Dylann Roof: The Second Amendment Strikes Again

[Ziggurat]

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

I haven't ignored any evidence that gun ownership by a victim of domestic violence increases their risk of anything. Because nobody has presented such evidence.

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

Post #77 quotes Lothian, but it does so in regards to background checks, which are not in dispute here, and don't have anything to do with my claim. So, fail.

C. You made a claim, the burden of proof is on you to support that claim,

Again, you're a hypocrite. You made a claim too, which you haven't actually retracted despite the fact that you don't have any evidence for it (the evidence you presented was for something different). You also never made this demand of HumanityBlues. And lastly, I have supported my claim, with arguments you have not even attempted to address except by name-calling.

 

[bit_pattern]

I haven't ignored any evidence that gun ownership by a victim of domestic violence increases their risk of anything. Because nobody has presented such evidence.

That's a lie.

Post #77 quotes Lothian, but it does so in regards to background checks, which are not in dispute here, and don't have anything to do with my claim. So, fail.

#88

Again, you're a hypocrite. You made a claim too, which you haven't actually retracted despite the fact that you don't have any evidence for it (the evidence you presented was for something different). You also never made this demand of HumanityBlues. And lastly, I have supported my claim, with arguments you have not even attempted to address except by name-calling.

My claim:

"Women in a household with a gun are at a far greater risk of domestic homicide that those without."

Please explain how that was not supported by the evidence I showed.

Better yet, show some evidence beyond your feelpinions that guns protect women from domestic violence.

 

[Ziggurat]

The link is domestic homicides the paper is called The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household Members:

I already looked at it. My criticism stands: they do not separate out causes of homicide. Different causes of homicide have very different dynamics, and different associated risk factors. If you think "Household members" means we're talking about domestic violence, you're kidding yourself. If a drug gang shoots up a rival dealer's house and kills his mom, well, that's a household member who was a homicide victim, and if that drug dealer had a gun in the house, then a firearm was accessible to her. But that's got **** all to do with domestic violence.

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.

No, it's not. It's one for YOU to make, if you think this study is applicable.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's a lie.

No, bit_pattern, it's the truth.

#88

You clearly don't understand the study in question, because it make no claims at all about domestic violence.

"Women in a household with a gun are at a far greater risk of domestic homicide that those without."

Which tells us basically nothing about whether obtaining a gun can help protect a woman threatened by domestic violence.

 

[NoahFence]

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.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

2. Roof was under indictment for possession. He should not have passed a background check on that basis alone.

Yea, it'd be nice if we followed established procedures, too.

 

[Lothian]

I already looked at it. My criticism stands: they do not separate out causes of homicide. Different causes of homicide have very different dynamics, and different associated risk factors. If you think "Household members" means we're talking about domestic violence, you're kidding yourself. If a drug gang shoots up a rival dealer's house and kills his mom, well, that's a household member who was a homicide victim, and if that drug dealer had a gun in the house, then a firearm was accessible to her. But that's got **** all to do with domestic violence.



No, it's not. It's one for YOU to make, if you think this study is applicable.

I fully accept that it is possible to argue that a specific subset potentially bucks the general trend. I dare say whatever study contradicts your view will be considered flawed in some way. I see no point is wasting any more time.

 

[Psi Baba]

Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the manufacture of guns.
Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the importation of guns into the country.
For that matter, nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the sale of guns either.
So go ahead bear all the arms you want!

 

[MRC_Hans]

If gun laws cannot possibly change these kind of outcomes, then why is it that other countries have so few events like this compared to the US? In the UK it's possible to gain ownership of a gun, despite the laws... yet this kind of thing is vanishingly rare.

Is it just that there's something in American culture that makes some individuals determined to shoot lots of people?

Gun laws can change this. Just not wishy-washy delay rules. The rules have to be: Ordinary citizens cannot own a gun, period.

You can have permits for hunting guns, antique weapons, etc. And of course professional needing a gun in their work can carry in when on duty. These guns still cause some incidents, but not manty.

This is not just a hypothesis. It works this way in most of Europe, and it works well.

Hans

 

[Cleon]

Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the manufacture of guns.
Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the importation of guns into the country.
For that matter, nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the sale of guns either.
So go ahead bear all the arms you want!

Uh, good luck with that.

 

[Ziggurat]

I fully accept that it is possible to argue that a specific subset potentially bucks the general trend.

It's not just possible, Lothian, it happens all the friggin' time. And in this case, it's rather easy to see why it might.

Again, involvement in criminal activity (particularly but not exclusively the drug trade) puts one at a greater risk of homicide, and that's going to play a HUGE role in the overall statistics here. It's reasonable to expect that such people also obtain guns at rates higher than average. So even among the populations where the study results are directly applicable, the correlation doesn't tell us causation. Did access to a gun put them at higher risk, or did they get a gun because they knew that they already WERE in a high-risk group? The study doesn't tell us.

Which means that even if women who owned guns were at higher risk of death from domestic violence than women who did not own guns (and again, the study doesn't indicate that this is so), we still couldn't conclude that gun ownership is what put them at higher risk, rather than those at highest risk already choosing to obtain a gun (and possibly lowering their risk but not enough to cancel the effect).

I dare say whatever study contradicts your view will be considered flawed in some way. I see no point is wasting any more time.

You can dare say whatever you want to, but my criticism of the study in relation to this thread is still valid, and you have no answer to that criticism.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

It's a very good solution, if they're in the process of actually attacking you. But most defensive gun uses only require the display of the gun, not actually firing it.



I want them to be able to protect themselves. Why don't you?

And, again, the statistics contradict you. So what's your stance here? The statistics are made up by the liberal media?

 

[Ron Swanson]

Many "anti-gun" statistics are skewed ... "gun related injuries" are recorded and added to statistics when no-one was shot ...

for example if a sighting scope cuts the shooters eyebrow (even if the gun was not fired)

If someone uses the butt of a firearm to inflict blunt force trauma.

Accidental bayonet injuries, whether they are fixed to a firearm or not, (this happens more frequently than you'd think)

I could add more examples, but you get the idea.

 

[Ziggurat]

And, again, the statistics contradict you.

No, they don't. People keep claiming that statistics for other things contradict me, but can't seem to realize that those statistics are, indeed, for other things.

 

[LTC8K6]

Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the manufacture of guns.
Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the importation of guns into the country.
For that matter, nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the sale of guns either.
So go ahead bear all the arms you want!

Nothing says I can't make my own guns, either.

I just can't sell them, or make them full auto.

 

[LTC8K6]

Georgia, for one. You only need a background check if you buy from an FFL dealer; you can buy a handgun off someone you contact on armslist.com and not so much have to show ID.

Ah... private sales in-state.

I have no problem with holding people responsible for selling handguns to people not legally allowed to possess them.

In NC, all handgun transfers, not just sales, but transfers of any sort, require a permit of some sort. Even inheriting a handgun.

However they are working on removing the state purchase permit, which was a bit silly, given the federal requirements.

 

[NoahFence]

Many "anti-gun" statistics are skewed ... "gun related injuries" are recorded and added to statistics when no-one was shot ...

for example if a sighting scope cuts the shooters eyebrow (even if the gun was not fired)

If someone uses the butt of a firearm to inflict blunt force trauma.

Accidental bayonet injuries, whether they are fixed to a firearm or not, (this happens more frequently than you'd think)

I could add more examples, but you get the idea.

No, please do. Add as many examples as this server's HDD will allow. Numbers, too. How many people cut their eye on the scope exactly?

 

[Ziggurat]

Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the manufacture of guns.
Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the importation of guns into the country.
For that matter, nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the govt must allow the sale of guns either.
So go ahead bear all the arms you want!

I doubt the Supreme Court would agree with your reasoning.

For example, nothing in the constitution requires police to read a suspect a Miranda warning. But the courts have decided that in order for criminal suspects to properly exercise their 5th and 6th amendment rights, they must understand those rights. The Miranda warning is thus a method of ensuring that the 5th and 6th amendment rights are not violated, even though nothing in the amendment itself makes mention of such a warning.

Similarly, it is obvious that few people can exercise their 2nd amendment rights if they cannot purchase a gun, and they cannot purchase a gun if nobody is allowed to make and sell guns, so it's not credible that a wholesale ban on the manufacturing and sale of guns would be permissible.

But Congress may indeed be able to ban the import of guns. Not that there's any good reason to do so.

 

[Ron Swanson]

No, please do. Add as many examples as this server's HDD will allow. Numbers, too. How many people cut their eye on the scope exactly?

That's very silly ....

For the scope to eye one, do a search on youtube ... there's got to be a dozen there alone ... I used to help at my Uncle's gun range and it was a common enough event (monthly at least) ... for no-fired scope injuries people walk into trees or even the door frame at home while peering through the scope.

 

[fuelair]

No, you will either have to face a total gun ban or live with cases like this.



Shooting the abuser is hardly a good solution. You want them to end in jail, on top of all their other proeblems?

Fortunately, here in Florida, as long as the woman fears for her life (and does so legitimately )she won't even see the inside of a jail. Abuser leaves traces (unless it is psychological abuse rather than physical) and traces mean evidence/proof of reason to fear for life and, thus fine to shoot. Wish more women took that option as opposed to living in constant fear.

 

[fuelair]

Also, in Florida at least, a stupid part of the law means that she has to appear to be shooting to kill if she decides she only wants to scare the guy away. If it is obvious she was shooting to warn, the law (stupidly) assumes she must not have actually been in fear for her life and she can arrested and jailed.. I. e. Fl law means you either do shoot attacker, do not even show your weapon (brandishing), go to jail or get hurt/killed.