The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun

[waldo]

Another meth binge waldo?

c'mon... you can do better! More drywall... more burying actual discussion! More of your dancing bull**** please!

 

[Colpy]

So without getting heated about this (lol), can I get a summation of the general criticisms?


Here is what I gather so far...


1.) Poor/no sources
2.) Bad interpretation of the data (causality argument)
3.) Contradictory evidence


Is this good so far?


I would like to take the time to get through this properly, so let's forget the loaded terminology for now (myth, liberal, left/right, scam/scum, CAPS, etc.)

Here is the problem:

These guys have not said "Let's study and do a cost/benefit calculation on gun ownership" If they had, they would compare deaths in high gun owning areas due to accident/suicide/homicide with areas of low gun ownership.

But these guys have an agenda, and any calculation on the above would show an insignificant cost and increased benefit, so they have to narrow the parameters to include only "firearms deaths". This completely ignores the fact that murders are done with a myriad of weapons, and restricting the study to "guns only" ignores the fact that the murder done by gun may well have happened anyway, so the presence of the firearms is irrelevant.

This goes even more so by suicide. Gun control lessens suicide by gun, yes. Isn't that obvious? But there is no way to prove that the absence of a gun would have prevented a suicide. By restricting the study to guns only, you pervert the data. Indeed, the entire misleading aspect of the study is rooted in suicide........more guns, many many more deaths by gun suicide......yet the suicide rate remains practically identical in Canada and the USA.

And, on a personal note, it outrages me that these control freaks want to restrict my freedom because some idiot voluntarily sticks a gun in his mouth and tries to pull the trigger twice. Ever hear of personal responsibility for your actions?

And oh, how I bet that the same people support assisted suicide done by the state........

sorry Colpy... your latest post must be buried... by drywall references from those who would prefer to disrespect the forum, the membership... and your post. Subject related information has no place in this thread... within this forum. Only drywall and dancing is allowed! Dance petros, dance! More drywall... please!

Post number 19.

 

[mentalfloss]

I think the problem here is that clearly there is not enough good research into the matter.


The question of whether gun control policies increase, decrease or have no effect on rates of gun violence turns out to be a difficult question. While a variety of disparate data sources on rates of firearm-related injuries and deaths, firearms markets, and the relationships between rates of gun ownership and violence exist, research into the efficacy of various gun controls has been largely inadequate. A 2004 National Research Council critical review found that while some strong conclusions are warranted from current research, the state of our knowledge is generally poor.[24] Despite the potential for improved research design, the National Research Council review concludes that the gaps in our knowledge on the efficacy of gun control policies are due primarily to inadequate data and not to weak research methods. The result of the scarcity of relevant data is that gun control is one of the most fraught topics in American politics[25] and scholars remain deadlocked on a variety of issues.[25]

Gun control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[captain morgan]

Here is the problem:

These guys have not said "Let's study and do a cost/benefit calculation on gun ownership" If they had, they would compare deaths in high gun owning areas due to accident/suicide/homicide with areas of low gun ownership.

But these guys have an agenda, and any calculation on the above would show an insignificant cost and increased benefit, so they have to narrow the parameters to include only "firearms deaths". This completely ignores the fact that murders are done with a myriad of weapons, and restricting the study to "guns only" ignores the fact that the murder done by gun may well have happened anyway, so the presence of the firearms is irrelevant.

This goes even more so by suicide. Gun control lessens suicide by gun, yes. Isn't that obvious? But there is no way to prove that the absence of a gun would have prevented a suicide. By restricting the study to guns only, you pervert the data. Indeed, the entire misleading aspect of the study is rooted in suicide........more guns, many many more deaths by gun suicide......yet the suicide rate remains practically identical in Canada and the USA.

And, on a personal note, it outrages me that these control freaks want to restrict my freedom because some idiot voluntarily sticks a gun in his mouth and tries to pull the trigger twice. Ever hear of personal responsibility for your actions?

And oh, how I bet that the same people support assisted suicide done by the state........

Well said

 

[mentalfloss]

Not sure if I agree.

It looks like Colpy is just upset and there is very little in the way of convincing evidence to substantiate the claim that we are safer because of guns.


There must be some reason why gun violence is going up, while most other crime is going down.

 

[captain morgan]

I see Colpy's comments as well thought out and seeks to understand the entire spectrum of violent acts committed with all manner of weapons, etc.

I did not read the particulars on the study parameters, however, from what I read, it appeared to analyse only gun related violence/death without a comparison to all violent events.

Further, gun-involved events that include accidental death, suicide, etc would simply skew the results to promote a preconceived ends (if there was an agenda that is).

To me, what Colpy posted are strong and reasonable questions. If the authors of the study are confident in their metrics, this should not be any problem in addressing this form of questioning

 

[waldo]

The is easily disproven. In fact, it is a blatant lie.
.
,
,

Oh, and if guns cause suicide, why are the US and Canadian suicide rates identical?​

​

Indeed, the entire misleading aspect of the study is rooted in suicide........more guns, many many more deaths by gun suicide......yet the suicide rate remains practically identical in Canada and the USA.

huh! You say the Canadian and U.S. rates of suicide are "identical..... practically identical"??? From the relatively recent World Health Organization study on suicide: Canada's rates are down from 2000-to-2012... the U.S. rates are significantly UP! How is that "identical... practically identical"? You were so sure/certain in your words... liberally throwing around "scum, agenda, misleading, etc." labeling. Oh my!

I'd indulge you further but I expect drywall and dancing will soon bury this post... the clubhouseBROs don't allow for dissenting opinion.

 

[Cliffy]

They killed all the injuns?

As if you didn't know:

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here) ​

"Article II: [FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono] [/FONT]In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
​

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Guns don't kill people.. Global Warming kills people

Guns cause global warming.

And lefties are weird. They support the right to suicide for medical reasons, but not for psychological reasons. And they support suicide by drugs, but not by firearm.

If you support the right to suicide, what the f*ck difference does the means make?

 

[petros]

As if you didn't know:

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here) ​

"Article II: [FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono] [/FONT]In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
​

All injuns from the east coast to the plains were wiped out but they gave up after chasing the worst of the worst into Canada?

 

[Colpy]

​

huh! You say the Canadian and U.S. rates of suicide are "identical..... practically identical"??? From the relatively recent World Health Organization study on suicide: Canada's rates are down from 2000-to-2012... the U.S. rates are significantly UP! How is that "identical... practically identical"? You were so sure/certain in your words... liberally throwing around "scum, agenda, misleading, etc." labeling. Oh my!

I'd indulge you further but I expect drywall and dancing will soon bury this post... the clubhouseBROs don't allow for dissenting opinion.

Thank you Waldo, I stand corrected. If you look at the rates back in 2000, ours were higher..........I was working from old figures from a few years ago.

Odd. I wonder why things flipped so radically?

I will have to stop claiming our rates are the same.......

But, I do not believe it has a damned thing to do with guns, as we had a higher rate than the USA only 15 years ago..................I honestly don't get it.

And my other protest stands.....why should one's rights be restricted because of the completely voluntary self-harm another person does?

Not sure if I agree.

It looks like Colpy is just upset and there is very little in the way of convincing evidence to substantiate the claim that we are safer because of guns.


There must be some reason why gun violence is going up, while most other crime is going down.

Yeah, there is evidence that law abiding people are safer if they keep arms.

Here is a reasonably balanced look at the issue of armed self-defense.

Gun control 101: Do Americans often use firearms in self-defense? - CSMonitor.com

Links to definitive research, including that done by Kleck.

I think the problem here is that clearly there is not enough good research into the matter.


The question of whether gun control policies increase, decrease or have no effect on rates of gun violence turns out to be a difficult question. While a variety of disparate data sources on rates of firearm-related injuries and deaths, firearms markets, and the relationships between rates of gun ownership and violence exist, research into the efficacy of various gun controls has been largely inadequate. A 2004 National Research Council critical review found that while some strong conclusions are warranted from current research, the state of our knowledge is generally poor.[24] Despite the potential for improved research design, the National Research Council review concludes that the gaps in our knowledge on the efficacy of gun control policies are due primarily to inadequate data and not to weak research methods. The result of the scarcity of relevant data is that gun control is one of the most fraught topics in American politics[25] and scholars remain deadlocked on a variety of issues.[25]

Gun control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is an excellent precis of the situation.

 

[Cliffy]

All injuns from the east coast to the plains were wiped out but they gave up after chasing the worst of the worst into Canada?

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Both Canada and the US are engaged in this genocide even today: Disproportionate Indigenous population in prisons and the removal of children from families and put in the care of non-indigenous families. I won't go into the rest because obviously you and the other pro rapers and pillagers of the Earth are not going to listen.

 

[Colpy]

I usually resort to the big picture to make my point: \

Countries by civilian gun ownership:

Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Countries by homicide rate:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look carefully. Any correlation?

Well, not much of one, and if there is one at all, it is a negative one.

More guns, less murder.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Both Canada and the US are engaged in this genocide even today: Disproportionate Indigenous population in prisons and the removal of children from families and put in the care of non-indigenous families. I won't go into the rest because obviously you and the other pro rapers and pillagers of the Earth are not going to listen.

Tell you what:

If the Indians quit killing each other at fantastic rates, as well as getting involved in every other crime at terrific rates, then they would not be over-represented in prison, would they?

You know, better to let violent criminals out so their race is not over-represented in prison, judgement on the basis of race is necessary......and better to let a kid live with abusive alcoholic psychotic Indian parents than give them a good life with whites...

Who is racist?

Find a mirror.

 

[EagleSmack]

Bad guy with gun myth.

 

[Serryah]

And my other protest stands.....why should one's rights be restricted...

Okay, here's a question I've never seen answered anywhere:

Why is gun ownership considered a "right"? Wouldn't it be more of a privilege?

 

[petros]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Both Canada and the US are engaged in this genocide even today: Disproportionate Indigenous population in prisons and the removal of children from families and put in the care of non-indigenous families. I won't go into the rest because obviously you and the other pro rapers and pillagers of the Earth are not going to listen.

Ohhhh f-ckin' whitie isn't done yet or did we set up the opportunity for the same thugs that ran tribes for millennia to take the reigns again?

The new corrupt c(t)hiefs are our puppets and they are coming for your women!

Okay, here's a question I've never seen answered anywhere:

Why is gun ownership considered a "right"? Wouldn't it be more of a privilege?

It is a right and a privilege. Rights have obligations that need to be upheld to access the privilege.

 

[Colpy]

Okay, here's a question I've never seen answered anywhere:

Why is gun ownership considered a "right"? Wouldn't it be more of a privilege?

Oh Boy! Quick history lesson......off the top of my head.

In Anglo-Saxon society, the common man was considered part of the common defense, and it was considered part of his right as a free man to keep and carry weapons.

When the Normans invaded England in 1066, they were shocked at the fact of an armed society, as in theirs, only men at arms kept weapons. They rapidly imposed their views on the conquered people..........but they were few, and as the Anglo-Saxon and Norman gentry slowly fused into one, as Briton society absorbed the invaders.

When the gentry began to rebel against a bad King (John) one of the assurances they sought was the right of the gentry to keep arms.
So only the gentry retained that right, but every peasant rebellion claimed as one of its grievances the exclusion of the common free man, as was the Anglo-Saxon tradition........and as fuedalism faded the right of the free man to keep arms gained a new foothold..........until the onset of the decades of the English Civil War, when the people were often disarmed by either side.

Finally, after decades of strife, the Parliament invited William and Mary to take the throne, on the condition that they sign the English Bill of Rights, which listed grievances and guaranteed rights to all Britons or English citizens.

It reads, in part:

..............And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

................That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

.
Of course, all rights reserved to Protestants were extended to all by subsequent legislation.

In the American Revolution, the first battle, the fight that sparked the armed conflict, was when the British sent soldiers into the countryside to seize arms in violation of the peoples' right. Subsequently, the US Bill of Rights states the right in much more definitive terms:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Remember, the people are the militia, and the militia are the people.

So, in Canada, we have a right to keep arms for our defense, but that right is limited by an allowance for reasonable restrictions.....but it is still our right, denied these last few decades as a right.

In the USA, the right "shall not be infringed" which leaves very little room for control...

 

[DaSleeper]

Petros would you please quote me, otherwise, Waldo will never acknowledge that Colpy conceded a point.....
Something Waldo has never done and would never think of doing....

I screwed-up my quote on purpose so he could see my whole post once you quote me

 

[petros]

Petros would you please quote me, otherwise, Waldo will never acknowledge that Colpy conceded a point.....
Something Waldo has never done and would never think of doing....

I screwed-up my quote on purpose so he could see my whole post once you quote me

Cheers!

Oh Boy! Quick history lesson......off the top of my head.

In Anglo-Saxon society, the common man was considered part of the common defense, and it was considered part of his right as a free man to keep and carry weapons.

When the Normans invaded England in 1066, they were shocked at the fact of an armed society, as in theirs, only men at arms kept weapons. They rapidly imposed their views on the conquered people..........but they were few, and as the Anglo-Saxon and Norman gentry slowly fused into one, as Briton society absorbed the invaders.

When the gentry began to rebel against a bad King (John) one of the assurances they sought was the right of the gentry to keep arms.
So only the gentry retained that right, but every peasant rebellion claimed as one of its grievances the exclusion of the common free man, as was the Anglo-Saxon tradition........and as fuedalism faded the right of the free man to keep arms gained a new foothold..........until the onset of the decades of the English Civil War, when the people were often disarmed by either side.

Finally, after decades of strife, the Parliament invited William and Mary to take the throne, on the condition that they sign the English Bill of Rights, which listed grievances and guaranteed rights to all Britons or English citizens.

It reads, in part:

.
Of course, all rights reserved to Protestants were extended to all by subsequent legislation.

In the American Revolution, the first battle, the fight that sparked the armed conflict, was when the British sent soldiers into the countryside to seize arms in violation of the peoples' right. Subsequently, the US Bill of Rights states the right in much more definitive terms:



Remember, the people are the militia, and the militia are the people.

So, in Canada, we have a right to keep arms for our defense, but that right is limited by an allowance for reasonable restrictions.....but it is still our right, denied these last few decades as a right.

In the USA, the right "shall not be infringed" which leaves very little room for control...

Kantianism aka deontological ethics.

 

[DaSleeper]

Cheers!



Kantianism aka deontological ethics.

Now, I had to look that one up .....lol