What did this family not have that it needed?

[Hermit]

your analogy analysis fails.

You need to familiarise yourself with the meaning of analogy: "a correspondence or partial similarity." In my post there are plenty of them between cars and guns.

[Seth]

your analogy analysis fails.

You need to familiarise yourself with the meaning of analogy: "a correspondence or partial similarity." In my post there are plenty of them between cars and guns.

It still fails for the reasons I state. You use the analogy to justify banning guns but the analogy is inapt, as I described.

[Hermit]

your analogy analysis fails.

You use the analogy to justify banning guns but the analogy is inapt, as I described.

And I finished up with the conclusion that it is not even a ban. Sheesh. 82% of guns in private possession remained legally in private possession after the so-called ban. The analogy fits very well.

[Blind groper]

Seth says I disregard DGUs, and that I refuse to accept that the USA has gun control.

No, but the problem is that I have read enough of the writings of non NRA influenced Americans to have a better idea of what both represent.

First : DGUs
The problem with the numbers expressed here are that they are the worst kind of verbal survey. Such surveys invariably give horribly misleading results. I remember a survey that asked if people thought they are, as drivers..
1. Average
2. Below average
3. Above average
4. Don't know

And 80% answered that they were above average.

I really should not have to tell anyone what a load of crap that survey conclusion is.

The same applies exactly to DGUs. Since there is no direct observation of DGUs (we are not universally spied on by video cameras - at least not yet), those who try to estimate how many DGUs there are, do so by asking questions. If you ask a gun owner if he/she has ever used that gun defensively, the answer rather frequently is going to be yes, regardless of whether it was needed or not.

It is like asking a teenage boy if he is a virgin. If you ran such a survey, you would get answers suggesting that 99.9999% were not.

The reality is that those without guns, even in the USA, rarely get harmed. Only 16,000 get murdered each year. Yet somewhere between 80,000 and 500,000 (depending on which idiot you believe) claim that they would have been killed if they did not have a gun. So, since I am a rational thinker, I treat DGU claims with, not a pinch of salt, but a ton of it.

Secondly
On gun control.
Sure, there are laws relating to gun control. But the major loophole is a doozie!!!

If someone wants to sell a gun on the second hand market, including ammunition, they are not required to run any checks on the would-be buyer. That means that if someone advertises a horrendously murderous hand gun for sale, anyone with cash can roll up and buy it and remain anonymous. That simple fact makes all the gun control laws in the world utterly useless.

So, regardless of what gun control laws the USA has, gun ownership is totally and utterly unrestricted. And 100,000 Americans each year receive a bullet through some part of their anatomy (about 70,000 survive, though many are maimed), while 10,000 are murdered with guns every year.

[Blind groper]

Seth has also said that there is a disparity about our attitude to guns versus cars.

Several people have responded with how useful cars are. That is only part of the story, though an important part. The other part of the story is simply that cars are already heavily regulated. You cannot drive a car without a proper drivers licence. You cannot speed, or break local rules. There is here in NZ, a whole handbook of rules you must memorise to pass a test before you get that prized drivers licence. There are certain cars that are illegal to own or use.

The USA has, in effect, no restriction on owning guns, due to the loophole I mentioned in the post just before this. Yet cars are heavily restricted, and there are numerous well policed rules about how you can use them, and even about which ones you can own.

What I am suggesting would be right and proper for guns is no different to what is right and proper for cars. That is, a set of rules that restrict how you use them, and a limit on what kinds you can own.

As I have said all along, I have no problem with people owning and using guns (of the appropriate kind) when they have a legitimate need, such as those who hunt for meat, and those who use them to kill pest animals. For those tasks, the best guns are sporting rifles and shotguns, and those should be available, under the same conditions required for driving a car. That is : passing a test and getting a licence.

So I suggest no more and no less for guns than what I suggest for cars. Essentially no difference.

[Seth]

Seth says I disregard DGUs, and that I refuse to accept that the USA has gun control.

No, but the problem is that I have read enough of the writings of non NRA influenced Americans to have a better idea of what both represent.

You mean you've swallowed the anti-gun propaganda whole.

First : DGUs
The problem with the numbers expressed here are that they are the worst kind of verbal survey. Such surveys invariably give horribly misleading results. I remember a survey that asked if people thought they are, as drivers..
1. Average
2. Below average
3. Above average
4. Don't know

And 80% answered that they were above average.

There's a difference between asking someone to rate his skill at something and asking them if they have ever used a gun for self-defense. Trust me, as one who has used a gun for self defense, and had guns pointed at me with mal intent, that's not something you forget. It's a yes/no question. Either you did or you didn't.

I really should not have to tell anyone what a load of crap that survey conclusion is.

It certainly is, unless the purpose is to examine the observer bias in respondents, in which case it's quite telling.

The same applies exactly to DGUs.

No, it does not. See above.

Since there is no direct observation of DGUs (we are not universally spied on by video cameras - at least not yet), those who try to estimate how many DGUs there are, do so by asking questions. If you ask a gun owner if he/she has ever used that gun defensively, the answer rather frequently is going to be yes, regardless of whether it was needed or not.

Where is your evidence of this allegation? Any at all other than your observer-biased specious assumptions about gun owners?

*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*...

I didn't think so.

It is like asking a teenage boy if he is a virgin. If you ran such a survey, you would get answers suggesting that 99.9999% were not.

No, it's nothing like that at all anywhere but in your delusional biased mind.

The reality is that those without guns, even in the USA, rarely get harmed. Only 16,000 get murdered each year.

When did it go from 8000 to 16,000? Do you really think we aren't paying attention to how you bogue the data?

Yet somewhere between 80,000 and 500,000 (depending on which idiot you believe) claim that they would have been killed if they did not have a gun.

Not so. You are also unwilling to acknowledge that a DGU most often takes place without a single shot being fired, and a DGU takes place when a gun in the hands of a potential victim prevents a criminal from attempting the crime.

If you approach me with a knife telling me to give you my wallet and I brush back my coat and reveal my holstered weapon with my hand on the grip and you piss yourself and run away, that's a DGU.

So, since I am a rational thinker, I treat DGU claims with, not a pinch of salt, but a ton of it.

You're anything but rational on this subject. You qualify as a spittal-flecked foaming at the mouth rabid paranoid psychopath most of the time.

Secondly
On gun control.
Sure, there are laws relating to gun control. But the major loophole is a doozie!!!

So, thanks for at least acknowledging that truth, which is a big step for you I know.

If someone wants to sell a gun on the second hand market, including ammunition, they are not required to run any checks on the would-be buyer.

Depends on where you are, but mostly yes. So what? Do you really think an honest gun owner wants to sell a gun to a killer? I certainly don't. Beyond the moral and emotional liability the legal liability and the pain in the ass caused when the authorities trace the gun back to me and then ask pointed questions about who I sold it to and why are a great deterrent.

And people of bad character who don't mind selling a previously-stolen gun to a criminal won't be dissuaded by background checks simply because they will not go through the procedure. They will just hand the buyer the gun and take the money and nobody will ever know the transaction took place.

That means that if someone advertises a horrendously murderous hand gun for sale,

No handgun is any more "horrendously murderous" than another, and none of them are "murderous" at all because they are inanimate lumps of metal that have no volition, free will or ability to do anything at all unless operated by a human being...or occasionally a dog.

anyone with cash can roll up and buy it and remain anonymous.

Yes, they can, but the research shows that this very rarely happens at your big bugaboo: the dreaded Gun Show! Because most gun owners are law-abiding people, and they know perfectly well that they shouldn't sell a gun to a criminal, and will report a suspicious transaction to on-the-scene law enforcement, criminals very rarely get their guns at gun shows. Mostly they are stolen or bought on the black market, which no regulation will prevent.

That simple fact makes all the gun control laws in the world utterly useless.

Well, yes, sort of. Gun control laws are inherently useless because the only people they affect are law-abiding gun owners who obey such laws. Criminals, you see, don't give a fuck about gun control laws because it's already illegal for them to even touch a gun. In fact, criminals LIKE gun control laws and gun bans, because it makes them safer as they ply their trade. This is why burglars in the UK are notorious for breaking into occupied homes and ransacking the place while the occupants stand helplessly by because they cannot do anything about it, lest they be charged for beating the intruder to death with a cricket bat, which is the UK equivalent of a "make my day" law. Only in the UK, that phrase applies to prosecutors, not victims.

So, regardless of what gun control laws the USA has, gun ownership is totally and utterly unrestricted.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

And 100,000 Americans each year receive a bullet through some part of their anatomy (about 70,000 survive, though many are maimed), while 10,000 are murdered with guns every year.

Now it's 10,000? Just a minute ago it was 16,000. And before that it was 8000.

Make up your fucking mind which lie you're going to tell next time.

[Seth]

Seth has also said that there is a disparity about our attitude to guns versus cars.

Several people have responded with how useful cars are. That is only part of the story, though an important part. The other part of the story is simply that cars are already heavily regulated. You cannot drive a car without a proper drivers licence. You cannot speed, or break local rules. There is here in NZ, a whole handbook of rules you must memorise to pass a test before you get that prized drivers licence. There are certain cars that are illegal to own or use.

The USA has, in effect, no restriction on owning guns, due to the loophole I mentioned in the post just before this. Yet cars are heavily restricted, and there are numerous well policed rules about how you can use them, and even about which ones you can own.

No, just rules about which ones you can drive on a public highway. And you're perpetrating a strawman and red herring argument all rolled up into one. There are no restrictions on OWNING cars, just on operating them. Also, there are thousands of laws in the US regulating the purchase, ownership, operation and display of firearms. Very strict ones in fact.

What I am suggesting would be right and proper for guns is no different to what is right and proper for cars. That is, a set of rules that restrict how you use them, and a limit on what kinds you can own.

There are plenty of rules about how you can use a gun or a car already. No more are needed because all the existing laws cover every possible iteration of unlawful conduct with a firearm. The fact that some people behave unlawfully with a gun is no more or less pertinent than the fact that some people (many more) behave unlawfully with cars. We don't make laws restricting the rights of the law-abiding based on what some criminal might possibly do that's outside the law. That's just stupid.

[/quAs I have said all along, I have no problem with people owning and using guns (of the appropriate kind) when they have a legitimate need, such as those who hunt for meat, and those who use them to kill pest animals.

And you, of course, get to determine what a "legitimate need" is. Well, our country doesn't grant you that authority, nor does it grant that authority to any government agent. Ours is a "Bill of Rights" not a "Bill of Needs." Your situation, as a slave to your government, is rather different.

For those tasks, the best guns are sporting rifles and shotguns, and those should be available, under the same conditions required for driving a car. That is : passing a test and getting a licence.

I'm all for education. A license is not possible however because it is unconstitutional for the government to attempt to license a fundamental right, which includes things like freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of the press, and yes, the right to keep and bear arms.

Instead we encourage people to become educated and trust them to act wisely and properly with their guns, and if and when they don't, we punish that individual for that transgression. We don't treat our people like children, as your government does, by presuming that nobody is qualified to posses a firearm without the government giving them a license. And our system works quite well. There's 340 million Americans and there's 300 million guns, and less than one ten-thousandth of one percent of those guns are ever used wrongfully. That's a great safety record.

So I suggest no more and no less for guns than what I suggest for cars. Essentially no difference.

Fine. Pass a test, get a license, just like your driver's license. Do it at the same time. The catch is that if you pass the test you get the license, just like your driver's license, and you cannot be denied a license unless you fail the test or misuse your car or your gun. Make it an automatic concealed carry license valid in all 50 states and I'll go along with you on that.

But you see, you aren't being honest. You're being devious, duplicitous, mendacious and sneaky because you don't really mean that at all. You, like every other panderer of "common sense gun control" have a covert agenda, which in this case is that you want to use the licensing requirement to prohibit most people from getting one by making the test so hard, and by applying a "need" component, and by making the process so onerous and expensive and time-consuming that you achieve gun bans by simply refusing to issue licenses for this or that reason, or merely by ignoring the application.

We weren't born yesterday Sparky, this has been going on here for centuries, with Chicago, LA, Detroit, Boston, New York City and New Jersey among others doing exactly that for a very long, long time.

In New York City anyone can apply for a concealed carry license...if you have the official city-printed form (no photocopies allowed), a couple of thousand dollars, a friend on the City Council, and a "need" to carry. Problem is, New York City hasn't printed any of the forms since about 1960, so it's almost impossible to get the form you need. This is by design, not accident. Of course, the wealthy donors to the mayor's campaign and friends of the police chief miraculously manage to find a spare form here or there and they get permits, but not Joe Average Citizen. Not ever.

We're way ahead of you BG, so quite trying to teach your grandpa to suck eggs, it just makes you look even more stupid. We know what you're after and we're not having any.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

First, on statistics.

I use statistics correctly in spite of your accusations I am lying. Let me lay it out for you.

In the USA, the following figures are correct, though written to the nearest round number due to annual variation...

1. 100,000 people each year get a bullet through some part of their anatomy.
2. 70,000 of them survive, but are often seriously maimed.
3. 16,000 total are murdered each year.
4. 10,000 of those murders are with firearms.
5. 8,000 of those firearms murders are with hand guns.

Now, when I use one or other of these numbers, I specify what it is for. Please read what I write, instead of blindly calling me a liar.

Now on DGUs.

Yes, I have good reason to tell you that the vast majority of reported DGUs are crap. The person making the report may be sincere, but mistaken.

The thing is that, even though there is, in the USA, almost one gun for every person, only about a third of the population own even one gun. Gun owners tend to own more than one gun, thus pushing the average up. Two thirds of Americans do not own a gun, do not have one available, and do not carry one. So those 80,000 to 500,000 reported DGUs come from one third of the population. What happens to the other two thirds?

I notice, Seth, that you carefully ignore this vital question. If that one third need a gun for defense 80,000 to 500,000 times a year, then the two thirds without one will need it 160,000 to 1 million times a year, but do not have it. That means there will be 160,000 to 1 million killings or maimings each year of people without a gun.

Guess what, genius? It does not happen!

[Seth]

To Seth

First, on statistics.

I use statistics correctly in spite of your accusations I am lying. Let me lay it out for you.

"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review "

In the USA, the following figures are correct, though written to the nearest round number due to annual variation...

1. 100,000 people each year get a bullet through some part of their anatomy.

This includes suicides, which we've discussed before. Self-inflicted gunshot wounds aren't pertinent.

2. 70,000 of them survive, but are often seriously maimed.

"Often?" Show your data.

3. 16,000 total are murdered each year.
4. 10,000 of those murders are with firearms.
5. 8,000 of those firearms murders are with hand guns.

Cite your sources. And 80,000 to 2.5 million people each year are not murdered or criminally victimized because they had a gun.

Now, when I use one or other of these numbers, I specify what it is for.

No you don't. You use those figures interchangeably depending on how you choose to attempt to support an argument, and you quite often use them deceptively and dishonestly.

Please read what I write, instead of blindly calling me a liar.

I do read what you write...unfortunately...which is why I call you a liar, because you are a liar.

Now on DGUs.

Yes, I have good reason to tell you that the vast majority of reported DGUs are crap. The person making the report may be sincere, but mistaken.

"May be mistaken?" Who the hell are you to make this judgment? Have you ever interviewed even one of the people who claims to have used a gun in self defense? I doubt it. In fact I'm absolutely certain of it.

The thing is that, even though there is, in the USA, almost one gun for every person, only about a third of the population own even one gun.

You don't know that. Nobody knows that, as was pointed out elsewhere, because we do not allow our government to know who owns how may guns or where they are. You can pander all the bogus statistical lies you want but the fact remains that people own guns and those guns are used for legitimate self defense more often than not, by a wide margin.

Gun owners tend to own more than one gun, thus pushing the average up.

Your sources are...??

Two thirds of Americans do not own a gun, do not have one available, and do not carry one.

Made up statistics, which fall into the Samuel Clemens category above "damned lies."

So those 80,000 to 500,000 reported DGUs come from one third of the population.

Again, misuse of statistics to benefit your argument.

What happens to the other two thirds?

They didn't report a DGU. That doesn't mean they didn't use a gun for self defense, it just means that the vast majority of DGUs go unreported to police because the mere presence of a gun prevented any crime from occurring without any shots being fired and without anyone being shot, much less killed.

I notice, Seth, that you carefully ignore this vital question. If that one third need a gun for defense 80,000 to 500,000 times a year, then the two thirds without one will need it 160,000 to 1 million times a year, but do not have it. That means there will be 160,000 to 1 million killings or maimings each year of people without a gun.

Guess what, genius? It does not happen!

Again, bogus and mendacious use of damned lies...sorry, statistics. You wrongfully assume that the probabilities of needing a gun for self defense are uniform throughout the entire population. You also wrongfully assume that every DGU results in "killing or maiming" which is not the case.

And you still refuse to examine any of the hundreds of examples of DGUs reported by the press or police that I've cited in this forum before, much less pay attention to things like the NRA's "Armed Citizen" website, which provides thousands of such reports that are made by the press based on police reports and activities.

And what happens to the ones who don't use guns to defend themselves? We call them "victims." As best I recall there are millions upon millions of them created every year, disproportionately residents of major metropolitan areas where personal carry of handguns for self defense is illegal or effectively impossible to do legally.

[Seth]

Concealed Carry & Home Defense
Handguns are seen for sale in a display case at Metro Shooting Supplies in Bridgeton, Missouri, November 13, 2014. REUTERS/Jim Young
National Guard Member Shoots Armed Robber In Sonic Drive-Thru
11:59 AM 01/20/2015



Photo of Chuck Ross
Chuck Ross
Reporter

See All Articles
Send Email
Subscribe to RSS
Follow on Twitter
Bio
Chuck Ross

Chuck Ross is a reporter at The Daily Caller.

Armed robbery was not on the menu for a trio of assailants who targeted an Army National Guard soldier Sunday night in the drive-thru of a Sonic restaurant in DeKalb County, Georgia.

The three men, at least one of whom was armed, approached 23-year-old Joseph Toombs on foot as he was sitting in his vehicle waiting in line for his food, according to WXIA.

The armed stick-up prompted Toombs to pull out his own gun, which he fired, striking one of the assailants, 19-year-old Kenneth Brayboy.

Brayboy was taken to the hospital and later died.

The two other suspects fled the scene. Police caught one of them — 17-year-old Desmond McKnight. He has been charged with several offenses, including murder.

Toombs will not be charged with any wrongdoing.

While most of Sonic’s business comes via its drive-thru and its curb-side service, the company is one of several fast food chains to recently implement gun restrictions on patrons dining inside the restaurant or on its patio — two factors that Toombs luckily did not have to deal with.

“We’ve considered the views and desires of our customers and employees that staff the drive-ins across the country,” Sonic said in a statement last year. “Accordingly, we’re asking that customers refrain from bringing guns onto our patios or into our indoor dining areas. With respect to the storage of guns in vehicles, we ask that our customers continue to honor local laws.”

[Hermit]

My take home message. Statistics that support one's fancied opinion are scientific and true. All others are bogus. In Seth's case Lott's research, for example, represents truth. Most others do not. Vice versa applies to Blind groper.

Also, while I do support the idea that links to data are desirable, the demand for them coming from Seth of all people is downright comical.

[Blind groper]

It is true that the insane attitude to guns in the USA prevents proper data being gathered. My suspicion is that this is at the instigation of the gun manufacturers, who have the NRA well and truly bribed, in order to make sure that the true damage of all those guns goes unreported.

However, survey methods are well established, even though there is a large error factor involved. Those surveys show that only a third of Americans own guns, but gun owners tend to own more than one gun. The exact figure may be a little different to that, but not enough to alter my argument.

There are 10,000 firearms murders in the USA each year, plus or minus annual variation. If there are 80,000 DGUs each year carried out by the one third who own guns, then the two thirds who do not would experience a desperately high murder rate. A lot more than 10,000.

Also note the incredible variation in results for DGUs. From 80,000 to 500,000. That variation must tell you something about the lack of reliability in the methods used to gather DGU data.

[Blind groper]

http://mic.com/articles/21330/there-are ... er-to-zero

The above reference backs up the statistics I posted. No lies.

[Seth]

My take home message. Statistics that support one's fancied opinion are scientific and true. All others are bogus. In Seth's case Lott's research, for example, represents truth. Most others do not. Vice versa applies to Blind groper.

Also, while I do support the idea that links to data are desirable, the demand for them coming from Seth of all people is downright comical.

Well, I'm sick and tired of posting the links, after all I've been doing this for 20 years now and even when I do, BG just disses and ignores them, so why bother. I'm just not letting him have the last word, lest some credulous lurker think this means he's right. He's not, and it's obvious to anyone with a lick of sense.

[Seth]

http://mic.com/articles/21330/there-are ... er-to-zero

The above reference backs up the statistics I posted. No lies.

Yes, lies and mendacious construction of sentences, like this one:

In the United States, the total number of hand gun deaths (1980-2006) is more than 32,000 per year. Firearms are involved in 68% of homicides, 52% of suicides, 43% of robberies, and 21% of aggravated assaults.

This is mendacious and misleading because the author cites handgun deaths, which includes suicides, which are not relevant to an analysis of the benefits or problems with armed citizens using their firearms for self defense, and then he changes horses to "firearms are involved" when citing further statistics, all in the same paragraph, thus implying that the second sentence refers to handgun deaths. This is deceptive because the second sentence does not relate to the first accurately because the first (deceptive) figure is for handgun deaths whereas the other figures are for firearms involvement which obviously includes non-fatal involvement and even involvement where no one was injured.

The truth is that there are about 8000 deaths attributable to handgun murders each year, out of who knows how many tens of millions of handguns in private hands in the US. This lamentable number of murders is offset by the fact that the minimum number of DGUs that occur every year, according to the FBI and DOJ based on examination of crime and death reports from law enforcement in which the DGU was confirmed by investigation, is ten times greater than the number of handgun murders. So, ten times as many people are protected by their guns than are killed with handguns by criminals. Remove those defensive weapons and ten times more victims of violent crime would be created and some indeterminate number of them would likely be murdered by a criminal with a handgun.

And that's just the lowest number available that is pretty much indisputable because it is based on actual criminal investigations by the police. The actual number of DGUs that prevent crime, all categories of crime, not just murder, could be as high as 2.5 million times per year.

Your "source" is a blogger who has no credentials whatsoever and has no history I could find of firearms or self-defense or crime analysis expertise. He's an architect. Lott, Kleck, the NRA and all the others who refute this sort of bilge are experts in the field, whether you believe them or not.