Gun Control 5

[Stubby]

[MOD]

Carry on, but remember the warning posted towards the end of the last thread.:

Stop with the personal attacks now. Next personal attack in this thread gets a one week suspension. No matter who it is.

For the record, attacking an idea or an unsupported opinion is not a personal attack.

Directing comments at the poster as opposed to the idea is a personal attack.

[/MOD]

[Robin Of House Hill]

Does anyone actually believe either side will convince the other?

[Lightning Lord]

No. Not even for a second.

Stubby, is it a personal attack if I were to say (mind you, this is hypothetical), that your avatar is a filthy poseur-bear that wouldn't be able to drop on someone if it had GPS-assisted butt-guidance systems? Or, since that's just an avatar and not a poster, would I be in the clear?

[Galactus]

No, not really. By and large it seems to be a fundamental disagreement about metaphysics.

[Datepalm]

It's incompetence.

[Stubby]

No. Not even for a second.

Stubby, is it a personal attack if I were to say (mind you, this is hypothetical), that your avatar is a filthy poseur-bear that wouldn't be able to drop on someone if it had GPS-assisted butt-guidance systems? Or, since that's just an avatar and not a poster, would I be in the clear?

It would not be a personal attack - just irrelevent to the discussion.

If you said that my opinion was worthless because I had an avatar that was a filthy poseur bear etc then that would be an ad hominem that would not detract from my opinion.

If you said that my opinion was worthless because I am short, round-eared, and furry, then - in addition to being to being an ad hominem - it would become a personal attack.

If you said that my opinion on dropbear control was worthless because I was citing a study that was out of date by twenty years, then you'd be safe.

You'd still be a ground dwelling distant cousin, but you'd be safe. ;)

[tzanth]

Am I the only one who is all for strict gun laws but thinks there are more important issues for left leaning folks to be spending political capital on?

[Shryke]

RiL

Except for the many thousands who HAVE been saved by their guns, as showed by numerous cites I have linked to.

I'm really getting the feeling you just don't actually understand statistics.

Statistically, having a gun increases your chance of being the victim of a gun-related crime.

People who live in areas with more guns are more likely to be the victim of gun-related crimes.

That you can show some examples of that happening does not disprove these facts. That's not how statistics work. Your chance of getting a royal flush in poker is very, very small. Just because you can find people who've been dealt one doesn't make that untrue.

The self-defence argument has no statistical backing that I've ever seen. This should be fairly unsurprising just from the studies on the correlation between gun ownership and gun violence because places with more guns are not safer.

It's especially funny that this very incident is a good example of what can happen with guns for "self-defence".

[Shryke]

No, not really. By and large it seems to be a fundamental disagreement about metaphysics.

Speaking of that, more stats:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

When we first collected much of this data, it was after the Aurora, Colo. shootings, and the air was thick with calls to avoid “politicizing” the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for “don’t talk about reforming our gun control laws.”

Let’s be clear: That is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.

1. Shooting sprees are not rare in the United States.

2. 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.

4. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.

5. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.

6. The South is the most violent region in the United States.

7. Gun ownership in the United States is declining overall.

8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

10. Gun control, in general, has not been politically popular.

11. But particular policies to control guns often are.

12. Shootings don’t tend to substantially affect views on gun control.

I removed three because it was wrong, as the article itself corrects.

Largely I find this debate tiring based on how little regard most people in it seem to have for, you know, data. I just wish most of the people involved, especially the pro-gun side, would just admit it's about emotions. And how much they fucking love guns.

And just accept that it appears "more homicides" is what you have to live with to have those more guns around.

[str8 outta Old Town]

It's especially funny that this very incident is a good example of what can happen with guns for "self-defence".

I also think people miss out on the idea that "self-defence" is stupid in most cases. Pulling a gun in a situation where you have been punched would count in the US as a defensive use of a firearm, it is actually a dangerously reckless escalation of a situation. Facing down a burglar with a gun is insanity, unless he is entering the room in which you or your family are. People in crime surveys who state they have used a gun against criminals are often reporting arguments that wouldn't have got out of hand if there had been no guns, or situations where they have imbecilically put themselves and their families in harm's way because of their inability to calculate risk.

[R'hllor's Bastard]

Hey Shryke, where are you quoting that 12 fact list from? Somebody from a previous thread or is it from another site?

[Shryke]

Hey Shryke, where are you quoting that 12 fact list from? Somebody from a previous thread or is it from another site?

From that exact link that you could have clicked yourself.

I also had a huge post 2 threads back with reams of other studies on the issue.

[R'hllor's Bastard]

What do they mean by "assault deaths" ? Cant that happen without a gun?

They point to the south as the "most violent region", not because it has the most total violence but because it has the highest rate of "assault deaths" per person total population.

They are using tricky language there. Whats an assault death.

[Shryke]

What do they mean by "assault deaths" ? Cant that happen without a gun?

They point to the south as the "most violent region", not because it has the most total violence but because it has the highest rate of "assault deaths" per person total population.

They are using tricky language there. Whats an assault death.

It's not tricky language, it's "death due to assault". I'm not seeing what's confusing here.

FYI, if you'd done 2 seconds of effort and checked the source, it has this:

Note that “assault” as a cause of death does not distinguish the mechanism of death (gunshot, stabbing, etc).

Which a ) doesn't make any difference to the point at hand and b ) we can combine with stuff in that post and previous stuff I've posted that shows that gun ownership and gun-related deaths are strongly correlated.

[R'hllor's Bastard]

Yeh it still fits your point if you insist.

I was just pointing out the false blanket statements made in the article itself

[Shryke]

Yeh it still fits your point if you insist.

I was just pointing out the false blanket statements made in the article itself

What false blanket statement?

The part you are complaining about is within a part that only says the US (and within the US, the South) is the most violent, not that it's the most gun-related violent.

[R'hllor's Bastard]

Well the first lie is the title , 12 facts about guns and mass shootings, then they dont distinguish between gun death and assault death. Thats a false statement.

The second one was the statement the south is the most violent region, they back up the statement up by percentage of population in the

south, this is not taking into account total violence, which is how to determine the most violent region

[James Arryn]

What's the strongest argument against gun control? Freedom? Hobby? Deadwood style protection?

It seems increasingly bankrupt, as ideologies go. If we didn't have access to the divergence in results from other cultures, I could maybe see how some people would miss the point or think it lesser than something else. But when it's readily available and alternatives with alternative results are very easily seen, I dunno.

Slavery, civil rights, gay rights, etc.

On the other hand, we can look forward to the day when, 20 or so years after whenever it is that the U.S. becomes the last non-militia based industrialized nation to address gun control, we will hear catch phrases about how it saved the world and freedom by leading the way in gun control.

[Shryke]

Well the first lie is the title , 12 facts about guns and mass shootings, then they dont distinguish between gun death and assault death. Thats a false statement.

No, it's not. They don't distinguish between guns deaths and other types of assault deaths in that particular point. And it's still directly relevant to the general points being talked about.

The second one was the statement the south is the most violent region, they back up the statement up by percentage of population in the south, this is not taking into account total violence, which is how to determine the most violent region

What? This sentence is meaningless garble. Like all the stats used in those two points, and in most stats about things like this, they measure it per capita. Why would you measure it any other way?

These are both really silly points. Neither is correct or sensible and neither is relevant to what is being discussed there. You are trying to nitpick, badly, for no reason I can determine.

[DaveSumm]

Largely I find this debate tiring based on how little regard most people in it seem to have for, you know, data.

Absolutely. I would probably add that it would be helpful if the data were a little clearer, with all the variation in laws between states it's hard to pin down exact numbers. But even with the margins of error we're dealing with the numbers are still overwhelmingly in favour of gun control. I was shocked to find the number of people shot to death during home invasion was as little as 21 last year, out of the 10,000 total firearm deaths. And whoever started calling them 'assassins' in the first thread I'm still gonna stick with, cos I can't think of a better name. This is essentially what people seem to be afraid of, random assassins. If you add in to the 21 the fact that there's no additional evidence telling us whether they were armed, or had any intention of killing anyone........I actually searching for any instance ever of a stranger breaking in to a house with the express intent of murder, and couldn't find one (though I'm sure it's happened once or twice).