Free Northman Reborn Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 20 minutes ago, Leap said: My apologies for putting you out of your way, it was my understanding that some form of evidence was necessary for non-self-evident assertions in this thread, or others. In any case, from the first link in that Google Search: So, the 100k number is ~150% of the actual figure. Assuming that this 1.2 million and the 67,740 refer to the same crimes, which it seems like they do* My maths is a little off, but it seems to me that a gun helps stop a crime about 5.6% of the time. * Of course, although they mention robbery as part of violent crimes, they include 'property crimes' in the 67, 740 number. If that isn't included in the 1.2 million figure, then the % would be even smaller. Again, the obvious counter is that the 300 million guns in the US are irrelevant if the guns are not actually on people when they are faced with the unexpected misfortune of a violent crime. Hence, one might as well argue that if carrying a gun was mandatory by law, for every citizen, then the incidents of defensive use would be vastly higher. The point being that these figures will clearly be used to fit the preconceived notions of the particular person reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 19 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Again, the obvious counter is that the 300 million guns in the US are irrelevant if the guns are not actually on people when they are faced with the unexpected misfortune of a violent crime. Hence, one might as well argue that if carrying a gun was mandatory by law, for every citizen, then the incidents of defensive use would be vastly higher. The point being that these figures will clearly be used to fit the preconceived notions of the particular person reading it. Heh. CALLED IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 25 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: 29 minutes ago, Leap said: My apologies for putting you out of your way, it was my understanding that some form of evidence was necessary for non-self-evident assertions in this thread, or others. In any case, from the first link in that Google Search: So, the 100k number is ~150% of the actual figure. Assuming that Right. Because choosing the lowest of a large number of varying estimates is a completely valid assumption to make. Quote My maths is a little off, but it seems to me that a gun helps stop a crime about 5.6% of the time. Plus, deterrence(non active use of a gun), etc, etc, etc.... But what is the point of this (dubious) math? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 As with more subjects regarding the effect of guns the Harvard school of public health has some summaries and links to (sadly ageing) research papers. And on the use of guns in purported self-defence the following is good to keep in mind: Quote 4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective. Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267. 5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense. Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable. Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 30 minutes ago, Leap said: I chose the first and only number I looked at. If I had the time or inclination, I'd go back and check every other reply to that Google search, but I'm not going to. You know, because the 100k figure was your assertion, and you should be the one to support it. I'm not sure what you're etcs refer to, but deterrence is a fair point. I'm not sure that you could calculate it though, and I doubt that the number of people not deterred by the police but deterred by private gun owners is not a particularly large number. And in any case, people deterred from a crime via non active use of a gun wouldn't actually have committed the crime, would they? So it wouldn't change the 5.6% number. Speaking of which, since I'm pretty sure that 67,740 is in fact 5.6% of 1.2 million, calling it ''dubious'' is...idiotic. Maths is rarely dubious, it's either wrong or not. 67,740 is 5.6% of 1.2million, right? This would be embarrassing to get wrong. What you mean is that the statement is dubious. And that depends on whether or not you count these instances of deterrence (''etc, etc'') as something that stops a crime, or something that prevents it from ever happening. It also depends on whether or not you assume that the 67, 740 (or indeed, 1.2 million) figure is accurate. I'm assuming that the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey is a fairly reliable measurement. I understand that you don't consider them to be accurate, in which case I'll leave you to search for other reliable sources (maybe that support your 100k assertion) as you see fit. Again though, I'm not interested in arguing a point. What you're assuming (fairly, let's be honest) is that I'm replying here in order to make a point that guns should be taken away. I am not. I'm not assuming anything. That's why i asked you what the point was of the 5.6% number. Rather than, you know, just assuming what point you were trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 55 minutes ago, Seli said: As with more subjects regarding the effect of guns the Harvard school of public health has some summaries and links to (sadly ageing) research papers. And on the use of guns in purported self-defence the following is good to keep in mind: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ Well, if'n you are going to quote studies and stuff, I expect the next objection to be - "Studies don't matter 'cause freedom." And round and round we go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercenaryChef Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Mandatory carry. Oh how peaceful and respectable society would be. Well after a whole fucking lot of shootings. It would just take a little time for all the irresponsible gun owners to make themselves known and either be shot or jailed. As still some would commit crimes, talk shit, hit on someone's spouse, or any of the many other scenarios that would end in guns being used irresponsibly. Then the good guys with their guns could hold hands, sing songs of heroism and the world would be beautiful. Yeehaw. Yeehaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Yes, yes. We need less and less personal responsibility, and we need government to think for us, provide for us, and protect us, particularly from ourselves. Hopefuly we can eventually just plug into the Matrix and be blissfully safe and happy, without having to be responsible for our own friggin lives. Thats one thing that got to me during the years I spent in the UK - and I use the UK as representative of the "civilized" Western world. The utter nanny state mentality, where if the smallest thing goes wrong you immediately abdicate responsibility to the "authorities", waiting for them to tell you where to queue while they take care of you, like a child. The poor farmer who shot a bloody burglar in his house even got prison time for it. Utterly emasculated society. EDITED to remove the quote, as I intended to quote MercifulChief's post above. Not sure why it grabbed Sologdin's much earlier post. In any event, my message remains the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Yes, yes. We need less and less personal responsibility, and we need government to think for us, provide for us, and protect us, particularly from ourselves.... This way of thinking is utterly alien to me, because that is not what is happening. Why would individuals ignore the most powerful tool we have developed to protect us, ie the huge societies we live in? Why should we cater to those individuals that are too scared to face the community and make that safe, but rather stay out of it and be afraid of everyone else? It seems a lot better approach to cater to those who are willing to take the burden to make our communities, our society safer over all. We need less people who don't care about anything but themselves, and more people who realize we became what we are by people working together. Our cultures spent centuries making laws and rules to try and make those who wield power in any way accountable. Why should we not do that simply because the power came from a gun? Why stop holding those with power accountable, restricting our own freedom in the process and giving up control? Why cede responsibility for the lives we live by ignoring those in our environment that act in ways that may threaten them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liffguard Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said: The poor farmer who shot a bloody burglar in his house even got prison time for it. Utterly emasculated society. If you're referring to the case I think you're referring to, he was jailed for shooting a fleeing burglar in the back, not in self defense. Edit for those not aware of the case, my guess is this is about the Tony Martin case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 12 minutes ago, Liffguard said: If you're referring to the case I thinl you're referring to, he was jailed for shooting a fleeing burglar in the back, not in self defense. Yep. But, gunz and freedumz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 11 hours ago, MercifulChief said: Mandatory carry. Oh how peaceful and respectable society would be. Well after a whole fucking lot of shootings. It would just take a little time for all the irresponsible gun owners to make themselves known and either be shot or jailed. As still some would commit crimes, talk shit, hit on someone's spouse, or any of the many other scenarios that would end in guns being used irresponsibly. Then the good guys with their guns could hold hands, sing songs of heroism and the world would be beautiful. Yeehaw. Yeehaw. MC, There was a movement for "mandatory carry" very early in US history. Thankfully, it didn't take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercenaryChef Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: MC, There was a movement for "mandatory carry" very early in US history. Thankfully, it didn't take. There was also slavery, women couldn't vote, and other absurd and stupid things. All that said, perhaps the constitution drafted 200+ years ago by men who didn't think adding in nix slavery and women vote when signing this document may have also erred in this whole right to bear arms thing? No. That is impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 right to bear arms freed those slaves, merc. and female suffrage? won through armed struggle. look it up. there's even photographic evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 1 hour ago, MercifulChief said: There was also slavery, women couldn't vote, and other absurd and stupid things. All that said, perhaps the constitution drafted 200+ years ago by men who didn't think adding in nix slavery and women vote when signing this document may have also erred in this whole right to bear arms thing? No. That is impossible. MC, They also thought warrants being necessary prior to searches, freedom of speech, press, and religion were important. Should those be chucked because they were wrong about slavery and women's sufferge? Or, perhaps, people being wrong about some things may not make them wrong about everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercenaryChef Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: MC, They also thought warrants being necessary prior to searches, freedom of speech, press, and religion were important. Should those be chucked because they were wrong about slavery and women's sufferge? Or, perhaps, people being wrong about some things may not make them wrong about everything. i am not one to bow at the founding fathers as being genius. the constitution is painfully outdated. the idea that our nation still clings to it shows something simple and weak. it is only sad tradition and fear of change that prevents examining it critically and adjusting it for that which would be best for the overall happiness, prosperity and safety of our people. there is something so very selfish that is being an american. i have tried to get my mind around it after i really started to come to terms with it the last few years. likely i will never make sense of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 MC, I've been saying we need to start fresh for going on a decade. I don't support warrant requirments, free speech, free press, and freedom of religion because they are in the Constitution. I support them because they are good ideas. I support the Constitution not out of some religious devotion but because for law to have meaning it needs to have force and effect until it is changed. Otherwise law, Constitutional or otherwise, is just suggestions. Unless, of course, you prefer a system where coersive force is not available to the government. That would be very serious "change". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercenaryChef Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 40 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: MC, I've been saying we need to start fresh for going on a decade. I don't support warrant requirments, free speech, free press, and freedom of religion because they are in the Constitution. I support them because they are good ideas. I support the Constitution not out of some religious devotion but because for law to have meaning it needs to have force and effect until it is changed. Otherwise law, Constitutional or otherwise, is just suggestions. Unless, of course, you prefer a system where coersive force is not available to the government. That would be very serious "change". we agree completely. now, let's get writing this new thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 MC, The problem is now those who do worship at the alter of the Constitution. We might see real change in our lifetime but it's still going to be a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 2 hours ago, sologdin said: right to bear arms freed those slaves, merc. and female suffrage? won through armed struggle. look it up. there's even photographic evidence. Evidently, the right for women to walk around topless seems to be an ongoing argument for more open carry laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.