The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-25-2013, 01:03 PM   #1
Blart
I'm gay for the Broncos!
 
Blart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,910

Adopt-a-Bronco:
all @ same time
Default 10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

The NRA doesn't want people researching firearms. They actively lobby to stop data collecting.

Why are they afraid of knowledge? Perhaps it's because the gun lobby's arguments are full of .905 caliber holes.

-------------------
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ths-fact-check

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.




Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.




Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.


Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.
Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?

Per capita spending on video games
US: $44
Japan: $55

Civilian firearms per 100 people
US: 88
Japan: 0.6

Gun homicides in 2008
US: 11,030
Japan: 11


Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.


Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
• 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.



Data sources & links at the original source:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ths-fact-check

Last edited by Blart; 02-25-2013 at 01:09 PM..
Blart is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-25-2013, 01:51 PM   #2
schaaf
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

I sure love all 14 of my guns
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 07:53 PM   #3
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

Good thing we have the Constitution on our side.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 08:58 PM   #4
Dukes
Ring of Famer
 
Dukes's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,168
Default

You're a little late to the game, Blood Fart.

http://michaelsiegel.net/?p=5790
Mother Jones Hacks Again

A few weeks ago Mother Jones, having not learned the lesson of their absurd article claiming mass shootings are on the rise, published a list of 10 Myths about guns and gun control from Dave Gilson. And I’m going to debunk their debunking again because the article represents what I believe is one of the worst sins in the field of Mathematical Malpractice: cherry-picking. As I went through this, it became obvious that MJ was not interested in the facts, really. What was motivating them was the argument. And so they picked any study — no matter how small, how biased or how old — to support their point. They frequently ignore obvious objections and biases. And they sometimes ignore larger more detailed studies in favor of the smaller ones if it will support their contention.
We see this a lot in the punditocracy, unfortunately. As Bill James said, most people use studies the way a drunk uses a lamppost — for support, not illumination. In any sufficiently advanced but difficult field of study, you will find multiple studies examining an issue. Let’s say it’s a supposed connection between watching Glee and having a heart attack. If there is, in reality, no connection between the two, you might find eight studies that show no connection, one that shows an anti-correlation and one that shows a correlation. This is fine. This is science. There are always outlier studies even if all the researchers are completely ethical and honest. The outliers fall away when your interest is the question and you look at all the evidence. But the outliers dominate the discussion from those who have an agenda.
This happens a lot in the gun debate. On both sides, really. But Mother Jones’ article is a particularly putrid example of this because that’s basically all it does: collect the cherry-picked nonsensical studies that support their anti-gun agenda. It’s quite remarkable actually; almost a clinic in how not to do research.
But here’s the one thing that really tips you off. There is one myth that Mother Jones does not debunk. It’s a myth that’s really independent of what you think of gun ownership … unless you’ve already staked part of your reputation and agenda on the myth that gun violence is increasing. In fact, all forms of violent crime have been falling for twenty years. This is, in my mind, the single most important fact in debates over crime and violence and the single most important myth to debunk.
MJ does not address this myth. They don’t even talk about it. That is a huge tell.
Myth #1: They’re coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it’s clear there’s no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you’ll rest easy knowing that America’s roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.
Maybe we can agree that this is a myth. On the other hand, when you have an anti-gun lobby that has (1) identified an unarmed society as their goal; (2) lauded nations that have banned their guns; and (3) advocated policies like restricting bullets that would make guns effectively useless, I think it behooves us to think they have that goal in mind.
(I also find it odd that this fact is often placed side-by-side with the “you’re not going to use an AR-15 to stop an Abrams tank” response to the idea of revolution. They need to make up their minds. Are we powerless against our military? Or do we outnumber them 79 to 1?)
Myth #2: Guns don’t kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.
Problem: they’re looking only at gun deaths. That makes sense if you, like Mother Jones, believe that guns are an evil talisman that compels people to murder. But most people would think that the goal is to prevent death Moreover, looking at gun deaths includes suicides, which comprise two-third of gun deaths. There is some evidence that banning guns would lower the suicide rate; guns have a far higher suicide success rate (on the other hand, other methods of suicide are more favored by people making suicidal gestures who don’t want to really kill themselves).
I can’t embed the graphic but when you look at the total violence rate from all methods of killing — using the same sources they link — the correlation is not nearly as strong (R^2 of .13) The trend is 0.10 for every percent. So eliminating ALL guns — even if you assume that there is no increase in criminality — would reduce the death rate to about 14.8 or basically as peaceful as Iowa with its 44% ownership rate and Rhode Island with its 13%.
What’s more, there are significant outliers. Nevada and New Mexico are more violent than you would expect based on the linear trend. Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota have high ownership rates but relatively low levels of violence. And there is one huge outlier that shatters the graph: the District of Columbia, which has both a lower gun ownership rate and a higher crime rate than any state. DC is an unusual case, of course. Violence tends to be concentrate in cities and DC is all city. That having been said, the official DC gun ownership rate is a minuscule 5%, half that of Hawaii, mainly due to the draconian anti-gun laws they had until recently.
The other problem this point runs into — and you’re going to see this again and again — is that correlation is not causation. Maybe guns do cause violence. But you could equally argue that being in a violent area makes you more likely to buy a gun for self defense.
What would make sense here is a longitudinal study, one that looks at how violent crime rates rise or fall when gun laws are liberalized. Mother Jones ignores this because the last twenty years have seen gun laws liberalized while crime rates have plunged. That doesn’t show that liberalized gun laws prevent crime, of course. John Lott claims they do; others are more mixed. The fall in crime in multi-variate and it’s difficult to tease out the effect of one policy (least of all 50).
My point, however, is that if you’re going to argue that gun ownership puts people in danger, this is the wrong data to use.
Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.
The first study is a self-reported study of 2400 drivers. It’s odd it is invoked since it recalls one of most conspicuous and inaccurate predictions of the gun-control advocates: that conceal-carry laws would create shootouts over car accidents. They didn’t. It also conflates correlation with causation. And it is frankly a bit pointless.
For the second study, I can only see the abstract. They did note that conceal-carry holders were less likely to be convicted of crimes but that their convictions were more likely to involves sexual offenses, gun offenses and offenses involving a death. There’s a bit of flim-flammery in that sentence, however and I can’t see the article to see if it’s born out. It seems to say that while gun owners are less likely to commit crimes, their crimes are likely to be more serious. What’s missing? Usually when something is stated that way, it’s to conceal that gun owners are less likely to commit crimes involving a death, gun or sex but slightly less less likely than they are to commit other crimes.
Back in this thing called reality, the Texas Department of Public Safety studied all crimes committed in Texas and found that less than 1% were committed by conceal-carry holders. That’s compared to about 2% of all Texans who have conceal-carry. Those results reflect the reality in other states as well.
The final study is problematic. If you look at the graphs they include, it’s clear that they’re looking at noise. But they then do a statistical analysis which has 9 dependent variables and and 11 control ones. This crosses me as a massive overfitting of the problem. What they show, at most, is that stand your ground states did not have the drop in crime in 2009 and 2010 that other states did. But the data are so noisy, it’s really hard to make that conclusion, especially when they, oddly, plot it in log space to conceal just how noisy the data are. It’s frankly bad science and crosses me as cherry-picking. I feel like Mother Jones did not look for the best study of this; they look for a study that supported their conclusions, no matter how faulty it was.
As I noted above, it’s very difficult to pick out the effect of CCL’s on violent crimes rates because crime has been falling everywhere. But this issues had been addressed in far more intelligent ways than three marginal studies.
Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5
This stinks. I noted before how their claim that mass shooting were never stopped by civilians was entirely a product of their selection criteria that basically eliminated all the mass shootings that were stopped by someone armed. They also ignore the deterrent effect that guns are supposed to have. John Allen Fox’s study shows that mass shootings have been flat over the last thirty years.
The second point comes from a study of 265 incidents in emergency rooms. I hardly think that’s a representative sample of anything. It’s so obscure, I have to believe it was cherry picked. Back in reality, I found this (PDF) 2001 report from the Justice Department which interviews tens of thousands of inmates. Most of them got their guns either illegally or from a friend. The number who got them from their victims was too small to be included.
I think this a perfect demonstration of how Mother Jones selectively cites their stats. The 2001 study is linked in Myth #10 to show that most criminals get their guns in private sales. But when it comes time to figure out how many get their guns off their victims, Mother Jones does not cite the massive study that shows very few guns are obtained that way. No, they go to an obscure study of 265 ER incidents.
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.
The first stat ignores the work of Gary Kleck, whose well-cited work estimated a couple of million defensive uses of weapons every year, about five times the rate of aggressive gun violence. Even if he overestimates, he is unlikely to have done so by a factor of 30. MJ basically commits one of the classic blunders of the anti-gun faction: only counting defensive uses of weapons when someone is killed or seriously injured. A warning shot, a waving around of a gun, chambering a round as you come down the stairs — things Kleck counts — are ignored. The potential deterrent effect — criminals being unwilling to invade a house where they are likely to encounter a gun — is ignored.
These effects are asymmetric. Defensive uses of weapons are less likely to be reported. People defending themselves are, by definition, less violent than attackers and therefore less likely to fire a gun. The deterrent effect is almost impossible to measure statistically. Almost all the biases in these studies go against the “guns are never used defensively” position. Mother Jones doesn’t even acknowledge this.
The second stat is interesting but not really relevant. Accidental gun deaths are thankfully rare despite all the unlocked weapons. The study is also garbage, or at least quoting it that way is. Looking at the study, only 9% of guns were kept unlocked and loaded, which is the really dangerous situation. Moreover, “unlocked” includes not having a trigger guard. So, according to the survey, my dad was in that category because he had his unloaded guns in a closet with a keyed knob, a deadbolt and top bolt. I’m in that category even though my gun is in a safe and I have no bullets. Once again, Mother Jones has selected the study that most supports their ideology and, apparently, only read the abstract.
The third stat is garbage. This was a study of 64 boys. They were placed in an observation room and told to play. Most of them thought the gun was a toy. I’ve got news for Mother Jones: most parents do not conceal guns in their children’s playrooms and then tell them to play with anything they find. Most of them warn their kids about guns. Putting them in that kind of an environment tells you nothing. And it is belied by the thankfully low number of accidental deaths. If you combine “fact” 2 with “fact” 3, we should have accidental shootings constantly.
Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
Mother Jones is repeating themselves by this point. The first fact simply looks at crime stats and finds that killing over arguments are ten times as likely as justifiable homicides. Once again, most defensive uses of weapons do not involve a killing. Ironically, it is the liberal anti-gun Mother Jones who have formed their self-defense ideas from movies and television. And nothing, nothing in those statistics has any relation to gun ownership or conceal-carry. There is no indication whether the guns used to kill over arguments were legally owned or not (according to the study they cite later, most of them were obtained illegally). Even the raw statistics show the transparency of the argument. In a typical year, a couple of thousand people are killed in arguments. Even if we assume these are all legal gun owners (most of them aren’t), that it less than one in a hundred thousand weapons
The second study is jaw-droppingly dubious. It involved phone interviews and an evaluation of whether the gun was used defensively or offensively, often ignoring how the victim/perpetrator viewed the incident. No one except an ideological gun control advocate would think this was scientific. Moeover, even if you take the stats seriously, that means 1.5-3 million Americans did use guns to defend themselves. I hate to tell Mother Jones, but that statistic is pretty close to what Kleck found.
The third study is incredibly noisy. The confidence interval is that gun carriers are 1-17 times more likely to be assaulted. I’m also having trouble figuring out their stats, since their raw data doesn’t indicate nearly as strong a correlation. In fact, there’s very little correlation at all. There’s *much* more obvious disparities in alcohol and illicit drug involvement.
Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.
The first study is irrelevant. All people are more likely to be murdered by people they know. And, in general, women are not heavily involved in organized crime or drug dealing, which correlate with homicide incidents involving strangers.
The second study doesn’t support their point and they are misquoting it. It identifies previous abuse as by far the most important risk factor for women being killed by their partners. They do find a relationship to gun ownership, although a smaller one than previous studies. But if you want to keep women from getting killed, getting them away from abusive partners is, by far, the most important factor.
The third study mainly restates the earlier point on the correlation of gun violence to gun ownership; see correlation-causation. But MJ misquotes a study again. That statistic comes from a raw comparison of the five highest-gun ownership states to the five lowest. This is an incredibly dubious way of analyzing data, especially when you consider the states:
High-gun states: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama
Low-gun states: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware
I would submit that there are larger differences between those states than rates of gun ownership. I also don’t think it’s valid to measure things by comparing the most extreme elements. I would much rather trust my analysis of all 50 states.
Also of note — their data do not show that women are in any particular danger. Using the raw data from the earlier talking point, I find similar ratios for overall homicides. In fact, guns are involved in 2/3 of homicides according to the CDC. But, according to this study, they are only involved in about half of homicides where the woman is the victim. Doesn’t this suggest that guns aren’t the real problem?
And to be frank, all of these studies give me the opposite idea than Mother Jones. Women rarely own guns and rarely use them to defend themselves. Nevertheless, they can be victims. And half the time, their murder does not use a gun, but fists, knives or blunt objects. Doesn’t that indicate maybe they should own guns? That guns can be an equalizer? I don’t know. But I would suggest the question is more complicated than selectively quoting and misquoting three studies.
In any case, thousands of women disagree with these points.
Dukes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 09:02 PM   #5
Blart
I'm gay for the Broncos!
 
Blart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,910

Adopt-a-Bronco:
all @ same time
Default

Nobody is proposing to ban all gun sales. The only thing we want is a well regulated militia.

Besides, I don't think the musket-toting founding fathers had suitcase nukes, handheld rocket launchers, or AR-15's in mind.
Blart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 09:06 PM   #6
Dukes
Ring of Famer
 
Dukes's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blart View Post
Nobody is proposing to ban all gun sales. The only thing we want is a well regulated militia.

Besides, I don't think the musket-toting founding fathers had suitcase nukes, handheld rocket launchers, or AR-15's in mind.
Well that's obviously why they mentioned muskets in the Constitution.
Dukes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 09:28 PM   #7
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

Nobodies advocating machine guns and grenades. We just want piston grips, adjustable stocks, bayonets, flash suppresors and 30 round clips.

Also the founders were smart enough to know arms would get more advanced. They had every intention of saying that the public should have access to the same weapons the armies who invade us might use. So they may even say today we need machine guns. But we will relent and just maintain the status quo.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 09:29 PM   #8
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

Suticase nuke, Rocket Launchers, Ar-15s.

Ummmmm yeah a bit of a reach there to include a semi automatic small arms rifle with nukes and rocket launchers.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 09:37 PM   #9
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,297

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blart View Post
Nobody is proposing to ban all gun sales. The only thing we want is a well regulated militia.

Besides, I don't think the musket-toting founding fathers had suitcase nukes, handheld rocket launchers, or AR-15's in mind.
Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of assault weapons, instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ote-WhatBan-26
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 10:17 PM   #10
Blart
I'm gay for the Broncos!
 
Blart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,910

Adopt-a-Bronco:
all @ same time
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukes View Post
You're a little late to the game, Blood Fart.
That's a ****ton of words trying to battle a few stats. Ugh. You owe me 30 minutes.


Quote:
[INDENT]Myth #1: They’re coming for your guns.
Maybe we can agree that this is a myth. On the other hand, when you have an anti-gun lobby that has (1) identified an unarmed society as their goal; (2) lauded nations that have banned their guns;
Which nations have banned all guns? Honest question, don't know one off the top of my head. You can get a firearm in Japan, Australia, or even Denmark (where gun crime is virtually non-existent) provided you pass background checks.


Quote:
Myth #2: Guns don’t kill people—people kill people.
Problem: they’re looking only at gun deaths.
WTF (what the firearm)? Should they be considering gun-related births? Shotgun weddings?

Quote:
I can’t embed the graphic but when you look at the total violence rate from all methods of killing — using the same sources they link — the correlation is not nearly as strong (R^2 of .13) The trend is 0.10 for every percent. So eliminating ALL guns — even if you assume that there is no increase in criminality — would reduce the death rate to about 14.8
What study is he referencing? Probably not the one showing that gun deaths are 144% higher in states with the most guns.
Quote:
What’s more, there are significant outliers. Nevada and New Mexico are more violent than you would expect based on the linear trend. Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota have high ownership rates but relatively low levels of violence. And there is one huge outlier that shatters the graph: the District of Columbia, which has both a lower gun ownership rate and a higher crime rate than any state. DC is an unusual case, of course. Violence tends to be concentrate in cities and DC is all city. That having been said, the official DC gun ownership rate is a minuscule 5%, half that of Hawaii, mainly due to the draconian anti-gun laws they had until recently.
The other problem this point runs into — and you’re going to see this again and again — is that correlation is not causation. Maybe guns do cause violence. But you could equally argue that being in a violent area makes you more likely to buy a gun for self defense.
What would make sense here is a longitudinal study, one that looks at how violent crime rates rise or fall when gun laws are liberalized. Mother Jones ignores this because the last twenty years have seen gun laws liberalized while crime rates have plunged. That doesn’t show that liberalized gun laws prevent crime, of course. John Lott claims they do; others are more mixed. The fall in crime in multi-variate and it’s difficult to tease out the effect of one policy (least of all 50).
My point, however, is that if you’re going to argue that gun ownership puts people in danger, this is the wrong data to use.
Lots of words there.


Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I'm pretty sure the more killing devices you give people, the more killing is done.





Quote:
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.

Defensive uses of weapons are less likely to be reported. People defending themselves are, by definition, less violent than attackers and therefore less likely to fire a gun. The deterrent effect is almost impossible to measure statistically.
I found this interesting, and possibly a good argument for the NRA types. Perhaps we're focusing too much on death, why not consider robberies? A criminal should be less likely to break into a house and steal in the USA with our "Make My Day" laws, right?

But alas, no dice.

"Overall robbery rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership."

Guns don't appear to deter theft. The big difference between robberies in the USA and Australia is that ours more often end in death.




Quote:
Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
The third study mainly restates the earlier point on the correlation of gun violence to gun ownership; see correlation-causation. But MJ misquotes a study again. That statistic comes from a raw comparison of the five highest-gun ownership states to the five lowest. This is an incredibly dubious way of analyzing data, especially when you consider the states:
High-gun states: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama
Low-gun states: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware
I would submit that there are larger differences between those states than rates of gun ownership. I also don’t think it’s valid to measure things by comparing the most extreme elements. I would much rather trust my analysis of all 50 states.
Also of note — their data do not show that women are in any particular danger. Using the raw data from the earlier talking point, I find similar ratios for overall homicides. In fact, guns are involved in 2/3 of homicides according to the CDC. But, according to this study, they are only involved in about half of homicides where the woman is the victim. Doesn’t this suggest that guns aren’t the real problem?
And to be frank, all of these studies give me the opposite idea than Mother Jones. Women rarely own guns and rarely use them to defend themselves. Nevertheless, they can be victims. And half the time, their murder does not use a gun, but fists, knives or blunt objects. Doesn’t that indicate maybe they should own guns? That guns can be an equalizer? I don’t know.
Dude loves to write.

Last edited by Blart; 02-25-2013 at 10:24 PM..
Blart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 10:20 PM   #11
Blart
I'm gay for the Broncos!
 
Blart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,910

Adopt-a-Bronco:
all @ same time
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Suticase nuke, Rocket Launchers, Ar-15s.

Ummmmm yeah a bit of a reach there to include a semi automatic small arms rifle with nukes and rocket launchers.
Grenades too.
Why are some of those illegal? Doesn't the constitution protect our right to bear arms? Our right to own a device that can mow down a theater full of humanity?

Last edited by Blart; 02-25-2013 at 10:22 PM..
Blart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 03:01 AM   #12
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blart View Post
Grenades too.
Why are some of those illegal? Doesn't the constitution protect our right to bear arms? Our right to own a device that can mow down a theater full of humanity?
I don't know what the men who wrote the constitution would think honestly. In some ways they were very ignorant compared to society today. In other ways they were probably more learned. They thought society should have arms and the ability to organize into militias. I guess because they felt the fed govt might not be there to defend them, or less likely IMO the federal govt would need to be overthrown. Obviously hunting and protection were probably just assumed to be god given rights to the founders. Out of pure necessity right?

I don't think anyone was advocating we make grenades legal. If they are legal I imagine its not military ones, probably flash grenades or something? Rocket launchers? cmon are we really saying they should be legal? No one is saying that. Unfortunatley you can mow down a theater with almost any modern firearm because they are unarmed.

Go in with a 9 shot pump shotgun and a handgun and you can probably kill a lot of unarmed people in a mall, or school.

It sucks we can't stop it. I understand people want to be safe. But....you can't legislate the dangers of our country away. The countries people point to that are sooo much safer then us don't compare. We are a melting pot of cultures and that has always been a volatile but powerful mix.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 03:22 AM   #13
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Here's a summary of the discussion on here over the past few months:

Gun Enthusiasts - Having a dad is the most important thing about crime prevention, not gun laws. Here are some stories about people who went bad without good dads.

Common Sense Havers - Well yeah, that's part of it, but correlation isn't causation. There are a lot of factors, and these studies back it up.



Common Sense Havers - Here are some myths the other side is feeding you, and some studies to back it up.

Gun Enthusiasts - CORRELATION ISN'T CAUSATION AND ALL YOUR POINTS ARE INVALID GUN RIGHTS GUN RIGHTS GUN RIGHTS ZOMG IM GONNA BUY AN AR-15 BEFORE OBAMANATION BUYS EM ALL. OR BANZ EM. BUYS EM OR BANZ EM GUYS, WHAT ARE WE b****ING ABOUT THIS WEEK?



Meanwhile, I think the left went wrong a long time ago trying to go after scary looking guns. They should have used the incident with the police getting out-gunned in those bank robberies a few years back as an example that it's not about what the gun looks like, it's about what it's capable of.

There has to be some sort of standard, and I think "having the ability to shoot through a (insert standard issue) bullet-proof vest from X range" should be one of them...simply put, if a gun is capable of taking down an armed cop, it doesn't need to be semi-auto.

Oh well, can't get people to agree on anything.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 07:32 AM   #14
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Meanwhile, I think the left went wrong a long time ago trying to go after scary looking guns. They should have used the incident with the police getting out-gunned in those bank robberies a few years back as an example that it's not about what the gun looks like, it's about what it's capable of.
I guess what you're saying is Police should be able to outgun weapons that are already illegal? That means I can turn the suitcase nukes argument back around. Should Police have suitcase nukes? Why not?

Quote:
There has to be some sort of standard, and I think "having the ability to shoot through a (insert standard issue) bullet-proof vest from X range" should be one of them...simply put, if a gun is capable of taking down an armed cop, it doesn't need to be semi-auto.
Yeah, the civilian should only get one shot. The cops need the extra power for important stuff like...



  Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 09:27 AM   #15
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I guess what you're saying is Police should be able to outgun weapons that are already illegal? That means I can turn the suitcase nukes argument back around. Should Police have suitcase nukes? Why not?



Yeah, the civilian should only get one shot. The cops need the extra power for important stuff like...



Weren't you the one whose standard for where we draw the line is making sure the people don't outgun the cops? Did your opinion on that change after the LA shooter?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 09:36 AM   #16
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Weren't you the one whose standard for where we draw the line is making sure the people don't outgun the cops? Did your opinion on that change after the LA shooter?
I think you have it backwards. There should be no law enforcement loophole for restricted firearms. In other words police should not "outgun" the populace. At least not as a matter of law. And the fact that the LA shooter was a cop only helps to underscore the reasoning.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 10:12 AM   #17
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,620
Default

i want a grenade launcher and a flame thrower and possibly a tank. You guys ok with that?
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 03:56 PM   #18
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
i want a grenade launcher and a flame thrower and possibly a tank. You guys ok with that?
you could probably have a tank, but you wouldn't be able to have a working gun on it. You can have the launcher, but you can't have grenades. launchers can be used for flash grenades or to launch tear gas. We may need that in a riot.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 05:31 PM   #19
chadta
Atomic Meatball Keeper
 
chadta's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Mc Rib
Default

so more guns = more shootings right ?

so giving kids condoms must mean they will have more sex right ? what could possibly go wrong with that.
chadta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 06:13 PM   #20
El Minion
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,767
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadta View Post
so more guns = more shootings right ?

so giving kids condoms must mean they will have more sex right ? what could possibly go wrong with that.
False equivalency, teenagers are going to have sex because it is normal, natural and healthy for humans to be sexual as adults. The opposite of guns, where if the intended purpose is successful when used on another human the result should be death. The intended purpose of sex if successful is mutual orgasm.
El Minion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 06:33 PM   #21
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blart View Post
Nobody is proposing to ban all gun sales. The only thing we want is a well regulated militia.

Besides, I don't think the musket-toting founding fathers had suitcase nukes, handheld rocket launchers, or AR-15's in mind.



They didn't have typewriters or laptops, not to mention radios or TV's and the internet....so you'll be ok if they decide to chip away at our 1st amendment rights too?

As for your claim nobody is talking about banning guns.....Diane Feinstein says hi!


Last edited by errand; 02-26-2013 at 06:39 PM..
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 06:50 PM   #22
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,570
Default

The 2nd amendment was installed because the founding fathers had just fought for their freedom from a tyrannical government......which also explains why the Constitution limits what the government can do....not us.

They saw the potential that government could be corrupted by power and turn a free nation into an oppressed one....and that's why they said the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

BTW...by arms they meant whatever weapons we the people wanted. But I doubt even the most ardent guns right advocates would argue for a rocket launcher or suitcase nuke likes some douche on here thinks we want.

Again....plenty of ideas to limit what kind of guns law abiding citizens can own, and how many rounds of ammo....still haven't heard one idea to limit what criminals can have. Perhaps you liberals should solve that problem first before you worry about what I own or don't own.

Disarm the criminals, not the citizens they prey on.......

Last edited by errand; 02-26-2013 at 06:57 PM..
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 06:55 PM   #23
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
The 2nd amendment was installed because the founding fathers had just fought for their freedom from a tyrannical government......which also explains why the Constitution limits what the government can do....not us.

They saw the potential that government could be corrupted by power and turn a free nation into an oppressed one....and that's why they said the right of the peopleto keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"Citizens of these United States! We grant you the right to bear arms so that if we become tyrannical, you can overthrow us! Now you farmers in Western Pennsylvania who are revolting because of whiskey exchange taxes and to whom we just gave this right to bear arms against the government...Draw, turkeys!"

Well we gotta give them the right to fight against us...but if they do, we gotta give her the ole college try to put them down, too. Yep. Makes sense.

Last edited by houghtam; 02-26-2013 at 06:57 PM..
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 07:06 PM   #24
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
"Citizens of these United States! We, the founding fathers of a free nation have written into the constitution the right to bear arms so that if centuries from now the liberal run government becomes tyrannical under the guise of protecting you and your family's well-being, you can overthrow them!

FYP

...still waiting to hear your ideas on disarming the criminals at best, or limiting the size of their magazines and number of rounds they can use. Oh, and btw, my guns have killed fewer people than Eric Holder's Fast and Furious guns have....

Last edited by errand; 02-26-2013 at 07:09 PM..
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 07:57 PM   #25
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,208

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

What's the matter errand no bad fans on the main board to discipline.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:56 AM.


Denver Broncos