The Second Amendment, Gun Control, and School Shootings.

[KimGordon67]

No you haven't, not in the least. My exercising of my right has absolutely zero effect on you or anyone else. As a matter of fact my exercising of that right doesn't even inconvenience anyone. I exact no cost on you or society as a whole.

You're willfully misunderstanding me. Because you're calling this a 'right', it's thus endowed upon everyone ... that creates a culture of high gun ownership, which is demonstrably less safe for everyone living in it that a culture of low gun ownership. You, and all the others exercising that 'right', DO exact a cost on society as a whole by making it less safe for everyone who lives in it.

How is this so difficult for you to grasp?

 

[bellisarius]

OK - I did a quick search - a lot of research isn't accessible outside education institutions. But this chart does demonstrates my point. (Sorry, I tried to embed the image, but still can't work out how to make that happen.)

You'll all freak about, because the data's not crystal clear, and you're obviously expecting a 1-to-1 equivalence, whereas I'm talking about statistical likelihoods. But if you focus, for example, on the states/countries with very low levels of gun ownership, they have very low homicide rates. It seems pretty clear that once you get over 25% of households having guns, there is an increased likelihood of a higher homicide rate. (Note - this does NOT mean that every state/country with a 25+% household gun ownership rates has more homicides, but rather that it's more LIKELY that they will.) Conversely, no place with a 20% or lower rates scores over 5ish on the homicide rate. I'll admit that I might not be reading this quite right, so if someone with more stats knowledge than me can do better [so NOT Coach] please do. However, even I can see a fairly clear (although not inevitable) correlation.

You have produced a correlation of no correlation. The chart shows as many exceptions to the point you're trying to make as it shows support. Obviously there is something else at work here.

 

[KimGordon67]

I think there is a toll. A mental anguish that says to Kim, I can never, ever visit the USA, I would be terrified the whole time that I was there that some sort of gun would jump out and get me because of the lack of common-sense self-defense regulations.



Just knowing that people own guns is an assault on her right to self-defense by government. I do not think she believes in the individual right to self-defense at this point, I believe she believes in the group rights of the tribe.

I can visit the US whenever I want to. I've been in the immediate vicinity of guns numerous times when I travel. You seem to be hell bent in lumping me in with some mythical group of people who find guns terrifying. I don't. I just work with statistical likelihoods. I'm statistically more likely to be killed in the US than here. But that's probably the case with every country I've travelled to.

It isn't knowing that people own guns that is related to my right to self defence - it's knowing that high levels of gun ownership are likely to increase homicide rates. You really aren't getting that, are you? Because it's easier to cast me as some gun phobic snowflake.

 

[KimGordon67]

You have produced a correlation of no correlation. The chart shows as many exceptions to the point you're trying to make as it shows support. Obviously there is something else at work here.

Correlations usually have exceptions. I explained all that in the original post - it's a correlation, relating to likelihoods, not a direct equivalence. If you can't see that the top 'line' of the cluster has a clear upward trajectory (i.e. a positive correlation), I can't really help you any further.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Argument by chart, that's the sign of high intellect.

What your chart shows is northing more than a pattern of domestic violence, one in which your country would involve kitchen knives or something similar. As I already pointed out, to focus on the gun is to ignore everything else that goes into a violent confrontation/domestic squabble writ large.

Your reliance upon statistics that you pick out over your ability to apply reason to the problem (because it is clearly such an emotional issue to you, it's like talking to the abortion-frist crowd) has been underscored from the very first answer to a very clear question, do you believe in the individual right to self-defense.

Answer: Yes, but ~~ caveats ~~

Most of the caveats, of course, were restrictions on the right to self defense meaning you don't think that it is an absolute individual right but more of a tribal compact, in this case, the compact to give up components of self-defense as a self-defense strategy.

 

[KimGordon67]

Argument by chart, that's the sign of high intellect.

What your chart shows is northing more than a pattern of domestic violence, one in which you country would involve kitchen knives or something similar. As I already pointed out, to focus on the gun is to ignore everything else that goes into a violent confrontation.

Your reliance upon statistics that you pick out over your ability to apply reason to the problem (because it is clearly such an emotional issue to you, it's like talking to the abortion-frist crowd) has been underscored from the very first answer to a very clear question, do you believe in the individual right to self-defense.

Answer: Yes, but ~~ caveats ~~

Most of the caveats, of course, were restrictions on the right to self defense meaning you don't think that it is an absolute individual right but more of a tribal compact, in this case, the compact to give up components of self-defense as a self-defense strategy.

OMG - you asked for evidence that gun ownership is correlated with homicide rates - I've given it to you, but now you're trying to say that the increased homicides could equally be done with kitchen knives. Even if we JUST discussed domestic violence, the presence of a gun in the household increases the likelihood that a DV incident will result in a homicide. "Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force." (source)

It's not an emotional issue - I am arguing with stats, not emotion. You're the one that keeps mobilising rhetoric rather than fact.

I neither understand nor care about what you're trying to say in relation to individual vs 'tribe'. I've said repeatedly that this is related to my risk, as an individual. You clearly can't understand that.

I give up. Even I'm bored with my constant repetition in an attempt to get you to understand the logic of my point. You're either willfully refusing to, or simply can't ... you're now effectively a dead horse, and I don't flog things that don't enjoy it.

 

[WoundedKnee]

You cannot see the forest for the tree.

You are not reading what I am saying, you are reacting from the same flawed position and no matter how it is presented to you as being fallacious, you keep circling around to the very same point. That point seems to be that guns are the source of gun violence.

The real point is not the tool, but the source of the violence which in all cases and all weapons human nature and human passions.

Blast from the past:

AJ: I live in an oak forest...

fs: AJ, I'm standing in front of this tree and it's clearly a walnut, you don't live in an oak forest.

AJ: A forest will have more than one type of tree, but one usually predominates.

fs: All I see is this fucking Walnut tree! You're misusing the term Oak. It's just a forest.

AJ: 90% of the trees are oak.

fs: Now, you're just redefining the terms... We can't go any further with this conversation until you admit that this is a walnut tree...

AJ: Yes firespin, it's a walnut tree.

fs: Then you lied, you're stupid, you're inconsistent, and you make NO sense what-so-ever...

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You cannot see the forest for the tree.

You are not reading what I am saying, you are reacting from the same flawed position and no matter how it is presented to you as being fallacious, you keep circling around to the very same point. That point seems to be that guns are the source of gun violence.

The real point is not the tool, but the source of the violence which in all cases and all weapons human nature and human passions.

Blast from the past:

Originally Posted by Frisco_Slug_Esq View Post
AJ: I live in an oak forest...

fs: AJ, I'm standing in front of this tree and it's clearly a walnut, you don't live in an oak forest.

AJ: A forest will have more than one type of tree, but one usually predominates.

fs: All I see is this fucking Walnut tree! You're misusing the term Oak. It's just a forest.

AJ: 90% of the trees are oak.

fs: Now, you're just redefining the terms... We can't go any further with this conversation until you admit that this is a walnut tree...

AJ: Yes firespin, it's a walnut tree.

fs: Then you lied, you're stupid, you're inconsistent, and you make NO sense what-so-ever...

For the record, Not AJ, is quoting AJ.

 

[bellisarius]

Correlations usually have exceptions. I explained all that in the original post - it's a correlation, relating to likelihoods, not a direct equivalence. If you can't see that the top 'line' of the cluster has a clear upward trajectory (i.e. a positive correlation), I can't really help you any further.

First of all a 26% 'exception' rate goes beyond mere exceptions. Secondly the chart is mixing apples and oranges. Homicide rate with firearm ownership. All homicides are NOT firearm related. Taking LA as an example to make a correlation between homicides and firearms you have to reduce the indicated homicide rate by 20%. Nationally you would have to reduce the number of homicides by firearms approx. 33%. The balance of those homicides are committed with something other than a firearm. Then you have to subtract out those homicides that are by legal definition only. For example, a felon shot by police in the commission of a crime is counted as a homicide. The felon is technically charged with bringing about his/her own death by engaging in the felony to begin with. In some states an individual that commits suicide is also technically charged with their own murder and reported as such. (How that is reported varies by state and local law.)*

*Data derived from the FBI's Unified Crime Report.

 

[WoundedKnee]

For the record: The clown car college is focused like a laser on A_J, miles, vette, hash, ann...,


Their big triumphs in life are such petty little things which gives great insight as to the "quality" of their lives.

 

[IG_88]

You're willfully misunderstanding me. Because you're calling this a 'right', it's thus endowed upon everyone ... that creates a culture of high gun ownership, which is demonstrably less safe for everyone living in it that a culture of low gun ownership. You, and all the others exercising that 'right', DO exact a cost on society as a whole by making it less safe for everyone who lives in it.

How is this so difficult for you to grasp?

So your argument is that gun ownership isn't a right?

 

[bestone4ever]

Told you so.



Bring on the clowns, bring on the clowns...

You keep saying that like you're not known as the biggest Bozo here, clown.

For the record: The clown car college is focused like a laser on A_J, miles, vette, hash, ann...,

Who?

You offer nothing for anyone with an above room temp IQ needs to digest and you're not entertaining enough to post so god damn much. You obviously have about 3 people here that you agree with and you either parrot what they have already said or you make a flippant remark that was born out of your own ignorance. The town jester at least has the decency to wear makeup and a funny hat, Bozo.

 

[bestone4ever]

So your argument is that gun ownership isn't a right?

She's not an American, so, yeah.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So your argument is that gun ownership isn't a right?

Yup....she's fully confident if a couple of big guys with knives or even guns of their own attack her she'll be able to kung-fu them off.

She's not an American, so, yeah.

Plenty of non-American's exercise their natural right to armament on a regular basis.......don't be so racist and sexist.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Argument by chart, that's the sign of high intellect.

Don't tell trysail that.

 

[cowslinger64]

Yup....she's fully confident if a couple of big guys with knives or even guns of their own attack her she'll be able to kung-fu them off.

She's probably not a big mouthed pussy like you are and doesn't face certain death every day living in a meth head ghetto.

Quit talking out your ass and get a real job so you can afford a better neighborhood.

 

[BotanyBoy]

She's probably not a big mouthed pussy like you are and doesn't face certain death every day living in a meth head ghetto.

I'm not the Chair Force guy living in Detroit buddy.....

Quit talking out your ass and get a real job so you can afford a better neighborhood.

You mean take a massive pay cut and be a union slave like you?

Not a chance bubba......

 

[cowslinger64]

I'm not the Chair Force guy living in Detroit buddy.....



You mean take a massive pay cut and be a union slave like you?

Not a chance bubba......

The guy living in Detroit not a pussy needing a gun? That guy?

Yeah right... Time to flip the burgers, boy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The guy living in Detroit not a pussy needing a gun? That guy?

Most violent shithole in the USA for the 2nd year in a row 2017~~!!

https://www.freep.com/story/news/2017/09/25/detroit-crime-violence/700443001/


And 2018 is looking good!!

Yeah right... Time to flip the burgers, boy.

You're the one who lives in the biggest shit hole in the country and works for other people.

Not me

 

[IG_88]

I've only been to Detroit a couple times and it was a couple decades ago. Wasn't bad then. Not great cuz it was still Detroit but you could be there and not worry much about being killed. Even saw a Lions game and survived.
Nowadays tho, no fuckin' way.

 

[KimGordon67]

First of all a 26% 'exception' rate goes beyond mere exceptions. Secondly the chart is mixing apples and oranges. Homicide rate with firearm ownership. All homicides are NOT firearm related. Taking LA as an example to make a correlation between homicides and firearms you have to reduce the indicated homicide rate by 20%. Nationally you would have to reduce the number of homicides by firearms approx. 33%. The balance of those homicides are committed with something other than a firearm. Then you have to subtract out those homicides that are by legal definition only. For example, a felon shot by police in the commission of a crime is counted as a homicide. The felon is technically charged with bringing about his/her own death by engaging in the felony to begin with. In some states an individual that commits suicide is also technically charged with their own murder and reported as such. (How that is reported varies by state and local law.)*

*Data derived from the FBI's Unified Crime Report.

The reason I use data that include all homicides is because that's the relevant variable. It's just stupid to say 'gun deaths increase as gun ownership increases - of course they do. If you just use gun deaths as the variable of interest, then clearly it's possible to say 'ah, but if they didn't have guns they'd use something else'. However, if ALL deaths rise as a result of gun ownership, then we can be relatively confident (the degree of confidence obviously varies with the strength of the correlation) that the increase is related to gun ownership.

Regarding the 'exceptions' - can you seriously not see the upwards trajectory (aka 'correlation') at the top of the chart. Seriously?

What you old dudes are obviously looking for is for me to produce a formula that says 'for x guns in a location, there are y deaths' that is consistent across all contexts. That's not how statistical likelihoods (or real life) usually work.

But if you're that worried about all the blah blah blah variables you've listed, show me some analysis that controls for all those things and proves your point.

 

[KimGordon67]

So your argument is that gun ownership isn't a right?

It's a right in the US because you've made it so. It's not a natural right. (We could revisit the argument about whether 'natural' rights actually exist or not, but that gets a bit complex.)

 

[IG_88]

It's a right in the US because you've made it so. It's not a natural right. (We could revisit the argument about whether 'natural' rights actually exist or not, but that gets a bit complex.)

According to US law it is a natural right. Theoretically that can be changed but it won't be. Incredibly unlikely that anything in the Bill of Rights will ever be changed without full-on revolution.

 

[KimGordon67]

For the record, Not AJ, is quoting AJ.

Is he still trying to say that he's not AJ?

 

[KimGordon67]

According to US law it is a natural right. Theoretically that can be changed but it won't be. Incredibly unlikely that anything in the Bill of Rights will ever be changed without full-on revolution.

The very notion of 'natural' rights rests on the understanding that the law can't create or dissolve them. So there's no point saying 'according to US law'. If you're going to argue for gun ownership being a natural right, you can't really bring the law into it. (Also note the US is pretty much the only place that says this ... begging the question that if it's so freaking 'natural', why don't we all have enshrined in law?)