• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dylann Roof: The Second Amendment Strikes Again

bit_pattern said:
Well since you're the one making the claim that guns protect the abused, the onus is on you to provide said evidence. Please, I'd be very interested to see something other than feelpinions from you on this issue.
Click to expand...

That's funny, bit_pattern. You offer up irrelevant data, and when called on it, you start acting like hard relevant data is the most important thing to you, but it really wasn't, or you wouldn't have made the claim you tried to make. You're only demanding I prove my claim because your own claim got shot out of the water. And apparently it's not enough to classify what I say as an opinion, you need to call it a "feelpinion". Why? Are my opinions somehow different in nature than your opinions? That's certainly the impression you seem to be trying to give, though it doesn't make any sense.

As for evidence, well, part of it is simple logic. Guns are very useful for defense for the exact same reason that they're good for offense. They also reduce the importance of the strength disparity between men and women. Another part is that your odds of survival are better if you resist an attacker than if you don't.
 
NoahFence said:
Mental health checks would have gone a good way. Social media investigating included.
Click to expand...

I doubt you'll find any credentialed mental health professional that would agree with "social media investigating" as a substantive "mental health check."

However, two things:

1. Roof has not, to my knowledge, been diagnosed with any mental illness. So regardless of "social media investigating," any talk of "mental illness" is a nonstarter until such diagnosis has been made public.
2. Roof was under indictment for possession. He should not have passed a background check on that basis alone.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's funny, bit_pattern. You offer up irrelevant data, and when called on it, you start acting like hard relevant data is the most important thing to you, but it really wasn't, or you wouldn't have made the claim you tried to make. You're only demanding I prove my claim because your own claim got shot out of the water. And apparently it's not enough to classify what I say as an opinion, you need to call it a "feelpinion". Why? Are my opinions somehow different in nature than your opinions? That's certainly the impression you seem to be trying to give, though it doesn't make any sense.

As for evidence, well, part of it is simple logic. Guns are very useful for defense for the exact same reason that they're good for offense. They also reduce the importance of the strength disparity between men and women. Another part is that your odds of survival are better if you resist an attacker than if you don't.
Click to expand...

And guns are so prevalent and easy for anyone to get that any attacker will be armed if they want to be. So that we can assume all attackers are armed.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So how do guns make them safer if they make them more likely to be killed? What is the definition of safety you are using?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that gun ownership by victims of domestic violence makes them more likely to be killed.
 
Ziggurat said:
I note again the conflation of gun ownership by the abuser with gun ownership by the victim.
Click to expand...
I have not seen that data. I understand that the figures refer to situations where there is a gun in the house, irrespective of ownership.

And how many of them were able to protect themselves with a gun?
Click to expand...
None. They all died.


However people with access to a gun are more likely to be killed.

Link


Homicide Outcomes
We also pooled data from 6 studies that assessed the odds of homicide (9–10, 22–24, 48) and, using a random-effects model, estimated a pooled OR of 2.00 (CI, 1.56 to 3.02) with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 63%; τ = 0.22) (Figure 2). All studies found significantly higher odds of homicide victimization among participants who had access to a firearm than among those who did not, with ORs ranging from 1.41 to 3.54.=

Most tests for interaction between subgroups were not statistically significant, although women had significantly higher odds of homicide victimization than men (P < 0.001) and studies with moderate or low risk of bias yielded higher odds of homicide victimization than high-risk studies when firearm access was compared with no access (P < 0.001).
 
Last edited:
bit_pattern said:
So no facts? Just more feelpinions?
Click to expand...

Again with the attempt to describe my opinions as being fundamentally different from yours. That's just getting pathetic.

But since you're insistent on going down this path of requiring evidence, let's back it up. What was it I objected to? The idea that if we only had a waiting period, this tragedy might have been averted.

There's no evidence for this claim. Yet, you didn't object to it. Why? Because it matches your feelpinions.

You're a hypocrite, bit_pattern.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's funny, bit_pattern. You offer up irrelevant data, and when called on it
Click to expand...

Uh, when was that?

you start acting like hard relevant data is the most important thing to you, but it really wasn't, or you wouldn't have made the claim you tried to make. You're only demanding I prove my claim because your own claim got shot out of the water. And apparently it's not enough to classify what I say as an opinion, you need to call it a "feelpinion". Why? Are my opinions somehow different in nature than your opinions? That's certainly the impression you seem to be trying to give, though it doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Your opinions are based on feelings, and nothing you've been able to show subsequently has demonstrated otherwise. There is clear statistical data showing guns are a far greater threat to women at risk of domestic violence and zero to the contrary.

Again, I invite you to support your feelpinions with evidence. I would be fascinated to see the proof that guns protect women from domestic violence. It shouldn't be that hard to do if reality in anyway intersects with your feelings.

As for evidence, well, part of it is simple logic. Guns are very useful for defense for the exact same reason that they're good for offense. They also reduce the importance of the strength disparity between men and women. Another part is that your odds of survival are better if you resist an attacker than if you don't.
Click to expand...

"Simple logic"

"Common sense"

"Feelpinion"
 
Ziggurat said:
Again with the attempt to describe my opinions as being fundamentally different from yours. That's just getting pathetic.

But since you're insistent on going down this path of requiring evidence, let's back it up. What was it I objected to? The idea that if we only had a waiting period, this tragedy might have been averted.

There's no evidence for this claim. Yet, you didn't object to it. Why? Because it matches your feelpinions.

You're a hypocrite, bit_pattern.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you to support what you objected to, I am asking you to support your feelings that guns protect women from domestic violence with actual evidence.
 
Ziggurat said:
There is no evidence that gun ownership by victims of domestic violence makes them more likely to be killed.
Click to expand...

Now I *know* you're being dishonest because you are blithely ignoring evidence that I *know* you've seen. This is the difference between opinions and feelings.
 
Lothian said:
There is. See my post above.
Click to expand...

No. Your most recent post doesn't separate out domestic violence homicides from other homicides, and how they define having access to a gun is not at all equivalent to owning a gun. The fact that people involved in the drug trade often own guns AND have high risk of being victims of homicide is a major contributor to the correlation between gun access and homicide risk. This says absolutely nothing about the risk of owning a gun to domestic violence victims.
 
bit_pattern said:
Now I *know* you're being dishonest because you are blithely ignoring evidence that I *know* you've seen. This is the difference between opinions and feelings.
Click to expand...

The only evidence posted regarding firearms and risk of homicide for domestic violence victims was for when the abuser owned the firearm, not the victim. I *know* you know that, because you posted it, and I pointed it out to you that it was for the abuser owning the gun, not the victim. So don't lecture me about dishonesty.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. Your most recent post doesn't separate out domestic violence homicides from other homicides, and how they define having access to a gun is not at all equivalent to owning a gun. The fact that people involved in the drug trade often own guns AND have high risk of being victims of homicide is a major contributor to the correlation between gun access and homicide risk. This says absolutely nothing about the risk of owning a gun to domestic violence victims.
Click to expand...

So still no evidence to support YOUR claims?
 
bit_pattern said:
I'm not asking you to support what you objected to, I am asking you to support your feelings that guns protect women from domestic violence with actual evidence.
Click to expand...

Yet you didn't ask HumanityBlues to support his feelings that a waiting period might have stopped Roof. Why? Because if a claim flatters your prejudices, you accept it unquestioningly, and if it doesn't, you demand the highest level of proof.
 
Ziggurat said:
The only evidence posted regarding firearms and risk of homicide for domestic violence victims was for when the abuser owned the firearm, not the victim. I *know* you know that, because you posted it, and I pointed it out to you that it was for the abuser owning the gun, not the victim. So don't lecture me about dishonesty.
Click to expand...

A. Not all of the evidence realted to homicide, which you've conveniently ignored.

B. See Lothian's post (#77 IIRC)

C. You made a claim, the burden of proof is on you to support that claim, you have been able to offer nothing but feelpinions to support your claim.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yet you didn't ask HumanityBlues to support his feelings that a waiting period might have stopped Roof. Why? Because if a claim flatters your prejudices, you accept it unquestioningly, and if it doesn't, you demand the highest level of proof.
Click to expand...

That doesn't actually exonerate you from supporting YOUR claim. I didn't even see the post your referring to because, unlike your claim, it didn't jump out at me as something so absurdly and patently wrong. Nor did the poster in question (as far as I can tell) go on to use his claim as a moralistic stick to beat other people with like you did. But, in any case, it is entirely irrelevant to you being able to support what YOU said.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. Your most recent post doesn't separate out domestic violence homicides from other homicides, and how they define having access to a gun is not at all equivalent to owning a gun.
Click to expand...
The link is domestic homicides the paper is called The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household Members:

With regards ownership
Studies needed to assess whether firearms were available for all participants. In addition, included studies needed to assess outcomes between participants with and without access to firearms. Specifically, studies needed to compare firearm ownership or availability (that is, accessibility) with no firearm ownership or availability (that is, no accessibility) or provide adequate data to estimate the effect that firearms had on selected harms outcomes. Firearm accessibility could be defined as self- or proxy-reported or assumed from other types of exposure data (for example, firearm purchase record

I think the argument that there is a significant differnce if accessibilty is limited to ownership as opposed to ownership and avaialability is one for you to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom