apparently a patron called 911 to report men with guns in the restaurant. No arrests were made, as all members were legal, and in compliance with all state laws.
However, Sergeant Ray Bush of the Forth Worth Police Department wrote in an email last week that the employees at the Jack in the Box where Open Carry Texas staged a demonstration, “locked themselves inside a freezer for protection out of fear the rifle-carrying men would rob them.” However, Brian Luscomb, vice president of corporate communications for Jack in the Box publicly stated this evening, “Our employees told us that they did not hide in the freezer.” That is further verified by the members of “Open Carry Texas” taking pictures with the restaurants employees, and posting them on the internet; and the employees didn’t appear frightened at all!
image
What’s really intriguing though, is Ms. Shannon Watts of “Moms Demand Action” began “Facebooking” and “Tweeting” about terrified employees hiding in freezers, without any hesitation to verify factual information first. MDA made these false allegations, and it turns out they once again got “mud in their face.” I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised though. After all, their whole agenda is based on lies and Bloomberg billions anyway.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/29 16:58:21
2014/08/29 16:36:54
Subject: Chicago - Crime Rate Drops as Concealed Carry Applications Surge.
Hordini wrote: That's pretty messed up. It looks like MDA was basically cooking up a story to make the demonstrators look bad. Not that I'm overly surprised.
They have quite the history of it. Then again if Bloomberg s giving you millions of $ to pretend you're a grassroots organization and you achieve almost nothing you have to try and claim a victory where you can
What's also funny about the 1994 "assault weapon ban" is that the original bill had to have a clause written in, or clauses amended that re-allowed certain firearms to be legal.
See, it was originally written that if a firearm met a certain list of criteria (such as the "scary black stock" and pistol grips) then it was an "assault weapon". Well the problem with this was that that list included bayonet studs, as well as a particular style of sight posts that were popular and in use since the 1700s.
as a result, things like this:
Spoiler:
would have been outlawed. Naturally reenactment groups caught wind of this, and pointed out the idiocy of banning a single shot weapon, simply because it could hold a bayonet, a sling, and had a certain sight device; And could "fire it's full complement of ammunition in a single trigger pull" (yes, that was in the ban as well... even though, generally speaking, full autos had been "illegal" for a good while)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: What's also funny about the 1994 "assault weapon ban" is that the original bill had to have a clause written in, or clauses amended that re-allowed certain firearms to be legal.
See, it was originally written that if a firearm met a certain list of criteria (such as the "scary black stock" and pistol grips) then it was an "assault weapon". Well the problem with this was that that list included bayonet studs, as well as a particular style of sight posts that were popular and in use since the 1700s.
as a result, things like this:
Spoiler:
would have been outlawed. Naturally reenactment groups caught wind of this, and pointed out the idiocy of banning a single shot weapon, simply because it could hold a bayonet, a sling, and had a certain sight device; And could "fire it's full complement of ammunition in a single trigger pull" (yes, that was in the ban as well... even though, generally speaking, full autos had been "illegal" for a good while)
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Bravo, you managed to completely omit the myth portion of that which would have provided the context that answers your questions. That fact is in relation to a mis-quoted statistic in relation to the alleged "gunshow loophole" and is pertinent when discussing how criminals obtain their firearms. A topic that you yourself brought up. Had you actually read it with an open mind, and not perusing an agenda that should have been evident. But that would only work on the basis you were as impartial as you claimed.
I have never talked about the "gunshow loophole", neither did you. Your problem is you seem to expect me defend every 'anti-gun' position that everyone has ever had, regardless of what my own position is. I did read this with an open mind, which is why I don't disagree with it. I will happily concede the point that there is a myth regarding the 'gunshow loophole', though it was never something I disputed.
This is exactly why it is nonsense. It is evidence for an argument no one was having. Then you say things like "You didn't rebut my facts", like that somehow makes you a winner. I mean really? And you call me ignorant?
Smacks wrote: So all I have to do to win this argument is present evidence that at least one child has had an accident with a gun? That would be laughably easy to prove is not a myth.
Remember when I pointed out your tendency towards distorting my position and your tilting at windmills? You're doing it again. Read what I actually said, not what you wanted to hear.
I'm not even sure what your position is. You just seem to make scattered remarks about people being called "ammosexuals", that I'm dishonest and a liar, and posting evidence relating to stuff no one was talking about (not even you).
The only things I have distorted are the misrepresentations that you have projected on me, in order to twist them back into something I might actually agree with (or even just make it follow some kind of logical reasoning).
Smacks wrote: Despite requests from myself and others you have not provided a shred of evidence that the Second Amendment needs corrected.
Ahhh yeah okay, that is 'almost' something I said. And a position I would be happy to argue.
I say 'almost' because: my original argument was not that it should be changed, but that you should be open to discussing change. As opposed to just stubbornly asserting "It's my right", which might be a fact, but it isn't a reason.
The case I will make is that there is a disproportionate number of gun deaths in the USA compared to countries with tighter controls such as the UK. Since you mentioned children I will focus on them.
Other reports suggest that there are around 7000 accidents per year involving children and guns. That is 10 times higher than the total number of firearm accident in the UK, of which a negligible number involve children. In fact children just being injured by guns is such a rare occurrence that it makes the news. Child deaths in the US from guns could be as many as 100 a year. Many of the these death go unreported and are downplayed by organizations such as the NRA because the cause of death is often recorded as 'homicide'. In fact this study here suggest children are 17 times more likely to be killed by guns than in other developed nations.
The US population is only 4.9 times greater than that of the UK. yet the number of deaths is disproportional. It is therefor my assertion that many of these deaths are unnecessary and avoidable.
The following study found that for every time a gun is used legally in self-defense at home, there are "four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
With that out the way, I think I have demonstrated "within reason" that an issue does exist. It is not just "conjecture". One possible course of action for addressing this issue would be legislation. In fact legislation is one of the key differences between the US and countries with much better records for accidents involving guns. The 2nd amendment is very important when it comes to gun legislation, and is often sited to block legislation that might make gun ownership safer.
And so: corrections to the 2nd amendment are in fact worth discussing. Not something you should just arrogantly dismiss out of hand, which is what you have done the whole topic.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/08/29 19:27:17
2014/08/29 19:16:02
Subject: Chicago - Crime Rate Drops as Concealed Carry Applications Surge.
You're right, but I think it's important to remember that the do lump those gangbanger murders in with the child numbers if the gang banger is under 18.
I hope that makes sense.
2014/08/29 19:52:32
Subject: Chicago - Crime Rate Drops as Concealed Carry Applications Surge.
cincydooley wrote: You're right, but I think it's important to remember that the do lump those gangbanger murders in with the child numbers if the gang banger is under 18.
I hope that makes sense.
Also tangentially important to remember that police use the term "gang related" whenever possible and the public follows suit with "gangbanger". In the hood most everyone knows or is related to someone in a gang and in many places gang "affiliation" (not the same as membership) is assumed by police and full gang members for any male of color living in a certain area.
Much of what the outside calls "gangbangers" shooting each other is just people killing each other over stupid arguments, regardless of gang affiliation.
Not to say that gang culture does not have a serious detrimental effect on overall violence, or that gang violence is not real and horrible, but the terms "gangbanger' and "gang related" are tossed around far more than they should be.
Smacks wrote: I have never talked about the "gunshow loophole", neither did you. Your problem is you seem to expect me defend every 'anti-gun' position that everyone has ever had, regardless of what my own position is. I did read this with an open mind, which is why I don't disagree with it. I will happily concede the point that there is a myth regarding the 'gunshow loophole', though it was never something I disputed.
This is exactly why it is nonsense. It is evidence for an argument no one was having. Then you say things like "You didn't rebut my facts", like that somehow makes you a winner. I mean really? And you call me ignorant?
At the risk of repeating myself; the "Gunshow loophole" is tied to claims of how criminals get their guns. A topic you put in issue. Had you actually read what I posted you would know this.
Smacks wrote: I'm not even sure what your position is. You just seem to make scattered remarks about people being called "ammosexuals", that I'm dishonest and a liar, and posting evidence relating to stuff no one was talking about (not even you).
Oh look, a comment I made that you've taken out of context. Again.
Smacks wrote: Ahhh yeah okay, that is 'almost' something I said. And a position I would be happy to argue.
I say 'almost' because: my original argument was not that it should be changed, but that you should be open to discussing change. As opposed to just stubbornly asserting "It's my right", which might be a fact, but it isn't a reason.
I no more need a reason to exercise my right to bear arms than you need a reason to justify your right to life, or your right to free speech.
Smacks wrote: The case I will make is that there is a disproportionate number of gun deaths in the USA compared to countries with tighter controls such as the UK. Since you mentioned children I will focus on them.
Other reports suggest that there are around 7000 accidents per year involving children and guns. That is 10 times higher than the total number of firearm accident in the UK, of which a negligible number involve children. In fact children just being injured by guns is such a rare occurrence that it makes the news. Child deaths in the US from guns could be as many as 100 a year. Many of the these death go unreported and are downplayed by organizations such as the NRA because the cause of death is often recorded as 'homicide'. In fact this study here suggest children are 17 more likely to be murdered by guns than in other developed nations.
The US population is only 4.9 times greater than that of the UK. yet the number of deaths is disproportional. It is therefor my assertion that many of these deaths are unnecessary and avoidable.
The following study found that for every time a gun is used legally in self-defense at home, there are "four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
With that out the way, I think I have demonstrated "within reason" that an issue does exist. It is not just "conjecture". One possible course of action for addressing this issue would be legislation. In fact legislation is one of the key differences between the US and countries with much better records for accidents involving guns. The 2nd amendment is very important when it comes to gun legislation, and is often sited to block legislation that might make gun ownership safer.
Y'know, it's almost as if I addressed this point back on Page 11..... oh wait, I did. You dismissed it out of hand without reading it and realizing that the statistics came from the CDC.
Firearms and Children: Declining Murders and Accidents
The last refuge for those without a logical leg to stand on is “think of the children!” OK, let’s think about the children for a second in terms of guns.
According to the CDC, the number of firearms related fatalities for “children” has been steadily falling over the last two decades even without more restrictive gun control laws. I put children in quotation marks because, while some people consider 24 year old people to still be children, my cut-off is the age at which the state lets you operate a 2-ton moving death machine unsupervised in public (16). The reason that this age bracket is used by gun control advocacy groups, as I outlined in this article, is that this is the age range in which most gang related crime is committed. Some estimates put the percentage of gang related murders in the United States at around 80%, indicating that the issue isn’t the availability of guns but the prevalence of gangs and the related violence.
Let’s move away from the murders for a second. Gun control advocates love to use the image of a child who accidentally shot themselves or someone else and died after “playing” with a gun. It evokes a parental response, making you feel like you need to “do something” to prevent such tragedies. And while those incidents do happen, it’s extremely rare — and getting rarer by the year.
Notice that distinctive downward trend? Yeah, I did too. Nevermind the fact that this happens to less than 150 kids every year, the fact of the matter is that the “problem” of kids accidentally killing themselves or others with a gun is one that is disappearing. Instead of increasing as more guns are being sold to the U.S. population, not only is the raw number of kids being killed in this matter staying relatively stable but it even seems to be declining.
What is the rate of ownership of firearms between the US and UK?
Greater than the difference in population size?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182 Is based on a ridiculously small sample size of three cities of a period of between 12 or 18 months that is then extrapolated to 50 States. That is in no way a viable study as it omits a huge amount of historical data, ignores trends, and as previously stated that sample size is much too small. There is no indication whether the separated out lawful possession from unalwful possession.
For a more thorough debunking;
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/william-c-montgomery/editorial-deconstructing-kellermann/
While a student many, many moons ago I worked as the secretary of a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Although my responsibilities were strictly clerical, I observed a thing or two about what happens behind the ivory walls of academia’s most sacred towers. While we prefer to think of all scientists as infallible servants of humanity, as indeed some are, many are corrupted by the same vices that plague, say, auto journalism: money, power, pride, and politics. Others are simply blinded by emotion. And yet many anti-gun advocates are quick to tout any study—no matter how flawed—as long as it agrees with their core beliefs. A recent post on Mikeb302000 featured this golden oldie: Gun Ownership As A Risk Factor For Homicide In The Home by Dr. Arthur L Kellermann, et al, circa 1993. Let’s take a look…
The Kellermann study was held up by MikeB302000’s resident argumentum ad hominem attack dog and slayer of straw men, Jadegold. Seven times in her post and subsequent comments, she admonishes or criticizes gun rights proponents to read the oft-maligned study.
Kellermann, et al, conclude (twice in the abstract and three times in the discussion) that “keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).” In other words, if you keep a gun in your home, you are 2.7 times more likely to have someone killed in your home—by that gun, by a gun introduced into your home by someone else, or other any other means.
Furthermore, they repeatedly assert that firearms are ineffectual in deterring homicide. “In light of these observations and our present findings, people should be strongly discouraged form keeping guns in their homes.”
These conclusions have been paraded by nearly every gun group in existence, from the Brady Bunch to Vegan Peace. But they are wrong.
Flawed Methodology
For obvious reasons Kellermann, et al, could not interview homicide victims. So they had to rely on interviews of family members, roommates, neighbors or someone else deemed to be close to the victim. The researchers asked these proxies questions like “Did the victim keep a loaded gun in the house?” They also consulted police and autopsy reports.
For each homicide victim, Kellermann, et al, also randomly sought out someone else from the community who was demographically similar who had not died in a homicide to act as a control. In order to preserve consistency, the researchers did not interview the control subject directly; they selected a proxy for them as well. Again, in the interview, the control subject’s proxies were asked questions like, “Does the control subject keep a loaded gun in the house?”
The study showed that 45.4% of homicide victims kept a gun (any gun, loaded or unloaded) in the home. By comparison, only 35.8% of matching control subject proxies said that the control subjects kept guns in their homes. That’s far below more reliable national gun ownership statistics, including those touted by anti-gun groups.
The control percentage is underrepresented because proxies chosen for the control subjects aren’t necessarily privy to whether the control subject owns a gun and keeps it on the premises. For instance, none of my neighbors would possibly be able to testify as to whether I keep guns in my home. Nor do I know whether any of them keep guns. If you asked my father, mother, brother, or sisters, they wouldn’t be able to answer that question. The best they’d be able to offer is “maybe.”
As for the actual victims of homicide, there is little doubt as to whether they keep guns in the house because the police would have found them when they searched the premises. Or the coroner would have had to pry the gun from the victim’s cold dead fingers. [Sorry, I couldn’t resist.]
Kellermann, et al, concede that underreporting of gun ownership would skew up their numbers and blow up their conclusions. “We do not believe, however, that misreporting of gun ownership was a problem,” they write, because a separate pilot study confirmed their results against handgun registrations and other surveys.
But what about all of the guns not registered? Did they not think there might be more than a few Saturday Night Specials tucked in the waistbands of residents in the high-crime neighborhoods they selected for their study?
Kellermann’s methodology for counting firearm ownership among their control subjects was flawed. The number is low, which means that the math that computes an adjusted odds ratio of 2.7 is way off. Indeed, if you substitute the national average of 48% for the control group, it would show that having a gun in the home was a negative risk factor for homicide (i.e. lessened the chances of homicide in your home).
Guns Not Effective to Deter Homicide?
The certain conclusion Kellermann, et al, make that firearms in the home “confer protection” is wholly unsupported because defensive uses of firearms were only counted in this study if they resulted in a homicide. Of the 420 homicides included in the study, 21 homicide victims [unsuccessfully] attempted to use a gun for self-defense. In only 15 instances were bad guys killed under “legally excusable circumstances,” meaning they were shot by the police (4) or by someone acting in self-defense (11).
According to Kellermann, et al, you haven’t successfully defended yourself from homicide unless you killed the bad guy dead. If the residents canvassed in this study fired a warning shot that chases off a bad guy, it didn’t count. If they wounded a perp, it didn’t count. And if they brandished their weapon and scared a threat off, Kellermann, et al, didn’t count it.
By their measure, the only good bad guy is a dead bad guy. As such, their definition of a successful use of a firearm in self-defense is wholly insufficient to conclude that firearms are ineffectual for self-protection.
Common Sense: More than a Pamphlet by Paine
Despite the flawed adjusted odds ratio, the Kellermann study actually places guns kept in the home fifth (2.7 ratio) among six risk variables for homicide in the home. The greatest risk factor they identified was actually whether anyone in the household used illicit drugs (5.7 ratio), followed by whether the home was rented and if there was a history of domestic violence (both 4.4 ratios). Even living alone (3.7 ratio) was a greater risk factor than the presence of a gun. If the percentage of gun ownership among the control group was corrected, gun ownership would fall even further down the list.
Nonetheless, Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann and the anti-gun Nazis continue to dredge up this study as evidence that “guns kill.” Yes they do, but not without a hand to guide them. Don’t believe everything you read about who, when, where and how that happens.
Smacks wrote: And so: corrections to the 2nd amendment are in fact worth discussing. Not something you should just arrogantly dismiss out of hand, which is what you have done the whole topic.
I'm still waiting on you to justify why this right needs curtailed. You haven't done that. It is not incumbent upon the person enjoying his/her Constitutional right to justify why it is done. The onus is on you to justify why you want to erode that right.
2014/08/29 20:04:02
Subject: Chicago - Crime Rate Drops as Concealed Carry Applications Surge.
cincydooley wrote: You're right, but I think it's important to remember that the do lump those gangbanger murders in with the child numbers if the gang banger is under 18.
I hope that makes sense.
It does, and it goes both ways.
Being a gangbanger doesn't make you any less of a child, and plenty of teens and preteens are already caught up in gangs. We might disagree about how tragic it is if a 13 year old gang member is dead on the street, but he's still a 13 year old kid.
On the other hand being a kid also doesn't make them any less of a gangbanger either, and plenty of teenagers are capable of doing terrible things. So your point is valid as well.
I think child gangbanger deaths are a dual problem. How do you stop the flow of illegal guns to gangs, and how to you keep kids out of gangs. But I'm sure that would be a whole other thread altogether.
2014/08/29 20:17:08
Subject: Chicago - Crime Rate Drops as Concealed Carry Applications Surge.
Being a gangbanger doesn't make you any less of a child, and plenty of teens and preteens are already caught up in gangs. We might disagree about how tragic it is if a 13 year old gang member is dead on the street, but he's still a 13 year old kid.
On the other hand being a kid also doesn't make them any less of a gangbanger either, and plenty of teenagers are capable of doing terrible things. So your point is valid as well.
I think child gangbanger deaths are a dual problem. How do you stop the flow of illegal guns to gangs, and how to you keep kids out of gangs. But I'm sure that would be a whole other thread altogether.
I think that those deaths caused by involvement with a gang (not innocent bystanders) are recorded separately. That way we can focus more on gang problems, inner city poverty, etc. instead of the right to bear arms
In the same manner I would like to see suicide by gun not be recorded as gun violence. When someone commits suicide by slitting their wrists it is not recorded as knife violence.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: At the risk of repeating myself; the "Gunshow loophole" is tied to claims of how criminals get their guns.
That was never a claim I made, so at risk of repeating myself, it was never relevant to the discussion, and certainly not something I am under an obligation to debunk. Even if no criminals ever got their guns (even indirectly) from gun shows, it wouldn't impact my argument at all.
I no more need a reason to exercise my right to bear arms than you need a reason to justify your right to life, or your right to free speech.
What about the right to rape people? or the right to smoke meth? or the right to shoot a Bald Eagle? What about the right to keep slaves? I'm sorry but that is not how the world works. Free speech is threatened all the time, as are peoples lives (often by guns).
What is the rate of ownership of firearms between the US and UK? Greater than the difference in population size?
Well good, if you admit there is a connection between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of avoidable child deaths, then we can conclude right now that reducing the number of guns will reduce the number of deaths.
Also your study showed a declining trend in the rate of deaths, but it is still higher than other countries, and way higher than the UK.
I'm still waiting on you to justify why this right needs curtailed. You haven't done that. It is not incumbent upon the person enjoying his/her Constitutional right to justify why it is done. The onus is on you to justify why you want to erode that right.
I have already presented evidence that there is a connection between gun ownership and avoidable death. Legislation is one way to deal with that, and has already been very effective in the UK.
But it doesn't matter because now you will just move the goalposts again.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/29 20:45:08
I'm still waiting on you to justify why this right needs curtailed. You haven't done that. It is not incumbent upon the person enjoying his/her Constitutional right to justify why it is done. The onus is on you to justify why you want to erode that right.
I have already presented evidence that there is a connection between gun ownership and avoidable death. Legislation is one way to deal with that, and has already been very effective in the UK.
But it doesn't matter because now you will just move the goalposts again.
Except that, as seen in the OP, here in the US, there may be some nebulous relationship between HIGHER gun ownership/licensing (for concealed carry) and a lower crime rate. There are a whole host of issues at hand and many cultural differences that will sort of, dictate the effects you are after.
Smacks wrote: What about the right to rape people? or the right to smoke meth? or the right to shoot a Bald Eagle? What about the right to keep slaves? I'm sorry but that is not how the world works. Free speech is threatened all the time, as are peoples lives (often by guns).
Your ridiculous hyperbole serves to highlight your ignorance again. Which Constitutional right guarantees the underlined? Answer; none. Which Constitutional right guarantees private ownership of firearms? The Second Amendment.
You pathetically attempted to equivocate people who exercise the right to bear arms with rapists and drug addicts. Do you think that sort of false equivalence hinders or aids a discussion?
What is the rate of ownership of firearms between the US and UK?
Greater than the difference in population size?
Well good, if you admit there is a connection between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of avoidable child deaths, then we can conclude right now that reducing the number of guns will reduce the number of deaths.
Also your study showed a declining trend in the rate of deaths, but it is still higher than other countries, and way higher than the UK.
I admitted nothing of the sort. There you go again with the dishonesty, next you'll be lamenting me calling you out on it. Again.
If we reduce the number of people owning cars we'll reduce the number of deaths from car use. If we reduce the number of swimming pools we'll reduce the number of people who die in swimming pool accidents (both of which happen at a much greater rate than accidental deaths by firearms. Although you did, to your credit, notice the decline in accidental gun deaths. My question to you is that if accidental gun deaths are declining as the rate of gun ownership goes up then why do we need to reduce private ownership?
Smacks wrote: I have already presented evidence that there is a connection between gun ownership and avoidable death. Legislation is one way to deal with that, and has already been very effective in the UK.
But it doesn't matter because now you will just move the goalposts again.
I have never moved the goalposts. You refused until now to show evidence. Even then your evidence was horribly flawed and you didn't even make an effort to defend it. You don't have an argument other than accidents might happen so millions of law abiding citizens must have their rights stripped from them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 21:23:33
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Except that, as seen in the OP, here in the US, there may be some nebulous relationship between HIGHER gun ownership/licensing (for concealed carry) and a lower crime rate.
The article in the OP does in fact not show this relationship between higher gun ownership and a lower crime rate. At most it shows that a higher gun ownership ratio hasn't diminished or increased the ongoing downward trend significantly. Perhaps that'll change in due time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 22:47:57
I no more need a reason to exercise my right to bear arms than you need a reason to justify your right to life, or your right to free speech.
What about the right to rape people? or the right to smoke meth? or the right to shoot a Bald Eagle? What about the right to keep slaves? I'm sorry but that is not how the world works. Free speech is threatened all the time, as are peoples lives (often by guns).
I think that you might be erroneously equating the right to own guns with the right to shoot people with them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 22:47:32
Hordini wrote: I think that you might be erroneously equating the right to own guns with the right to shoot people with them.
Seems to be something of a pattern
Why else have one?
I doubt this would be so much of an issue if said guns were only for hunting or sports. I certainly would not have an issue with it.
Also, why do people make so much fuss about it being a right? It is a law, yes, but if a law is sub-optimal, then it is not invulnerable to criticism. No law is. The moment a law becomes uncriticisable democracy takes a blow. And it clearly is sub-optimal; otherwise I doubt such a large amount of people would take issues with it (In either direction)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/29 23:42:26
