Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

User avatar
GreyICE
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:27 pm

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by GreyICE » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:18 pm

mistermack wrote:
GreyICE wrote:I imagine that skepticism works better when one seeks out evidence, rather than supposing that the evidence matches your conclusion.
Well, your evidence doesn't address the point I made at all.
And after reading it, the best you can make of it is that there is an advantage in having a weapon IF you're attacked ( pretty obvious ) but that it's marginal ( rather surprising). As my point was about the overall numbers, and not the outcomes, you've missed it, it seems.

If you accept their conclusion, that when the worst happens, it's best to have a gun, I would say that's bleedin obvious anyway. Trouble is, exactly the same logic applies to criminals.
It doesn't prove that tighter gun control would cost innocent lives. Far from it.
If domestic guns were much rarer, fewer criminals would take risk carrying one of their own.
Whether the overall result would be lesser or more innocent deaths, is the big unknown.
But you can be pretty certain that accidental deaths and maimings would be fewer.
.
Um, Mack? Did you click on the link? I don't think I missed your point, I think you missed the link. If it came up as horse porn, you had that window open already, actually click on the link and you'll find what you seek.
Nevertheless, among these imperfect surveys, two were relatively good for present purposes. Both the Hart survey in 1981 and the Mauser survey in 1990 were national surveys which asked carefully worded questions directed at all Rs in their samples. Both surveys excluded uses against animals and occupational uses. The two also nicely complemented each other in that the Hart survey asked only about uses of handguns, while the Mauser survey asked about uses of all gun types. The Hart survey results implied a minimum of about 640,000 annual DGUs involving handguns, while the Mauser results implied about 700,000 involving any type of gun.(37) It should be stressed, contrary to the claims of Reiss and Roth,(38) that neither of these estimates entailed the use of "dubious adjustment procedures." The percent of sample households reporting a DGU was simply multiplied by the total number of U.S. households, resulting in an estimate of DGU-involved households. This figure, compiled for a five year period, was then divided by five to yield a per-year figure.
...
The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2 are those based on the shorter one-year recall peRiod that rely on Rs' firsthand accounts of their own experiences (person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.

These estimates are larger than those derived from the best previous surveys, indicating that technical improvements in the measurement procedures have, contrary to the expectations of Cook,(47) Reiss and Roth,(48) and McDowall and Wiersema,(49) increased rather than decreased estimates of the frequency that DGUs occur. Defensive gun use is thus just another specific example of a commonplace pattern in criminological survey work, which includes victimization surveys, self-report surveys of delinquency, surveys of illicit drug use, etc.: the better the measurement procedures, the higher the estimates of controversial behaviors.(50)
Gallstones, I believe you know how to contact me. The rest of you? I could not possibly even care.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by mistermack » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:43 pm

The 2.5 million figure isn't exactly the answer to the question.
Guns used 2.5 million times in self defence doesn't equate to the number of people saved.
A lot of it might be people shooting at noises in the dark.
And it isn't a figure for where the gun made the difference.

I was burgled once, when I was dozing in a top room of a three story building. I encountered three young black men on the stairs, I shouted at them and they ran for it. If I'd fired a shot, I suppose I would be claimed as a statistic where the gun saved my life.
I had no gun, nor did they.
All in all, I think I prefer that.
I've often wondered how it would have panned out, if I'd been armed.
What bugs me is that they know where you live. Their brothers, uncles, fathers, all know where you live. You don't know where they live.
If I'd killed one, I wouldn't feel safe now.
As it was, I just needed a minor repair to the back door.

Greyice, I just noticed your link went to another 24 pages, so no, I only read the first one.
By the way, I haven't got any horse porn. Post your links, if you like, I know someone who might be interested.
Edit :;
having read on a bit, it appears that the high statistics being bandied about are amassed by interested parties, and the official much lower figures are being rubbished. It seems to be a biased publication to me. There is no shortage of that in the US, particularly where guns are concerned.
Last edited by mistermack on Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:00 pm

mistermack wrote:The 2.5 million figure isn't exactly the answer to the question.
Guns used 2.5 million times in self defence doesn't equate to the number of people saved.
I would imagine that calculating the "number of people saved" is a mushy number, inherently. There would always be room to say that the person brandishing the weapon would not have been harmed anyway. I doubt there is a reliable number for "number of people saved."

But, in the words of anti-gun folks...."if it saves just one person, isn't it worth it?"

User avatar
GreyICE
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:27 pm

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by GreyICE » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:12 pm

Okay, I provided you with a clear source that presented the background of the numbers, previous attempts to decide on a number, why the number is often inaccurately presented as low, and their methods of achieving a more accurate number than was reached in the past. And you wanted a simple number? Fair enough.

There are 10,000 homicides committed with guns. Suicide rates do not track well with gun ownership in the United States, the root of any suicide problem is not guns. Accidental gun deaths were 776 in 2002, I doubt they're going much of anywhere.

So lets select a nice low number. 1% of those involved in a DGU would have lost their lives without the defensive gun use. As very, very few people pull out a gun in a situation where they do not feel threatened, this seems if anything low. 1% of 2.5 million is 25,000, leading to a net saving of 15,000 lives.

There, that's simple numbers, mack. We can complex them back up and you can hide your argument back into the ambiguity again.

P.S. Do that thing where you ask us to predict the future again. Namely, the exact outcome of each of the 2.5 million people in a situation where they felt they were in physical danger to the extend that they used a gun to prevent further application of force. Quick, call Sylvia Browne, she knows! Great way to move the goalposts into 'ridiculous' territory.

P.P.S. Men and women who were going to be raped or victims of domestic violence and used a gun to protect themselves didn't save their own lives.
Gallstones, I believe you know how to contact me. The rest of you? I could not possibly even care.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by mistermack » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:19 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
mistermack wrote:The 2.5 million figure isn't exactly the answer to the question.
Guns used 2.5 million times in self defence doesn't equate to the number of people saved.
I would imagine that calculating the "number of people saved" is a mushy number, inherently. There would always be room to say that the person brandishing the weapon would not have been harmed anyway. I doubt there is a reliable number for "number of people saved."

But, in the words of anti-gun folks...."if it saves just one person, isn't it worth it?"
It's mushy both ways, that's my point. What percentage of inciidents of guns being discharged actually made any differnce? It's impossible to say, but I think the headline figure is way out.
I suppose I'm biased because most of the people who have guns over here are people you already knew were a bit odd.

The only time I came up against a stranger with a gun was years ago in North Dakota.
I hitched a lift, and after about ten minutes, I looked in the back of the car, and the driver was holding a revolver, with his arm draped over the backrest.
He must have noticed that I'd seen it, he just said, "don't worry about it, what I've got in the back is worth a lot of money, so I wasn't taking any chances"!!!
I still don't get the logic there, but it made sense to him"!
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

PsychoSerenity
"I" Self-Perceive Recursively
Posts: 7824
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:57 am
Contact:

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by PsychoSerenity » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:21 pm

[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by mistermack » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:38 pm

Greyice, who can say? I wouldn't accept that most people only fire a gun, if it's a serious threat. In my case, a gun wasn't needed, but I would have fired it when I was burgled. Probably into the wall to make a noise, at first, in the hope of scaring them off.
In the end, there's no way of knowing for sure which argument is right.
Other countries with tough gun laws have far fewer gun deaths. Whether there is a real route to that situation in the US is a matter of opinion.
I think there is, but I doubt that it will be tried.

One thing I know for a fact is that it's nicer living in a country that doesn't have all those guns. Fewer still would be nicer still.
.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
GreyICE
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:27 pm

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by GreyICE » Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:44 am

mistermack wrote:Greyice, who can say? I wouldn't accept that most people only fire a gun, if it's a serious threat. In my case, a gun wasn't needed, but I would have fired it when I was burgled. Probably into the wall to make a noise, at first, in the hope of scaring them off.
In the end, there's no way of knowing for sure which argument is right.
Other countries with tough gun laws have far fewer gun deaths. Whether there is a real route to that situation in the US is a matter of opinion.
I think there is, but I doubt that it will be tried.

One thing I know for a fact is that it's nicer living in a country that doesn't have all those guns. Fewer still would be nicer still.
.
It's not a matter of accepting or not accepting. The average person does not prematurely fire, and the statistics say that accidentally killing yourself with one is a tad more likely than being killed by lightning... but not too much.

Also, how can you factually say that any country without guns is nicer than any country with guns? I give you North Korea (no private guns) and Switzerland (rather the opposite).
Gallstones, I believe you know how to contact me. The rest of you? I could not possibly even care.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74223
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by JimC » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:09 am

There is a big difference between the ownership of rifles for recreational purposes (hunting and target shooting), and the ownership of handguns that are reasonably easy to carry and conceal. Plenty of rifles in Oz, particularly in the country, but very few handguns in private hands. Sure, some are used by criminals, but rarely in home invasion situations, usually in robbing banks (and even there, sawn off shotguns are the usual choice, it seems...) In the past, I owned and enjoyed shooting a few rifles...

I like our situation, personally, but I guess if you are already in a society with a lot of handguns around, the arguments get different...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by Trolldor » Sat Jan 08, 2011 12:30 pm

You're more likely to drown in a pool than be killed by a Gun in the US.

But, the high rate of Gun deaths in the US by comparison to other countries with widespread private gun ownership is primarily because those other countries have strict gun control. There are checks and balances in place.

The US likes to fart on itself, misinterpreting the second amendment thinking it applies to individual gun ownership.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by mistermack » Sat Jan 08, 2011 2:12 pm

Trolldor wrote:You're more likely to drown in a pool than be killed by a Gun in the US.

But, the high rate of Gun deaths in the US by comparison to other countries with widespread private gun ownership is primarily because those other countries have strict gun control. There are checks and balances in place.

The US likes to fart on itself, misinterpreting the second amendment thinking it applies to individual gun ownership.
Agreed. What the fuck is this worship of the constitution anyway? It's eerily similar to the worship of the bible, and every word in it.
The constitution is a device for tying the hands of the next generation. It might encourage stability, but it diminishes democracy.
.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by mistermack » Sat Jan 08, 2011 2:45 pm

GreyICE wrote:Also, how can you factually say that any country without guns is nicer than any country with guns? I give you North Korea (no private guns) and Switzerland (rather the opposite).
Anybody should be able to work out that I meant "in that respect".
Anyway, Switzerland is a shithouse, so bad example.
I like it that the three men that broke into my house weren't armed, or that you don't have to worry that some loony might pull out a gun. That's nicer.
.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
GreyICE
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:27 pm

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by GreyICE » Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 am

Okay, so if someone kills you with a knife, it's not for real? Do you just respawn like it's a video game?
Gallstones, I believe you know how to contact me. The rest of you? I could not possibly even care.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74223
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by JimC » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:01 am

GreyICE wrote:
Okay, so if someone kills you with a knife, it's not for real? Do you just respawn like it's a video game?
Knife crime is a serious issue, and is certainly a problem in my home town. However, handguns can kill more people, more quickly, at greater range; viz, Arizona recently...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Gun Control - Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Post by FBM » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:29 am

JimC wrote:
GreyICE wrote:
Okay, so if someone kills you with a knife, it's not for real? Do you just respawn like it's a video game?
Knife crime is a serious issue, and is certainly a problem in my home town. However, handguns can kill more people, more quickly, at greater range; viz, Arizona recently...
Including criminals. I'd rather shoot a criminal from 50 ft than grapple with him hand-to-hand. Or, if he were illegally armed (he's already a criminal, so...), I'd rather have the option of keeping him at a distance than letting him shoot me from 50 ft away. Like I said in the thread about the Arizona incident, I've used a handgun twice to prevent violent crimes against me and my brother. Didn't have to shoot. Just showed that I had one and was willing to use it.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests