
GW Hayduke
-
Posts
1704 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by GW Hayduke
-
-
12 minutes ago, JBJ said:
Mentioning reverse-causation is not the same as accounting for it. It should be a quantifiable variable contributing to the conclusion. Instead, it is specifically mentioned as an important limitation of the study. One that is shown in other studies to completely change conclusions.
Along with the general affect that more violent neighborhoods will have more guns, it really affects their results in these manners:
(1) they didn't account for homicides where the homeowner killed an assailant (which is crucial to a study of whether guns make you safer or not). Although they do mention that in only 5% of unsuccessful self-defense attempts the victim had a gun. You need to know the successful attempts to make any determination. This is enough to dismiss the paper entirely.
(2) They didn't account for justifiable homicides between residents even though it was a variable in their study. They didn't dismiss it either, they just chose to focus on homicides instead of criminal homicides. What is safer for a victim of a crime is not safer for the perpetrator. It's an important distinction. It doesn't dismiss the results, but it skews it. Of course you are not safer if you are attacking your roommate and he has a gun. Your roommate certainly is though. The paper is forced to conclude that you both aren't because they didn't bother to make the distinction.
"The general affect that more violent neighborhoods will have more guns." Neighborhoods were controlled in the study.
1) "They didn't account for homicides where the homeowner killed an assailant." They didn't count the killed assailant as a homicide - since they were focused on risks/protective affects of the victim/homeowner. Why count the assailant as a homicide when you are measuring effects to the homeowner? "This is enough to dismiss the paper entirely." whoa hold up your horses! Don't take offense to this, but the study is rather important and this was one of the main reasons that CDC funding for work like this was attacked and shut down.
2) There weren't differentiating "justifiable" homicides. How is that important when understanding the risk/protection effects to victims? Help me understand.
-
31 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
Misleading "science" is thrown from both sides of the isle. But application numbers are not one of them. Nor is there a need to peer review a binary issue. No more than they peer review the number of drivers licenses issued or marriage licenses. State's either issue them or they don't. I can also tell you Politifact and hyper-partisan WaPo cite the numbers.
Further, there is no correlation. That is your point, and it doesn't hold up. Yes, crime levels have been declining slightly - your own posts even validate this. They are not precipitous drops, but they are trending lower while state and federal applications levels are skyrocketing along with gun sales. Further, if you isolate for select regions of the country, the levels drop off the map.Example - Jeff Asher (New Orleans based crime analyst. Feel free to attack him) concluded that .75% of the cities population accounted for more than a quarter of all gun related crimes. In Chicago, Andrew Papachristos found than 70% of the cities gun-shot victims were from less than 6% of the population.Nationwide, a grand total of 1,200 census tracts containing 1.5% of the total population account for more than a quarter of all instances nationwide.Translation: gang-related crimes.Take those away and the US has levels close to Europe. Now these weapons utilized in these crimes. Take a wild guess. Do yo think the majority were obtained legally? How many do you think were committed by CCW carriers?Harvard's Thomas Abt and Chris Winship thus suggested concentrated policing of these hot-spots reduced crime by over a 3rd. See the previous NY "broken window" policy. And even this only works with the before mentioned actions of background checks, vetting, and GRVO's, and even red flagging stalking convictions who try to purchase guns.I understand you feel there isn’t a correlation. You describe a lot of different things. Do you care to provide a source for anything?
Information I shared earlier to shed light on the question.
Peer-reviewed article in the American Journal of Public Health: "We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
Peer-reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine: "The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."
-
15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
This is flat wrong, and the point you keep trying to hammer home despite a glaring an obvious flaw in the polling methods. Nor does it correlate with spiking gun sales and CCW application numbers nationwide.
It's anecdotal, but how about a real-world example. I know dozens and dozens of gun owners. When I compete, I meet hundreds. At certain classes, shows, and competitions, there can be thousands over the course of 3 days. These "polls" are a recurring joke. NOBODY answers them. Nobody. They laugh at them. "Guns, what guns...fell in the lake. Sorry".You can directly track the response rates to when this topic really became politicized. To ignore these trends is laughable.I’ll correct my statement: No one, other than pro-gun websites or pro-gun researchers (i.e., Lott), is under the belief that gun ownership is trending up.
-
2 minutes ago, bernorange said:
Still waiting for you to validate your attempt to discredit ammoland.com by showing where their reporting on NICS numbers were wrong.
Hint (and this goes to the heart of my reading comprehension comment): Arguing the merits of NICS numbers vis a vis gun ownership does not validate your ad hominem.
And here is the rub. Just because you don't agree with my evaluation and evidence concerning ownership (which was addressing your position and ammoland evidence) does not mean that the result is ad hominem. The result is that we disagree on the issue of firearm ownership trends. It is ok to disagree. This happens from time to time. A disagreement doesn't mean a logical fallacy occurred. Your position is that ammoland.com and there use of NICS information is evidence to support a position that ownership of firearms is increasing. My position is that "I’m not sure the relevance of “gun sales in recent years.” The issue is ownership trends. The issue of gun ownership in the US has been tracked by two surveys and they both do not agree. One source shows that rates of gun ownership have stayed the same since the 70s, while the second source shows a stark decline in ownership since the 70s. No one is under the belief that gun ownership rates are trending up." We have competing positions with competing evidence. A mature conversation would conclude by agreeing to disagree.
-
15 minutes ago, JBJ said:
Polls are believed to be a stronger measure of gun prevalence than sales or license applications, for what that is worth.
Any study that doesn't adjust for reverse-causation you can immediately reject as junk (and this is the majority of studies). Increased violent crime leading to increased gun ownership is consistently shown (when accounted for that is), and not the reverse.
Yes, polls/surveys are relied upon concerning ownership.
I'll argue that a study that establishes a correlation isn't junk, it's just a study that establishes correlation. Obviously correlation and causation are different. As you have probably noticed, there appears to be folks here that seem to be arguing against a correlation (i.e., firearms ownership going up while violence is going down.)
Reverse-causation is real. The NEJM article linked earlier that found, "Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance." Aaddressed reverse-causation with...
"It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide -- i.e., in a limited number of cases, people may have acquired a gun in response to a specific threat. If the source of that threat subsequently caused the homicide, the link between guns in the home and homicide may be due at least in part to the failure of these weapons to provide adequate protection from the assailants."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
Ideally, the CDC will again start exploring these firearm-related questions by continuing research. These are important questions.
-
1 minute ago, bernorange said:
You really do have an issue with reading comprehension.
Gotcha.
For clarity on how to debate honestly when it comes to ad hominem. Ad hominem is the tactic of NOT addressing an argument BUT RATHER simply attacking the source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
It is completely acceptable to note the bias and strength of a source/evidence/position (Your honor, the eyewitness is legally blind!). However, you must also address the source/position/evidence (Your honor, the defendant was in another city at the time of the crime). This is basic A, B, and C of debate. Objection, Ad Hominem!! lol
-
2 minutes ago, bernorange said:
Quote something I wrote and ask for clarification if it was unclear. Don't put words in my mouth and then ask me to rewrite them for you.
I quoted ammoland as a supporting reference for my statement on increasing amount of NICS requests. It's a "hard fact". You attacked ammoland and accused it of promulgating fake science. I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence that ammoland was incorrect in their reporting on NICS requests. It's fine if you want to argue the interpretation of what the NICS requests mean, but it's dishonest to leave your ad hominem out there or otherwise recognize that your attempt to discredit them and the NICS data was complete bullshit.
Seriously, attempting discourse with you is akin to taking crazy pills.
Hard Facts are the Best Facts!!!
Sure. Ammoland is a pro-gun website. There is a tremendous amount of fake and misleading science being pushed by the pro-gun side. I addressed your source a long time ago. See below pasted again, again, again.
"Finally, concerning your ammoland website source, I’m not sure the relevance of “gun sales in recent years.” The issue is ownership trends. The issue of gun ownership in the US has been tracked by two surveys and they both do not agree. One source shows that rates of gun ownership have stayed the same since the 70s, while the second source shows a stark decline in ownership since the 70s. No one is under the belief that gun ownership rates are trending up. The section “Gun Ownership” on the below Wikipedia page does a good job explaining the issue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States"
-
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:
I don't think that's really an ad hominem argument. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize a person for their studies not being peer reviewed or even respected in that world.
I'm beginning to see a pattern within the gun debate. Any criticism of a source is Ad hOmiNEm!!!!
-
9 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
Annnnnnnnd, there’s the ad hominem attack on the source. No, you definitely have no agenda. None at all. You could set your watch to it. These are State and Federal applications. Not Costco memberships. They can be sourced from any number of publications.
Annnnnnnnd, I conceded the source for the sake of argument. Industry misleading science is a real thing. In case you didn't read my comment. See below.
"Lets go ahead and concede for the sake of argument that "ownership of firearms is directly linked to CC permits" (ignoring the tenuous if any link between CC permits and ownership rates and ignoring all surveys). How are you going to deal with the lack of a decline in firearm violence and with the established correlation between between levels of violence and levels of firearms? "
-
6 minutes ago, bernorange said:
You've already admitted that the rate of firearm violence has been declining for years. Is this (the quoted bit) fake news, willful disinformation or just trolling?
Let me clarify that for you. I accurately described your logical fallacies and you deflected. You are requesting me to respond to your strawman rather than just asking me to clarify what of the things I actually wrote were, as you declared, "jumbled, unclear" or "seemingly random". You are the one who is not engaging honestly.
I did ask you to clarify your position four times. I understand your approach is too not establish a position but rather falsely accuse of strawmen.
I did address your ammoland.com source. I understand your approach is to not strengthen your evidence or address counter evidence but rather to falsely accuse of ad hominem.
My recommendation is that you ponder why you are having to resort to these approaches.
-
19 minutes ago, bernorange said:
lulz. Your reading comprehension and issue partisanship isn't my responsibility.
I've posted a lot of material in this thread relating to several facets that are worth pursuing to reduce mass shootings (and school shootings in particular). None of it got any play. Folks in this thread are only interested in pushing a single agenda and it's quite tiresome.
Ok. The last we heard from you - you were falsely accusing me of ad hominem and strawmen. I've asked you three times to establish your position. Below is a fourth time. At least babyyaga is engaging on honest terms.
I understand this to be your position. "Homicide and gun related crimes are declining while ownership rates are peaking." I understand that seems to be your central pieces of evidence, which then leads to the position that the availability of firearms in a population is not correlated to violence. Please confirm.
-
11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
Study referenced from CPRC. This isn’t hard. Single largest increase ever.
Proceed with your source attacks rather than referencing the results
During President Obama’s administration, the number of concealed handgun permits soared to over 16.36 million – a 256% increase since 2007. Unlike surveys that may be affected by people’s unwillingness to answer some personal questions, concealed handgun permit data is the only really “hard data” that we have on gun ownership across the United States.
- Last year, the number of permit holders grew by a record 1.83 million. This is more than the previous record increase of 1.73 million, set just the year before. Each of the last four years that we have been recording this data has set a new record. Despite expectations that permits were primarily driven by fears of Democratic presidencies, the growth in permits has continued at a similar pace after the November 2016 election.
- 6.53% of American adults have permits. Outside the restrictive states of California and New York, about 8% of the adult population has a permit.
- In eleven states, more than 10% of adults have permits. Alabama has the highest rate — 20%. Indiana is second with 15.8%.
- There are four counties in Pennsylvania that have between 30% and 50% of their adult populations with concealed handgun permits: Potter (50.3%), McKean (34.6%), Warren (34.6%), Cameron (31.3%), and Armstrong (30.1%).
- Florida, Pennsylvania, and Texas each have over 1.2 million residents who are active permit holders.
- Another 14 states have adopted constitutional carry in all or virtually all of their state, meaning that a permit is no longer required. Some people in these states still choose to obtain permits so that they can carry in other states that have reciprocity agreements with their states. However, because of these constitutional carry states, the nationwide growth in permits does not paint a full picture of the overall increase in concealed carry.
- In 2016, women made up 36% of permit holders in the 14 states that provide data by gender. Eight states had data from 2012 to 2016 and they saw a 326% faster increase in permits among women than among men.
- From 2012 to 2016, in the five states that provide data by race over that time period, the number of black people with permits increased 30% faster than the number of whites with permits. Asians appear to be the group that has experienced the largest increase in permitted concealed carry.
- Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at one-sixth of the rate at which police officers are convicted. . . .
Hmmmm..... The Crime Prevention Research Center? I understand why you were hesitant to share your source. I get that Lott thinks the CC information is "hard data" on ownership in the US. "Hard data" is the best data!
There is a reason why none of Lott's studies are peer reviewed or published in reputable journals. The oil and tobacco industry are other industries that pushed misleading and fake science.
"The Crime Prevention Research Center is a nonprofit founded in 2013 by John Lott, author of the book “More Guns, Less Crime.” He is best known as an advocate in the gun rights debate, particularly his arguments against restrictions on owning and carrying guns. Lott’s work has been called “junk science” as he has been accused of accepting funding from the National Rifle Association. Lott denies this claim."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/crime-prevention-research-center/
Lets go ahead and concede for the sake of argument that "ownership of firearms is directly linked to CC permits" (ignoring the tenuous if any link between CC permits and ownership rates and ignoring all surveys). How are you going to deal with the lack of a decline in firearm violence and with the established correlation between between levels of violence and levels of firearms?
-
19 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:Now layer these dates with the polling dates for ownership rates and the decline in participation and you just might see something. Fewer and fewer people are openly admitting they have a gun in their house. Yet gun sales are in the tens of millions, and CCW rates have gone up by more than 500%. Maybe, just maybe, you are missing something....something that conveniently challenges the point you are desperately trying to shoot down: that homicide and gun related crimes are declining while ownership rates are peaking.
- Between '99 and '07 - CCW applications rose slowly from 2.7M to 4.6M
- Between '08 and '11 they rose to 8M
- Between '12 and '13 they rose to 11.1M
- Then in 2016 it hit 14.5M
- And today, there are 16.4M
And what is it with auto analogies? This is as bad an analogy as when the attempt was made to compare the ACA individual mandate to auto insurance. Nobody is claiming this is a light-switch solve. Nobody. What is being proposed, is that as we did when terrorist attacks happened, we harden the point of attack first, as we did - and then work our way out from there (as many nations facing attacks on their schools have done in the past).We have hundreds of existing gun laws on the books right now. Many of which are also underfunded and inadequate or unable to enforce. Then you have Federal laws on top of state laws. There are hundreds of federal regulations covering guns, their sales, import/export, the CMP, distribution of military arms, the manufacturing of ammo, the shipping of ammo and components, etc. So actually enforce them. The FBI ignored repeated warnings @ Parkland. As did local LE dozens of times. Local LE screwed up in the SC church massacre. As it did with the Texas church massacre. Same with San Bernadino. Ramp up GVRO's. Provide more transparency for background checks regarding mental health records.You want a 'multi-faceted approach'. After you secure the point of attack, start here. Are these bad laws? If so, why are they still siphoning off resources? You can't reconcile new laws when you are unable to enforce the ones you have. I keep hearing about "gun control" - what is that? A piece of legislation, or a slogan? Where are the specifics?I agree the NRA has been to intransigent in terms of leading the cause for more research. I've already mentioned straw borrowers. The NRA has actually backed ideas for keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (now we get to define mentally ill and how it relates to rights and due process)."Homicide and gun related crimes are declining while ownership rates are peaking." I understand that seems to be your central pieces of evidence, which then leads to the position that the availability of firearms in a population is not correlated to violence. Please confirm. If that isn't your position, please state the relevance of CC permits to the issue of gun violence. I believe this is the same or similar position of bernorange; however, for some reason he isn't able to engage or confirm.
First, you've got to source your data. This isn't elementary school. It is almost like you pasted this from a pro-gun website or something. Your concealed carry numbers mean nothing unless we know where they came from. It is also important to understand which state's the numbers came from, are they nationwide, how changes in concealed carry laws affect applications, do all state's require permits, how do CC applications link ownership rates, do applications apply to all firearm purchases, and are they just a measure of the number of potential citizens that carry firearms? There is an obvious leap from carry a concealed handgun to ownership rates. I get that you trust CC permits over; however, that leap is important if you want to establish that firearm ownership rates are increasing, which is counter to all surveys on ownership thus far.
Second, the statement that "the homicide and gun related crimes are declining" is not accurate. Where have you been? A surge in violence occurred in the 80s and 90s with a relatively flat trend after that. See the below article from Pew, “Gun homicides steady after decline in 90s.”
Another option, rather than haggling over CC permits or ignoring trends in homicides, is to look at research that has been done related to whether increased ownership correlates to increased violence.
Peer-reviewed article in the American Journal of Public Health: "We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
Peer-reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine: "The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
The above information is to assist in the framing the gun violence problem in America. That problem IMO can be stated as the US has an untenable rate of overall firearm-related violence and an untenable frequency and magnitude of mass shootings. Establishing and under the problem IMO is important before taking the next step in developing strategies that would reduce those rates.
I understand analogies are complicated and can be extremely controversial. I get it.
-
We need to address our high rate of firearm violence the same way they addressed Chet in Weird Science.
https://giphy.com/gifs/weird-science-bill-paxton-chet-xTiN0x3AUqjDOrdxhm
-
8 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:
Restricting traffic laws is not analogous to confiscation of guns. One takes the gun away while the other leaves you your car with specific restrictions in it's use.
You are equating gun reform with confiscation - that's a strawman. BTW we do remove cars from certain roads by constructing bypasses or implementing tolls. We also do take steps to remove cars off the road when they no longer pass inspection. But that is all just tedious nitpicking. Is then when I restate the definition of an analogy?
-
12 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:
No I'm not, and Nit picking ? Oh I'm sorry maybe the whole being off base with his comparison off a traffic law to gun confiscation was a trivial thing.... I'm sure Aqua can defend himself.
And your analogy ? Jesus are you really trying to say that's the same thing ? Constructing a road and removing traffic while you contract it is not in the same realm as confiscating guns.
And for the record, I'm not opposed to stricter gun laws, or certain weapons being illegal to own.
An analogy is a comparison between things for the purpose of explanation. An analogy that is made between two things does not mean that those two things are exactly the same and that there are no differences between those two things.
Society was dealing with an untenable rate of vehicle deaths. This was a complex, multi-faceted problem. Society took a complex, multi-faceted approach at minimizing and mitigating the problem , which included inspections, licensing, registration, etc. etc. etc. and successfully culminated in lowering the rate of vehicle deaths. This is how society addresses complex problems. See also how we successfully minimized Islamic violent extremism. These are analogies to help understand how society should minimize and mitigate the untenable rate of firearm-related deaths (i.e., take a multi-faceted approach).
-
5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:
The aren't even the same thing. Traffic laws tell you how you must drive, you're still driving. Now if you say take cars off the road then that's an analogy that applies.
This is tedious nitpicking and you are equating gun reform with removal of all guns. BTW we do remove cars from certain roads by constructing bypasses or implementing tolls - but that is all just tedious nitpicking.
-
14 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
Restricting firearms translates to restrictions of law abiding citizens. Not criminals. Nor does it solve the tactical problem of securing schools. As stated - hundreds of millions of guns and trillions of rounds of ammunition takes decades to unwind. We don't have decades. Nor is anyone suggesting "hardening schools like we do airports". There are various ways to harden a target, starting with armed security as so many targeted schools have done across the country. Funny how the inner city schools seem to have solved this problem years ago.
I hate to break it to you, but society often asks its citizens, and not just criminals, to do things for the benefit of other citizens and society as a whole. I drive really well after drinking, so why do I have to comply with blood alcohol standards? I drive really well going fast, so why do I have to follow speed limits? I don't have a drinking problem, so why does the gas station stop selling me beer after a certain time? I'm really gun with a gun, why won't the TSA let me take it on an airplane?
My recommendation is to reflect on your feelings and emotions, recognize you aren't a "law abiding citizen" but rather just a "citizen," recognize the identity politics at play that have let you to have your feelings and emotions, and recognize the identity politics at play that have led you to identity as a "law abiding citizen."
-
44 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
I have no problem with polls. But I also recognize gigantic flaws with these in particular. I also recognize massive partisan confirmation bias as well. Even my pseudo-socialist gun-owning parents refused to answer polls like this. And I called them out for it. It happens across the country. Or did you not find it particularly interesting that while sales and concealed carry applications have spiked, response rates started to drop as this topic became more and more politicized?
Yeah, no. I don't think you single handily took down the Pew, Gallop, and GSS surveys. They are still our best source for understanding ownership trends.
This is where you step up to the big boy plate and provide a source of evidence. Your claim is that "the majority of CHL permits/applications across the country have been increasing exponentially." Please also address the leap from CHL permits to firearm ownership. Please also put on your big boy pants and source your claim, "while sales and concealed carry applications have spiked, response rates started to drop."
-
29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
Ummm....dude. The irony. It's rich.
Really? That's your analog? Let's go with it, it's a good one.
- we put locks on cabin doors. AND,
- we improved pre-flight screening and banned certain items. AND,
- we passed the damned Patriot Act. AND,
- we increased the holy hell out of our surveillance of potential terrorist actors. AND,
- we invaded actual countries to destroy their base of support. AND,
- we increased cooperation and intelligence sharing with our allies. AND,
- this list could go on for freaking pages.
In fact, we have stopped numerous acts of terrorism. Not by having locks on cabin doors, but by gathering intelligence and nipping the attacks in the bud before they were launched.
Yet another multi-faceted approach to REDUCE (but not eliminate) a threat.
As for requiring a gun registry (and mind you, I'm not necessarily in favor of it, but I can sure list some pros -- I can list cons, too), it would create a TIGHTER -- not airtight, but TIGHTER -- mechanism to monitor gun transfers. Yes, the transfers of illegal unregistered weapons from criminal X to criminal Y would remain difficult to catch. BUT, the sale/transfer of a gun -- either by a vendor or private seller - to Ed the Nutjob who wants to shoot up his work, school, a church, etc., will be more difficult. And some such sales/transfers will be prevented (again, this requires that OTHER measures be in place, like mental health holds and such -- that is, there's no "one thing" that solves anything).
I am absolutely for having an armed presence at schools -- as I observed, it saved lives in Chicago a couple of weeks ago, it probably saved lives (shortened the event) in Santa Fe, and if the cop had done his job, might have in Parkland as well. It may be one of the MOST effective things we can do, at a relatively low cost (that is, relative to hardening targets, implementing a TSA-like entry regimen, etc.). I favor that. But that's not an "instead of" - it's an "in addition to."
I'm glad we hardened cockpit doors. But I think we would have been idiots if we said "we've hardened the doors, let's not do anything else."
That's a great analogy. I might use that one, in addition to the automobile mortality, to show how we as a society are often able to address problems through minimization and mitigation.
-
22 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
There is no stagnate/declining gun ownership. You keep positing this premise as a basis for your conclusion. The problem is your polls, as stated, have zero mechanisms for verification. And I'm telling you, with as politicized as this topic has become, owners simply answer 'no' (and that with less than half the polled population bothering to respond at all). But what we can measure - CHL and FOID applications - those are skyrocketing across all demographics. But that doesn't quite fit your narrative.
I get it. You don’t trust polls. I agree they aren’t perfect. However, that’s the best thing we have for measuring ownership trends. FOID is limited to one state and subject to local unknowns, and I haven’t seen anything concerning CHL trends that would be considered compelling - although do share what compels you. The wiki page I linked earlier describes the situation well. Also, Pew surveyed ownership since 1993 and their findings match GSS survey showing a decline in ownership.
“The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our December 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A January 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey.”
http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/
-
20 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:
Because it's a false equivalency between safety belts and a national gun registry.
I get it. You don’t like the analogy because of reasons. FYI: you are using a strawman to accuse me of a fallacy - that is rich. Nowhere did I indicate safety belts are equivalent to a gun registry.
-
If anyone gets tired of the Schindler argument, there was a good argument over in mass shootings
-
41 minutes ago, bernorange said:
It's ad hominem to dismiss the source without any criticism of the statements presented. You dismissed ammoland.com as a propaganda outlet for fake science. You offered no justification for it with respect to the statements of fact regarding NICS processing (the reason I posted the link). That's pure ad hominem.
I stated my criticisms of the presentation of data done by the gunpolicy.org/UoSydney group. It was not a blanket condemnation because "gunpolicy.org/UoSydney are evil". Bias in and of itself is not evil. Pointing it out provides context when there is a significant error of omission.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy
Seriously? You literally put quotes around your attempted restatement of what you think I was saying. Your quoted restatement is a misrepresentation of what I've said. It's a classic example. Maybe you really have difficulty with reading comprehension and it was an honest mistake, (given your lack of clarity on what an ad hominem is, I suppose that's possible), but it's not constructive to an honest dialogue. If anything I've posted has been "jumbled, unclear" or "seemingly random", please ask me to clarify whatever you are having trouble understanding and I'll do my best to illuminate the point.
It means that it doesn't really matter what anyone posts in this thread. While most people advocate for their thoughts or otherwise might have a favored agenda, some people are so wound up in their position that their mind is closed to any other thought. I believe that you are in the latter category.
Why the continued fake accusation that I did not address you gunsammo.com source? I’m giving you an opportunity to correct this.
From my ititial comment “Finally, concerning your ammoland website source, I’m not sure the relevance of “gun sales in recent years.” The issue is ownership trends. The issue of gun ownership in the US has been tracked by two surveys and they both do not agree. One source shows that rates of gun ownership have stayed the same since the 70s, while the second source shows a stark decline in ownership since the 70s. No one is under the belief that gun ownership rates are trending up. The section “Gun Ownership” on the below Wikipedia page does a good job explaining the issue.“
Suggest you stop with the fake outrage and fake accusations. There is no need to be so sensitive. Your source was addressed by indicating that “ownership trends” is the proper metric and I referred you to and described two sources that compete with your gunsammo.com source.
FYI: restating a position into a clear simple form is not moving a persons position and is not a strawman. I even noted that my statement of your position with a lead up of “I believe you are trying to show..” to be honest about restating your position, thus giving you the courtesy of correcting your position. I gave you that courtesy a second time. I’ll give you a third opportunity.
Again, I believe you are trying show that there isn’t a correlation between guns and violence by saying “1) more guns, 2) less crime.” (this is your cue to restate your position or accept that position. Suggest you not whine about strawman again.)
Mass Shootings
in Cloak Room
Posted
Concerning your crime concern: "After each interview with a case proxy, we sought a control subject matched to the case subject according to sex, race, age range (15 to 24 years, 25 to 40 years, 41 to 60 years, and 61 years or older), and neighborhood of residence." Race, sex, age, AND neighborhood were controlled. I.e., for each proxy that occurred in a neighborhood, there was a control in that same neighborhood, which would account for crime.
The study methods accounted for defense from firearms. That was a big part of the study.
The study accounted for life risks and showed that "The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home." Note that there can be more than one important risk factor. The study shows that by adding a firearm in the house, you are adding a risk factor. Just like if you add a roommate that uses illicit drugs, or you let an abusive boyfriend move in.
"They treated the victim of domestic violence the same as the perpetrator - and the same as a random murder." Yes, you are more likely to experience a homicide (whether you are perpetrator or victim of domestic violence or random murder) if there is a gun present. 3.6% of evaluated homicides occurred under legally excusable circumstances - 96.4% were not legally excusable. See table 1 for the break down on the various homicide characteristics.
"Defending yourself from domestic violence is a reward of gun-ownership, the study treats it as a risk." Again, only 3.6% of evaluated homicides occurred under legally excusable circumstances.
The bottom line is that these findings are significant. You are less safe concerning homicides with a firearm in your home than you are without. This is the type of study that needs to be replicated and fine-tuned. This study didn't even touch on suicides risks from owning a firearm.