|
NathanScottPhillips posted:You said you couldn't keep them safe at home. Why are they safer at another location with the same lock and safe but not at your house? The only variable is you and your family. They're safer because they're harder to access. How is that not obvious? SedanChair posted:Sheepish gun owners don't trust themselves not to flip out. They're under the impression that all gun owners have the impulses that would merit a lack of trust in oneself; they're mistaken however, it's just them. Yes, because accidents have never, ever occurred using guns.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:46 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Sheepish gun owners don't trust themselves not to flip out. They're under the impression that all gun owners have the impulses that would merit a lack of trust in oneself; they're mistaken however, it's just them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Statistics also show that guns have been used to stop mass shootings before they even started, a recent example was an Uber driver and another good example is the Burn a Koran day in Texas where two Islamic fundies tried to shoot the place up with a pair of AK47s, but were shot dead before they had the chance. This is not statistics. quote:Statistics also show that cities that have strong anti-gun laws also have some of the absolute worse crime and murder rates in the country, like Chicago for instance. This is not statistics. quote:Also gun sales are happening in record numbers, gun ownership is expanding in record numbers, and the reason we have videos of anti-gun politicians stuttering over technical gun terms and using emotional arguments is because all the statistics show gun deaths and injuries are dropping year by year. This does not support your claims of gun ownership increasing. Ownership isn't measure by guns/person. quote:Statistics show that guns are used to stop or prevent crimes 2.5 million times per year in the US. This link doesn't work, but based on the frontpage you should be ashamed to even consider linking it as a source. Finally, you have cited these sources: quote:Statistics show that the vast majority of violent crimes committed with guns involve black-market guns which regulations have no effect on. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/ pegs the number around 40%, far from a "vast majority" and their DOJ source seems far more reliable than a 99 person survey or "gunfacts.info"
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:They're safer because they're harder to access. How is that not obvious? Sources: http://www.crimedoctor.com/robbery1.htm https://books.google.com/books?id=p...%20home&f=false quote:Yes, because accidents have never, ever occurred using guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I really wish that was the end of it, but I know it won't be. Again: Even if we ignore all considerations about how it's easier to deploy a gun to attack someone, especially multiple targets, wounds with guns are deadlier than wounds with knives, more expensive to treat, and leave more grievous and lasting injuries. What kind of mean, nasty gun was it that stole your underage waifu, Tezzor? It's okay, you can tell us. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Still has a lock on a safe, they are under the same amount of protection? Maybe if he keeps it at a shooting range/storage containing whatever it's more likely to be stolen because businesses are more likely to be broken into that homes. The only businesses mentioned in these links are convenience stores and both of them list those as accounting for only around half as many as home robberies. Did you even bother to read these links, because they say the exact opposite of what you're claiming. If anything this only proves that you're more likely to have your gun stolen if you store it in your home. quote:Yes, because accidents have never, ever occurred using And which is why we take steps against those things happening. Like keeping your guns out of your home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Statistics also show that guns have been used to stop mass shootings before they even started, a recent example was an Uber driver and another good example is the Burn a Koran day in Texas where two Islamic fundies tried to shoot the place up with a pair of AK47s, but were shot dead before they had the chance.Nevvy Z posted:This is not statistics. http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/ Statistics also show that cities that have strong anti-gun laws also have some of the absolute worse crime and murder rates in the country, like Chicago for instance. quote:This is not statistics. http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf Also gun sales are happening in record numbers, gun ownership is expanding in record numbers, and the reason we have videos of anti-gun politicians stuttering over technical gun terms and using emotional arguments is because all the statistics show gun deaths and injuries are dropping year by year. quote:This does not support your claims of gun ownership increasing. Ownership isn't measure by guns/person. Statistics show that guns are used to stop or prevent crimes 2.5 million times per year in the US. quote:This link doesn't work, but based on the frontpage you should be ashamed to even consider linking it as a source. The 2.5 million number is pretty hard to back up, actually. Most people agree it's between 1 and 2 million defensive uses of guns per year in the US but this stat isn't something the FBI or DOJ tracks. Thanks for pointing this out for me I will not mention the 2.5 million number again. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html Statistics show that the vast majority of violent crimes committed with guns involve black-market guns which regulations have no effect on. quote:Finally, you have cited these sources: Secondly, it is illegal to sell someone a gun that you know won't pass a background check or who you think might use it in a crime, the 37% that obtained it from family and friends surely includes some overlap in this area.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
I feel like holding a "Burn a Koran Day" just so you can shoot people is kind of juking the statistics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:
Just gonna go ahead and let you know: Every one of these are awful and biased. John Lott? Really? A guy who cherry picks stats to make them fit his premise? quote:In response to the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used "Mary Rosh" as a sock puppet to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Mary Rosh persona.[63] Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself "the best professor I ever had". Controversial Times? Are you loving kidding me? Guncite.com? C'mon now... Do you have a SINGLE source that is not some paranoid nutjobs personal Self Defense and NRA talking point website that was generated in the late 1990s? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AGun_politics%2FArchive_4#guncite:_apparently_it_is_a_reliable_source CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The only businesses mentioned in these links are convenience stores and both of them list those as accounting for only around half as many as home robberies. Did you even bother to read these links, because they say the exact opposite of what you're claiming. If anything this only proves that you're more likely to have your gun stolen if you store it in your home. quote:And which is why we take steps against those things happening. Like keeping your guns out of your home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:What about banning anyone from drawing Mohammed? Why is that still legal? Why are cars legal? Please cite your sources. Cote my sources for what? Why are you so pissy that you were asked to back up your facts (which NevvyZ seems to have a pretty good handle on addressing atm)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Just gonna go ahead and let you know: Every one of these are awful and biased. John Lott? Really? A guy who cherry picks stats to make them fit his premise?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Cite your sources. Anonymous wikipedia authors arguing with each other is not a source. Neither is Guncite, so hey. That is their entire POINT. Its not a valid source. John Lott....do I even have to explain why he and his research are not valid sources? I mean, other than the fact that he is employed by a Conservative think tank, has been caught patting himself on the back from puppet accounts, and has been called out repeatedly by statisticians for publishing studies that no one but himself can replicate? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Cote my sources for what? Why are you so pissy that you were asked to back up your facts (which NevvyZ seems to have a pretty good handle on addressing atm)? SedanChair posted:I feel like holding a "Burn a Koran Day" just so you can shoot people is kind of juking the statistics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Edit- Haha this guy is now asking for cites for everything we say because he can't back up his "statistics".NathanScottPhillips posted:First of all, please post your citations to back up the claim that the study in question is more reliable than the 99 person survey Chicago did. This isn't the kind of thing you use statistics to prove. This is the kind of thing you use knowledge of statistics to show. It is entirely possible that the statistics pulled from the 99 people interviewed in a single city are more close to reality than a federal survey of prisons across many states, but it is overwhelmingly unlikely. But then you don't know jack poo poo about statistics do you? You just say statistics hoping no one will argue. 12 people stopping mass shootings in 20 years still isn't data, it's anecdotes. CommieGIR posted:Just gonna go ahead and let you know: Every one of these are awful and biased. John Lott? Really? A guy who cherry picks stats to make them fit his premise? He doesn't. edit quote:More CCW permits correlates with less violent crime and murders in those areas: This isn't what that PDF says at all. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Neither is Guncite, so hey. That is their entire POINT. Its not a valid source. I've also cited the FBI, DOJ and others. But those were conveniently forgotten a page ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
This months issue of the New Frontiersman says otherwise. Suck on those stats, bitch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:In your opinion. No, in pretty much everyone opinions. Just because people say something you agree with and share the same views as you does not suddenly validate them. But what are we even arguing with you for? The guy who whined that he got called out for making claims based on nothing than his own opinions? NathanScottPhillips posted:I've also cited the FBI, DOJ and others. But those were conveniently forgotten a page ago. Is your name John Lott? Because apparently you missed the part where you were openly called out for cherry picking and misreading studies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:For your claim that we limit rights to stop all possible people from dying. Considering that's not my claim, uh, no.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:In your opinion. As I said before, I'd cite Hitler if the quote was factual. Guncite over 10 years ago admitted to being fraudulent in a one-time study. If you have proof that the things I've said are not factual then you will have your own source to cite. You haven't actually used the FBI or DOJ to prove any claims you have made. Your best bet is never to try to make a factual claim ever again. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
meristem posted:Your post is highly inconsistent. You start with 'guns are good for self defense', and then move on to 'suspicion that others are moments away from deciding to kill me'. Why would you have a gun for self - defense if you did *not* think this? The safety of someone's partner and family is their business. If your partner feels that she doesn't want to live with a person who owns guns, she can either ask you to get rid of them, or she can break up with you. Either way, it's none of the state's business. With respect to children, having a child access your guns because you failed to secure them is already a crime in all the states I've lived in, and I'm fine with that. I don't see barring the sale or transfer of a thing to be meaningfully different than prohibiting it, even without confiscation, because the intent and long term effect is the same. If the state said, "No new private cars can be sold. Current owners may keep their cars until they wear out, but may not sell them, give them away, or buy used cars," it would be difficult to characterize that as anything other than an attempt to eliminate private car ownership. Also, what the hell is with you people and assuming that everyone is a ticking time bomb? I've lost my job before, I've been broken up with, people go through these stresses every day and somehow the vast majority manage to not go on a homicidal rampage each time. What adjudication criteria, precisely, would you have used to disqualify the San Bernadino shooter? Marrying a foreigner? Being too devout a Muslim? Visiting websites that the wrong people were on? (I'd remind you that this is the Something Awful Dot Com forums, so be careful how you answer that last one.) I think the current system works just fine to balance individual rights against common interest: if the government has any reason to believe that someone poses a danger to themselves others, they can take their case to a judge and get a court order. Your Dunkle Sans posted:Depicted: why it is absolutely mental to rely on concealed carry for a functional society. CommieGIR posted:Well guns were only used sparingly, I guess they get a pass VitalSigns posted:I think my neighbors are normal trustworthy people too, but I still think they ought to be checked out before they're allowed to buy 2,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:50
|
|
We'll just ignore all the other genocides where guns were utilized.
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Oh man, this is really not a thread you want to keep pulling on if you're trying to prove that guns are especially dangerous. Some of the most violent and thorough mass killings in history were perpetrated before the advent of smokeless powder. It's just that "genocide" didn't really exist as a concept back then, and the Mongols or Romans rolling through and wiping out your entire tribe to demonstrate the price of defiance was called "Thursday." Even into the 20th century, edged weapons show up disturbingly often in mass killings, but when you start looking at the actual casualty counts, starvation, exposure and disease account for a majority of deaths in things like the various Turkish campaigns or Stalinist purges, because those large swathes of people kill far more effectively than any sort of personal arms ever will. I really don't know how to take this seriously other than to just laugh at you attempting to say: "What, we killed people before guns, obviously guns are not making it any worse." Yeah. I really can't take this post seriously at all, because its incredibly disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Here are 12 times in the past 20 years: I like these examples because almost all of them would not be impacted at all by any proposed gun legislation, most of them could be handled better by better resource allocation, and when left with the 1 or 2 examples that might be impacted by anything up to a complete ban of firearms, you have to start asking yourself if it is possible such a ban would reduce total incidence mass shootings by more than 2 over the course of 20 years. It would be a great thing for the CDC to determine for proper action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Edit- Haha this guy is now asking for cites for everything we say because he can't back up his "statistics". quote:This isn't the kind of thing you use statistics to prove. This is the kind of thing you use knowledge of statistics to show. It is entirely possible that the statistics pulled from the 99 people interviewed in a single city are more close to reality than a federal survey of prisons across many states, but it is overwhelmingly unlikely. quote:But then you don't know jack poo poo about statistics do you? You just say statistics hoping no one will argue. 12 people stopping mass shootings in 20 years still isn't data, it's anecdotes. quote:He doesn't. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...de391_blog.html quote:The NRA then cites the research of economists John Lott and David Mustard. Lott wrote a book, first published in 1998 and now in its third edition, titled “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.” In the book, Lott used a massive data set of U.S. crime and socioeconomic statistics to argue that detailed analysis showed a link between rate of crime and right-to-carry laws in states and counties. Please tell me where I'm wrong about the correlation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:What kind of mean, nasty gun was it that stole your underage waifu, Tezzor? According to the sources I cited, gunshots are about 2-3 times deadlier than stabbings. According to the FBI, in 2012 the US had 12,765 murders and a murder rate of approximately 4.1. Of those murders, 8,855 were committed with firearms, or 69%. Therefore if the number of attacks did not go down if the attackers solely had knives (a shaky premise, but let's be generous) that would prevent 3900 to 5900 murders in the United States, for a murder rate of 2.8 to 2.2, a reduction of the murder rate of 32% to 46%. It's not just homicides. There were 41,149 suicides in 2013. Of this, firearms made up 51.5%. The rate of successful suicide by firearm is 85%; the overall rate is 9%; Removing firearms from that equation gives us a successful rate of all other methods of 3.9. 93% of people who survive a suicide attempt do not successfully re-attempt suicide. So if people did not have firearms that would cut the suicide rate by 50.5% to 6.44, or nearly 21,000 prevented deaths per year. Even if people who didn't have firearms all exclusively chose the next most lethal method (again, a shaky premise, but again we're being generous) that would still reduce the suicide rate by almost 10%, and save almost 4,000 lives. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I really don't know how to take this seriously other than to just laugh at you attempting to say: "What, we killed people before guns, obviously guns are not making it any worse."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You haven't actually used the FBI or DOJ to prove any claims you have made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Correlation does not equal causation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So you've gone from arguing that the Rwandan genocide was committed primarily with guns (nope) to saying that it doesn't matter that you were wrong because of all the other (unnamed) genocides carried out with guns (nope), to just "nuh-uh." Maybe you should stick to what you know next time. "Bu....bu...but the Vikings killed people with swords, therefore guns are not the issue despite the fact that we're not talking about roving armies slaughtering villagers"  Or "If only the Rwandan's had been empowered like we are with the 2nd Amendment, the Rwandan Genocide would've never happened." Pick your poison. Either way, I'm still laughing over your appeals to the slaughter in medieval conquests counting as evidence that firearms regulations are a fools errand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Statistics also show that guns have been used to stop mass shootings before they even started, a recent example was an Uber driver and another good example is the Burn a Koran day in Texas where two Islamic fundies tried to shoot the place up with a pair of AK47s, but were shot dead before they had the chance. By an off-duty police officer while the civilians inside -racist right wing Texans - cowered.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Show a little dignity and let it go. You were wrong, that's OK.MariusLecter posted:Correlation does not equal causation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Yes I did. They were those proclamations I made in bold a page or two back that were not included in your selective quoting. I assumed that you had conceded those points of mine but if not please quote and argue against them. No, you really didn't. At this point it's pretty obvious you know dick all about statistics or how to use them though. You cited the fbi twice and the only thing either page you cited says about firearms is "formation collected regarding types of weapons used in violent crime showed that firearms were used in 67.9 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.3 percent of robberies, and 22.5 percent of aggravated assaults."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, in pretty much everyone opinions. Just because people say something you agree with and share the same views as you does not suddenly validate them. quote:Is your name John Lott? Because apparently you missed the part where you were openly called out for cherry picking and misreading studies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:By an off-duty police officer while the civilians inside -racist right wing Texans - cowered.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Statistics also show that guns have been used to stop mass shootings before they even started, a recent example was an Uber driver and another good example is the Burn a Koran day in Texas where two Islamic fundies tried to shoot the place up with a pair of AK47s, but were shot dead before they had the chance. It wasn't Burn a Koran day. It was a Draw a Mohammed Comic day run by a raving, hateful lunatic who was salivating with delight at this exact thing happening so she could prove how evil Muslims are. Dead Reckoning posted:Show a little dignity and let it go. You were wrong, that's OK. No no, I want you to tell me how the 2nd Amendment could've saved Helen of Troy and the sacking of Troy and how swords are proof that gun regulation is a fools errand because the Greeks will show up and wreck our poo poo anyways. NathanScottPhillips posted:Good thing Texas has carry laws so he could be armed while off-the-job! He could do that before you half-wit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:No, you really didn't. At this point it's pretty obvious you know dick all about statistics or how to use them though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Again, I've used multiple sources for each claim I've made, and I've made about 9 or 10 specific claims. I'm batting close to 70% based on callouts, not bad. I conceded a few points already but the others still stand. You have not responded to my criticisms of your posts in full. I have quoted and responded to every challenge you have given me. You aren't batting anything. You use bad sources and your claims are false. I didn't miss anything. You haven't shown any connection between that and guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:And you missed the part where violent crimes were trending downwards for decades. Remember that Correlation =/= Causation thing? Yup.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Correlation does not equal causation. Nevvy Z posted:You aren't batting anything. You use bad sources and your claims are false. CommieGIR posted:Remember that Correlation =/= Causation thing? Yup. More guns does not equal more violent crime or more death. Glad we all agree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:46 |
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Good one. I was sure to make that distinction. I was countering the argument that more guns = more dangerous and that's clearly not true. And then you cited John Lott and threw all doubt about your capability of making that distinction whatsoever out the window.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 22:09
|
|