• 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

Ziggurat said:
This is not a very useful statement. Very few people are actually "average", and net gun safety/risk statistics are highly contaminated from gun owners who are involved in risky criminal activities (notably but not exclusively the drug trade). The average says basically nothing about individuals, some of whom may very well lower their risk by obtaining a gun. A home invasion is not an "every day situation", but if you live in a high-crime area, it can be a very significant risk, and a gun can do a lot to protect you in such situations. And people are frequently very aware of the individual circumstances of their lives which may separate them from the average.
Click to expand...
I stand by the statement. Risk assessment is statistics based. I'm stating an opinion about relative risk.

P: A civilian who finds himself in need of a gun for protection is a statistical outlier.

Now, either that proposition is true or it is false. What is your opinion of the truth value of the proposition?
 
RandFan said:
I stand by the statement. Risk assessment is statistics based. I'm stating an opinion about relative risk.
Click to expand...

Relative risk for whom, though? As I pointed out, most people know if they have risk factors greater or lesser than the population at large. Furthermore, gun ownership is a self-selecting group, it's not an independent variable. So the statistics you're basing this on are not in fact very useful for an individual.

Suppose we do a study where we look at the health effects of sun exposure. Sun exposure carries a benefit from producing vitamin D, which has lots of positive effects on the body. It also carries a risk from skin cancer. Suppose we did a controlled experiment where we took representative samples of the US population, exposed them to varying amounts of sun in a controlled manner, and then measured the health effects. We find that on average, say, 1 hour per day of sun exposure produces, on average, the most net benefit minus risk.

Now, should Oprah Winfrey restrict herself to just one hour per day of sun exposure? Should Ellen Degeneres sit out in the sun for one hour every day? Or should they perhaps do something different than the average? Are there perhaps characteristics of them as individuals which might indicate that optimal behavior deviates from average?

P: A civilian who finds himself in need of a gun for protection is a statistical outlier.
Click to expand...

And? In a country of 320 million people, there are 3.2 million people who fall under any category that includes a mere 1% of the population.

Now, either that proposition is true or it is false. What is your opinion of the truth value of the proposition?
Click to expand...

It's not obvious where you draw the line for a "statistical outlier". 1%? 10%? 0.1%?

But supposing it's true for some particular value. What then? As I said, people are often aware of the individual circumstances of their lives which make them outliers.
 
Ziggurat said:
<straw man snipped>

And? In a country of 320 million people, there are 3.2 million people who fall under any category that includes a mere 1% of the population.

It's not obvious where you draw the line for a "statistical outlier". 1%? 10%? 0.1%?

But supposing it's true for some particular value. What then? As I said, people are often aware of the individual circumstances of their lives which make them outliers.
Click to expand...
I've said on multiple ocassion now that I'm happy to let people decide if they need a gun for security. I'm trying to propagate the idea that if they are a typical American they don't need a gun. They really don't. Further, this false sense of fear is irrational and results in many unnecessary deaths.

I would say to others, learn what relative risk is. Learn to know what is typical and whether or not your fear is rational. If you don't want to fly in a plane that's fine. I respect that. You should know though that your fear of planes is irrational. Make informed decisions and don't fall for the hype that you need a gun. I'd start with Innumeracy. Especially if you don't know what "average" means or what "outlier" means. Then I'd read, Irrational Fears. I've read them both.
 
If we are going to limit our freedoms to only what we need and only the things we need that can't hurt us, what would we have left? We only need a bare minimum of shelter, clothing, food and water. We don't need anything else.
 
xjx388 said:
If we are going to limit our freedoms to only what we need and only the things we need that can't hurt us, what would we have left? We only need a bare minimum of shelter, clothing, food and water. We don't need anything else.
Click to expand...
This is a straw man. A very disapointing straw man. Especially when it's been pointed out time and again that no one is calling for laws to restrict speech. We are only exercising our right to speak.
 
Yuchi1 said:
Sir/Madam,

Yes, to the first question and the why is simply the fact perpetrators of these mass killings have an established pattern of hitting "soft targets" which are predominately areas where CCW is forbidden. Naysayers to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

And if only the people carrying guns in the Aurora theater hadn't been such cowards and returned fire you would have had a good data point there. But the CCW people didn't do anything and let him keep shooting.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And if only the people carrying guns in the Aurora theater hadn't been such cowards and returned fire you would have had a good data point there. But the CCW people didn't do anything and let him keep shooting.
Click to expand...

My understanding is CWL was not allowed in that theater.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And if only the people carrying guns in the Aurora theater hadn't been such cowards and returned fire you would have had a good data point there. But the CCW people didn't do anything and let him keep shooting.
Click to expand...

....."Luke O’Dell of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Colorado group on the other side of the debate over gun control, took a nearly opposite view. “Potentially, if there had been a law-abiding citizen who had been able to carry in the theater, it’s possible the death toll would have been less.”....*

* http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/shooting-at-colorado-theater-showing-batman-movie.html?_r=0
 
Yuchi1 said:
My understanding is CWL was not allowed in that theater.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the case and that I had heard that there were CCW there who did not fire because of concerns about collateral damage. Which I guess is pretty silly as if they were concerned about collateral damage they probably wouldn't have a CCW.

Though what it would have done is also pretty silly, he was wearing body armor, and I am thinking of the north hollywood shooting for what happens when people armed only with handguns engage in an exchange of fire with people in body armor.
 
Yuchi1 said:
....."Luke O’Dell of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Colorado group on the other side of the debate over gun control, took a nearly opposite view. “Potentially, if there had been a law-abiding citizen who had been able to carry in the theater, it’s possible the death toll would have been less.”....*

* http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/shooting-at-colorado-theater-showing-batman-movie.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

Or higher, or the same, etc. Depending on where the original shooter was in the theater there could have been an epic crossfire.
 
ponderingturtle said:
That seems to be the case and that I had heard that there were CCW there who did not fire because of concerns about collateral damage. Which I guess is pretty silly as if they were concerned about collateral damage they probably wouldn't have a CCW.

Though what it would have done is also pretty silly, he was wearing body armor, and I am thinking of the north hollywood shooting for what happens when people armed only with handguns engage in an exchange of fire with people in body armor.
Click to expand...

Was he? according to Wiki he had a Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest

http://tacticalgear.com/blackhawk-urban-assault-vest

•Made of heavy-duty nylon for maximum strength and durability

That's not gonna be able to keep out anything over airsoft, paintball, or BB
 
Yeggster said:
Not when a former Prime Minister stated he wanted ALL privately owned guns confiscated ... then kept adding more guns to the prohibited list every year.
Click to expand...

You're moving the goal posts, here. My response was to your post, not some new post you decide to substitute for the original.
 
Ziggurat said:
They're scary.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure those aren't the arguments in favour of banning them. If your first answer is a misrepresentation, you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

It's not that they're scary, it's that they damage the target more. Sure, if you want to maim people more readily with guns, it sounds like a great idea.
 
Yuchi1 said:
Sir/Madam,

Yes, to the first question and the why is simply the fact perpetrators of these mass killings have an established pattern of hitting "soft targets" which are predominately areas where CCW is forbidden. Naysayers to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves.

A citizen's right to self defense is well rooted in english common law and modern firearms have a high degree of efficacy in such actions especially for those with age/health related impediments to physical exertion.

Using lethal force is not something to be taken lightly and thankfully, I have not had to experience such like my son did when deployed in Iraq. Even though it was a war situation, he will carry those images forever as Matt has stated, you never forget the sound a human makes just as it dies or the smell of burning flesh.

Background checks? Yes, to private sales (as they are currently done for commercial sales) as they could simply be facilitated through a FFL holder as most vendors at gunshows are so licensed.

Insurance? Not really as insurance companies already dictate so much of our daily activities of life. With a CWL (Oklahoma) and the use of lethal force, if found by the local DA to be justified, you are exempt from civil suit by any other party.

It would be nice to live in a Utopian Society but the reality is not conducive to such and the justifiable fear many have from social engineering attempts is the historical context that governments tend to become drunk with power once the tipping point is reached as after all, humans run them.
Click to expand...

More guns>more senseless attacks>more guns.
 
jakesteele said:
One way to look at the situation is this: there are basically, three groups of people who own and use guns:
1. The govt. They have the biggest, the baddest and the most.
2. Criminals. Not nearly as many, by far, but still some pretty nasty ones. Also, many of these criminals have intent to use them at some time.
3. We, The People. Again, not nearly as many as the govt. and not as sophisticated by far.
Click to expand...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

There's also a large number of people who are not criminals in the sense that you are using the term, but are not responsible, emotionally well adjusted, right thinking people. They get guns as an emotional safety blanket, or as a confidence booster, or for all kinds of wrong reasons. Then, they get in an argument or a stressful situation that they can't handle, and blam, someone who would otherwise have gotten punched in the mouth, or maybe just stabbed with whatever was handy bleeds out on the street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom