RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Lucylastic -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 2:03:45 PM)

damn his numbers keep going up what the fuck is he on?




BamaD -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 2:04:10 PM)

FR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use




Lucylastic -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 2:08:13 PM)

For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Getz. However, from reliable victimization surveys, we know that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the home at the time of the crime, and only 33 percent of these had occupants who weren’t sleeping. From surveys on firearm ownership, we also know that 42 percent of U.S. households owned firearms at the time of the survey. Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertz’s paper is simply mathematically impossible.


Despite survey data on defensive gun uses being notoriously unreliable, until recently there have been only scattered attempts at providing an empirical alternative. The first scientific attempt was a study in Arizona, which examined newspaper, police reports and court records for defensive gun uses in the Phoenix area over a 100 day period. At the time Arizona had the 6th highest gun death rate, an above average number of households with firearms and a permissive “shall issue” concealed carry law meaning that defensive gun use should be higher than the national average.

Extrapolating Kleck-Gertz survey results to the Phoenix area would predict 98 defensive killings or injuries and 236 defensive firings during the study period. Instead, the study found a total of 3 defensive gun uses where the gun was fired, including one instance in which a feud between two families exploded into a brawl and several of the participants began firing. These results were much more in line with (but still substantially less than) extrapolated NCVS data, which predicted 8 defensive killings or injuries and 19 firings over the same time frame.

Brand new data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan organization devoted to collecting gun violence data, further confirms Hemenway’s suspicion that Kleck and Getz’s findings are absurd. The archive found that for all of 2014 there were fewer than 1,600 verified defensive guns uses, meaning a police report was filed. This total includes all outcomes and types of defensive uses with a police report—a far cry from the millions that Kleck and Getz estimated.

Many gun advocates will protest at this point that not all defensive gun uses are reported to the police, which is true. However, Kleck’s surveys and the NCVS reports indicate that more than 50 percent of such incidents are reported to the police. This would indicate 3,200 defensive uses on an annual basis, still well short of what surveys suggest. Further, if there actually are 50,000 defensive gun uses as NCVS’ data suggests, or more than 1 million as Kleck and Getz’s surveys claim, that would mean only 3.2 percent or 0.16 percent respectively of defensive gun uses are reported to the police. Believing that such a small fraction of incidents are reported is indulging in fantasy.

Kleck and Gertz often defend their paper by claiming that their results are consistent with the findings of other private surveys. They explain that the reliability of a survey should be judged by the degree to which it coheres with the estimates of other surveys. However, using a tool we know to be flawed, over and over again, does not increase the quality of estimates deriving from the tool—it merely produces convergence to an arbitrary number. Surveys, for example, regularly show that men have sex with women more often than women have sex with men. Survey results don’t mean anything if they don’t pass muster with reality.

Criminal Uses Outnumber Self-Defense Uses

The spurious conclusions in these surveys don’t just distort the pro-gun community’s perception of defensive gun use. For example, the claim that millions every year shoot their guns in self-defense has led some to posit that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal uses. This assertion is inexplicable—not backed by any substantive evidence. We have yet to find a single study examining the question that does not show that criminal uses far outweigh defensive uses.

You might hear gun advocates substantiate this claim by comparing inflated survey numbers like Kleck’s with NCVS crime numbers. But defensive gun use surveys and the NCVS use different methodologies. To compare those two data sets is to break one of the most important laws of statistical analysis: You must always compare likes to likes.

And indeed, comparing NCVS results to NCVS results yields a very different picture—that more than 9 times as many people are victimized by guns than protected by them. Respondents in two Harvard surveys had more than 3 times as many offensive gun uses against them as defensive gun uses. Another study focusing on adolescences found 13 times as many offensive gun uses. Yet another study focusing on gun use in the home found that a gun was more than 6 times more likely to be used to intimidate a family member than in a defensive capacity. The evidence is nearly unanimous.



http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/




kdsub -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 2:50:23 PM)

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about....you refuse to admit you are wrong and just keep posting nonsense. I give you concrete links... you give me links that do not support one of your statements.

You have no credibility... you just keep posting bullshit numbers with no proof to back them up.

Butch




BamaD -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 3:20:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about....you refuse to admit you are wrong and just keep posting nonsense. I give you concrete links... you give me links that do not support one of your statements.

You have no credibility... you just keep posting bullshit numbers with no proof to back them up.

Butch

I do no such thing.
I give you cites, and you ignore them.
You give cites then tell us they say something entirely different that what they say.
How many pages have you spent tring to deflect from your absurd statement that for every dgu there are "numbers" of child envolved shootings when by any count you have given that would mean that there are more child envolved shootings than there are shootings.
The last cite showed you that there are a huge number of studies and other than the one you choose to believe and one other they range much closer to mine numbers than yours, but even by yours that stupid comment about the number of child envovled shootings is proven false.
You lied about the Sheriff's comments, and tried to pretend that since they were made by the politically appointe cheif of police they were true.
Anyone who can read can see that the sheriff was concerened with the administration of the law.
The jest of the Cheif's statement was also false because it was anchored in the high accident rate when the accident rate has been dropping faster than the crime rate.
I thought you were going to put me on hide.

And you keep repeating that the law says you have no need to retreat, but the samething you quoted says nothing about shooting someone, looks like you took a piece of the law to suit your purposes. Then when I post the bill you told me it was you once again refuse to admit you did that.




ResidentSadist -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 3:20:53 PM)

Give everyone a gun...
Take away their clothes...

In 90 days it will be a better world because all the assholes will be shot dead and there will nothing left to fight over because we can clearly see who has the biggest dick.


~fr




Dvr22999874 -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 4:46:52 PM)

Now there is a very nasty thought to begin the day with RS !!




mnottertail -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 8:55:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about....you refuse to admit you are wrong and just keep posting nonsense. I give you concrete links... you give me links that do not support one of your statements.

You have no credibility... you just keep posting bullshit numbers with no proof to back them up.

Butch

I do no such thing.
I give you cites, and you ignore them.
You give cites then tell us they say something entirely different that what they say.
How many pages have you spent tring to deflect from your absurd statement that for every dgu there are "numbers" of child envolved shootings when by any count you have given that would mean that there are more child envolved shootings than there are shootings.
The last cite showed you that there are a huge number of studies and other than the one you choose to believe and one other they range much closer to mine numbers than yours, but even by yours that stupid comment about the number of child envovled shootings is proven false.
You lied about the Sheriff's comments, and tried to pretend that since they were made by the politically appointe cheif of police they were true.
Anyone who can read can see that the sheriff was concerened with the administration of the law.
The jest of the Cheif's statement was also false because it was anchored in the high accident rate when the accident rate has been dropping faster than the crime rate.
I thought you were going to put me on hide.

And you keep repeating that the law says you have no need to retreat, but the samething you quoted says nothing about shooting someone, looks like you took a piece of the law to suit your purposes. Then when I post the bill you told me it was you once again refuse to admit you did that.

Well sure you do, not credible citations, not the FBI saying there are trillions and trillions of defenses of crime with guns every hour or any of the other actual horseshit you flog. You did do a wiki something not worth nothing, and said you repeatedly posted the FBI study, but you didnt and never have, you post the Kleck referenced asswipe, and thats it. I posted the CDC study and it doesnt say anything like you said it does.





WickedsDesire -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 10:22:33 PM)

None of you gun nuts would pass a shcligal test for a feather duster How you like em apples retarded turnips - they opened the door not I, I am completely innocent, and to be frank best we take the whole lot out with potato masher twere for the best




BamaD -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/24/2016 8:53:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

First... the estimate of the real professional survey the NCVS was 108,000 not 500,000 or 2.5 million...Now one thing you are not figuring... how many of these DGU's were in defense of home or property? Would you not say the vast majority in 1994... before many of the conceal and carry laws? I have been talking about the possible results of the Missouri conceal and carry and the new Castle laws. I am not talking about defending home and property... but who can obtain guns without a conceal and carry permit and how they will be able to use them... The no need to retreat and deadly force when they feel in danger...ANYWHERE it is legal to carry a gun... is dangerous for all.

If you look at the Bureau of Justice report a little newer...2008 it states only 59,000 DGU or approx 1.3 percent of a total 4,581,000 crimes of violence. HERE table 70...hell calling for help resulted in 14 percent...check the others out in the table.

see the difference?

Butch

I found out why the NCVS has such a lower count for dgus than anyone else.
It isn't that the others are progun fanatics.
It isn't that anyone them or all the others that show the numbers so much higher.
I is because dgus are not a point of foucus for NCVS, they only get info on dgus if the person they call offers the information. This isn't to say that cook the books, it just means they don't care about that detail.




longwayhome -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/26/2016 6:00:40 AM)

I almost hate to cut across all the debate about the exact nature of gun violence in the US, given that many people in the US believe that owning and/or carrying a gun is a human right, but there is plenty of evidence about gun use from around the world.

Almost all advanced western societies severely restrict the private ownership of guns. As a comparison in the UK you can own a sporting rifle or a shotgun (with the proper safeguards) and hand gun ownership is effectively banned. Even the police are not routinely armed except in Northern Ireland. Rapidly deployable armed units are permanently on standby and are used regularly and selected police are sometimes armed at times of high alert so to say the police are not armed is an oversimplification but it is largely true.

The result of this is clear. Between 2000 and 2010 there were three (yes three!) fatal police shootings in the UK, in a country with only a fifth of the population of the US. There have been a couple since and each one has been hugely controversial, even when the person concerned was armed and dangerous. In terms of homicides in the US compared to the UK you are roughly 55 times more likely to be killed by a firearm. Suicides using firearm are 45 times less likely in the UK compared to the US.

Not having ready access to guns in the UK does of course mean that you are more likely to be murdered by other means but, allowing some fluctuations the murder rate in the US is still five times what it is in the UK. There have also been multiple spree killings in the US, often multiple spree killings in a single year. The UK had Dunblane in 1996 and Cumbria in 2010. That is in a country with a fifth of the population of the US. Suicide rates are more complex. The WHO figures puts the suicide rate in the UK at half what it is the the US, but other figures put the UK only slightly lower than the US when measured in different way (i.e. assuming that all undetermined deaths in UK were suicides, which is not entirely valid but does have a point as many of them are actually suicides).

You could repeat this picture again and again across advanced industrialised societies, with variations particularly for some South American states where guns are more readily available than other places.

The conclusion is either that the citizens of the US are incredibly violent and bloodthirsty compared to other peaceful western countries with competent police forces and decent justice systems, or that the availability of guns leads fairly directly to increased deaths. Do people really believe that the British are just civilised, polite people who don't get into disputes and are less capable of violence? Despite the stereotypes, we are just as rude and unpleasant as any other nationality, sometimes more so.

The truth is that so-called freedom of gun ownership on an almost unrestricted basis makes it easier to obtain a gun, easier to steal a gun, easier to kill people, more people use guns for self defence, the police are more likely to shoot and so on in a vicious cycle that is difficult to control even with good laws and policing. Without guns people still get killed but the wide existence of a gun culture in the US leads to the untimely death of many people - whatever stats you use.

Guns don't kill people. No they don't, but if you don't have so many guns, fewer people have a trigger to pull.





mnottertail -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/26/2016 7:48:29 AM)

So, Houston mall shooting, open carry state. Thats two the open carry pussies ran away from real shooters.

How does that go with the DGUs? Is this gonna be a DGUs for pussies or?

Why do these nutsucker states have such horrid violence and so many welfare pussies?




WhoreMods -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/26/2016 7:56:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist

Give everyone a gun...
Take away their clothes...

In 90 days it will be a better world because all the assholes will be shot dead and there will nothing left to fight over because we can clearly see who has the biggest dick.


~fr

Fucksakes, mate! It's already September and it's bloody cold in Europe already. I shudder to think what it's like in (say) Alaska or the top end of Washington State at the moment. It's gonna be hard to judge who's got the biggest dick when every guy's bits have shrunk from the cold and are trying to squirm back up into their body cavity where it's warm. Even the other half of the human race walking around with their nipples responding to the cold by impersonating organ stops can only do so much to compensate for that...




BamaD -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/26/2016 8:10:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

I almost hate to cut across all the debate about the exact nature of gun violence in the US, given that many people in the US believe that owning and/or carrying a gun is a human right, but there is plenty of evidence about gun use from around the world.

Almost all advanced western societies severely restrict the private ownership of guns. As a comparison in the UK you can own a sporting rifle or a shotgun (with the proper safeguards) and hand gun ownership is effectively banned. Even the police are not routinely armed except in Northern Ireland. Rapidly deployable armed units are permanently on standby and are used regularly and selected police are sometimes armed at times of high alert so to say the police are not armed is an oversimplification but it is largely true.

The result of this is clear. Between 2000 and 2010 there were three (yes three!) fatal police shootings in the UK, in a country with only a fifth of the population of the US. There have been a couple since and each one has been hugely controversial, even when the person concerned was armed and dangerous. In terms of homicides in the US compared to the UK you are roughly 55 times more likely to be killed by a firearm. Suicides using firearm are 45 times less likely in the UK compared to the US.

Not having ready access to guns in the UK does of course mean that you are more likely to be murdered by other means but, allowing some fluctuations the murder rate in the US is still five times what it is in the UK. There have also been multiple spree killings in the US, often multiple spree killings in a single year. The UK had Dunblane in 1996 and Cumbria in 2010. That is in a country with a fifth of the population of the US. Suicide rates are more complex. The WHO figures puts the suicide rate in the UK at half what it is the the US, but other figures put the UK only slightly lower than the US when measured in different way (i.e. assuming that all undetermined deaths in UK were suicides, which is not entirely valid but does have a point as many of them are actually suicides).

You could repeat this picture again and again across advanced industrialised societies, with variations particularly for some South American states where guns are more readily available than other places.

The conclusion is either that the citizens of the US are incredibly violent and bloodthirsty compared to other peaceful western countries with competent police forces and decent justice systems, or that the availability of guns leads fairly directly to increased deaths. Do people really believe that the British are just civilised, polite people who don't get into disputes and are less capable of violence? Despite the stereotypes, we are just as rude and unpleasant as any other nationality, sometimes more so.

The truth is that so-called freedom of gun ownership on an almost unrestricted basis makes it easier to obtain a gun, easier to steal a gun, easier to kill people, more people use guns for self defence, the police are more likely to shoot and so on in a vicious cycle that is difficult to control even with good laws and policing. Without guns people still get killed but the wide existence of a gun culture in the US leads to the untimely death of many people - whatever stats you use.

Guns don't kill people. No they don't, but if you don't have so many guns, fewer people have a trigger to pull.



And your draconian gun laws leave you with no lower murder rate than you had when they were passed. In the same time with increased ccws our murder rate has been cut in half.




WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/26/2016 8:19:20 AM)

Maths!@!@!@![sm=hair.gif][sm=wall_smiley.gif]




longwayhome -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/26/2016 9:03:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

[Edited]

The truth is that so-called freedom of gun ownership on an almost unrestricted basis makes it easier to obtain a gun, easier to steal a gun, easier to kill people, more people use guns for self defence, the police are more likely to shoot and so on in a vicious cycle that is difficult to control even with good laws and policing. Without guns people still get killed but the wide existence of a gun culture in the US leads to the untimely death of many people - whatever stats you use.

Guns don't kill people. No they don't, but if you don't have so many guns, fewer people have a trigger to pull.



And your draconian gun laws leave you with no lower murder rate than you had when they were passed. In the same time with increased ccws our murder rate has been cut in half.


You really want to quote those statistics, with the correct context?

The murder rate and gun violence comparisons work before and after the handgun ban in the UK. The public in the UK are (and have been for living memory) not permitted to carry weapons, for self defence or otherwise. This includes guns.

Our guns laws were draconian compared to the US before the hand gun ban. It was always only guns for sporting purposes and shotguns (pretty much for sport or farmers) with no right of carry as such, concealed or otherwise. The hand gun ban was an extra measure which was not really required because hardly anyone legally owned handguns. This was because there was no legal reason to own a handgun except to use at a sports club (as in competitive sport not a gun ranges for target practice), which was where they tended to be kept. The ban on handguns only harmed sportsmen and women and denied the UK a couple of Olympic medals, but did little else.

The reason why our murder rate didn't fall after the handgun ban was therefore because our already draconian gun laws were already working. They didn't need to be stricter. It is laudable that the US has managed to reduce its murder rate without significant gun legislation, but the comparison with societies with no real public gun ownership (which is always enshrined in law in those countries rather than being a chance of culture) bears out the fact that many fewer people die when gun ownership is very strictly controlled.

The debate in most societies is about how to take more guns out of circulation. That has been a key part of the post conflict debate in Ireland, Yugoslavia and Spain in recent decades and in the wider world in post-conflict situations. Nobody ever said "I tell you what, let's encourage the population to be armed - if they can just use guns properly and respect them, guns will never be misused".

The gun lobby in the US stands out as the only significant group in an advanced western democracy who believes the lunacy that widespread gun ownership actually protects anyone. To the rest of us the debate the US is having about there should be background checks and whether and in what circumstances it is okay to carry a gun just seems completely at odds with everything we know about weapons and their use in society.

I'm not sure that the US citizens who advocate relaxed gun laws and the widespread gun ownership that accompanies them are fully aware of how much of a limb they are out on, except in their own country.

Personally I prefer a situation where carrying any weapon, for any purpose, carries the risk of imprisonment. That seriously reduces the number of people with weapons, including criminals. While it means that I do not have a weapon to protect myself it reduces the risk that I will be harmed. When robbery with a weapon is pretty much the same as murder, you think twice before carrying a weapon, and when someone really pisses you off, there are no guns around to shoot them with. Kids with a grudge find it very hard to find a gun in most of Europe. Result - fewer public deaths, fewer police deaths, less fear.

How many mass shootings are the American people going to put up with before the gun lobby realises that the US has a problem? How many deaths at the hands of the police are acceptable in a peace time society?

We all put up with people dying because of road accidents and plane crashes, and there are government agencies and multi-million dollar initiatives dedicated to reducing those deaths.

People dying because too many people have guns - is that really the world we want to leave for our children when we know we can do something about it?




Lucylastic -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/26/2016 9:11:03 AM)

not to mention that murders and crimes are down in the UK by 40 % in comparative years.
so he is lying.





longwayhome -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/26/2016 9:12:40 AM)

Just to reiterate the UK has five times fewer murders than the US per head of population, and that is pretty much in keeping with other non-weaponised western democracies.

The UK is not some wonderful paradise and I do not think that our society is better than the US. I have been to the US a number of times and have the greatest respect for the country.

There are of course variations in murder rates, depending on what is happening in the communities in other western democracies, some with less murder than the UK, some more.

The US is more by almost 500% - that is a huge difference in terms of the numbers and puts the US in the same league as some very troubled societies.

The big difference is guns.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/26/2016 9:20:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And your draconian gun laws leave you with no lower murder rate than you had when they were passed. In the same time with increased ccws our murder rate has been cut in half.

The US murder rate per 100,000 is 12,996 (higher than Uganda, Sudan and Kenya).
The UK murder rate per 100,000 is 722.

And do you have a reliable and legit cite for your 'cut in half' premise??
Coz that's not what I see in the stats.
The criminaljusticedegreehub.com website states: 14,827 people were murdered in the US last year. This is way down from the 24,526 US murders in 1993.
So it's still not 'cut in half' as you have stated - and that's over 23 years!!




longwayhome -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/26/2016 9:21:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

not to mention that murders and crimes are down in the UK by 40 % in comparative years.
so he is lying.




You are of course correct about the fall in violent crime in the UK, although this appears to have bottomed out and bit and goes up and down depending on which report you read.

It is also correct that the gun law changes introduced after Dunblane had little effect on murder rates and gun violence but it is a pointless comparison as those changes only confirmed a strongly anti-weapon legislative framework. In other words the post Dunblane changes were a knee-jerk reaction to a thankfully rare occurrence.

Despite this I can only think of one person I know of in favour of overturning that ban, and he is a successful competitive rifleman who would like the chance to compete with other guns, as UK Olympic and Commonwealth sports teams did successfully before 1996. Even he doesn't want the right to keep a handgun at home.

I do know one other person who supported the provos in Northern Ireland who believes that people should have the right to bear arms. I don't think I need to explain my personal opposition to that one.




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875