Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Kalbear, To see if the cost of firearm possession really does outweigh benefits to those who use them in self defense. And that doesn't, nessecarily, mean killing someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 So you want to see if the cost of legally killing people is worth the cost of illegally killing people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 No. Please, see my prior response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 14 minutes ago, Kalbear said: 20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: BR, I agree anecdote is insufficent. I would love to see a neutral study about the defensive use of firearms by US citizens. scot, why do you want to read a study about people legally killing other people? 5 minutes ago, Kalbear said: So you want to see if the cost of legally killing people is worth the cost of illegally killing people? Presumably, one of the inputs necessary to establishing good public policy is having good and relatively complete data about the issue which is being subjected to public policy. If public ownership and use of firearms is a matter of public policy, and I think it is, why wouldn't you want to have good data to review on the incidence of firearms being used in legally justifiable self-defense? That seems like a complete no-brainer. If it were possible to gather that information, why on Earth would you NOT want it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Nestor, Indeed. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 But why does Scot want to know how many people are legally killed and how they were legally killed? Why does he care about the salacious details of these acts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 14 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: Presumably, one of the inputs necessary to establishing good public policy is having good and relatively complete data about the issue which is being subjected to public policy. If public ownership and use of firearms is a matter of public policy, and I think it is, why wouldn't you want to have good data to review on the incidence of firearms being used in legally justifiable self-defense? That seems like a complete no-brainer. If it were possible to gather that information, why on Earth would you NOT want it? Kalbear, To have, as Nestor states, good data about number of incidents of legally justified incidents of self-defense where a firearm was deployed to compair to incidents of deaths due to accidents and other incidents where firearms were used that were not legally justified by self-defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 You still haven't answered why you want to see the details of these legal gun deaths, Scot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Kalbear, I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 42 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: BR, I agree anecdote is insufficent. I would love to see a neutral study about the defensive use of firearms by US citizens. Sure, I agree. It is difficult to make good decisions and effective laws without such data. But I caution you to see above in this thread on what happens when such studies are done. The science denialism comes out. Further, the NRA, like the tobacco lobby, actively suppresses such studies, so we have to clear that hurdle first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Just now, BloodRider said: Sure, I agree. But I caution you to see above in this thread on what happens when such studies are done. The science denialism comes out. That said, the NRA, like the tobacco lobby, actively suppresses such studies, so we have to clear that hurdle first. BR, And that needs to stop. Such studies need to be looked at honestly and addressed without BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I can only assume that Scott wants to pleasure himself furiously while reading the gory details of people being legally shot to death. Also, I have it on good authority that, when pressed, he will admit that he stopped beating his wife just yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Kalbear, I have. Where did you indicate why you like seeing all the details on legal gun killing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 44 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: BR, I agree anecdote is insufficent. I would love to see a neutral study about the defensive use of firearms by US citizens. Hell, I would love to see any kind of neutral Federally-funded study done at all. The fact that Congress has prevented the CDC from doing so with threats to cut funding is one of the most ludicrous and shameful things I've ever heard of. ETA: Quote BR, And that needs to stop. Such studies need to be looked at honestly and addressed without BS. Totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Just now, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: I can only assume that Scott wants to pleasure himself furiously while reading the gory details of people being legally shot to death. Also, I have it on good authority that, when pressed, he will admit that he stopped beating his wife just yesterday. Yeah, I figured. Just like I figured he might get annoyed by this the same way we got annoyed by him asking over and over why Sanders interrupting Clinton was sexist when no one said that, we told him that repeatedly, and we told him that wasn't the conversation. So I figure it's fair to question him on why he wants to read about all these people legally killing other people. Why would anyone want that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: BR, And that needs to stop. Such studies need to be looked at honestly and addressed without BS. And yet, in this very thread, we have examples of mocking tried and true methods employed effectively in other epidemiological studies as "Mindless worship". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 1 minute ago, alguien said: Hell, I would love to see any kind of neutral Federally-funded study done at all. The fact that Congress has prevented the CDC from doing so with threats to cut funding is one of the most ludicrous and shameful things I've ever heard of. Agreed. Nestor, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 1 minute ago, BloodRider said: And yet, in this very thread, we have examples of mocking tried and true methods employed effectively in other epidemiological studies as "Mindless worship". BR, And I think FNR is wrong to play BS nitpicking games. It's also why I'd like to see the neutral study I suggest above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: BR, And I think FNR is wrong to play BS nitpicking games. It's also why I'd like to see the neutral study I suggest above. I guess my point is that it is not about FNR, its about the anti-science mentality that pervades many Americans, and is more heavily concentrated with Republican's. It allows them to dismiss any study that doesn't match their preferred conclusions by saying, circularly, that it doesn't match my preferred conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 BR, It bothers me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.