The Good Guy With A Gun Theory, Debunked

[qayak]

Which part? The distinction without a difference?

After thinking about this I changed my mind. You can indeed know with great accuracy what would have happened had the change not occurred. Besides that there is already a huge body of evidence that points to the fact that gun control, including a ban on concealed carry, leads to a reduction in gun related crime. The fact remains that the states with the strictest gun laws have the fewest gun related deaths.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Statisticians don't model climate change.

But it is all useless with out a control earth.

 

[Belz...]

Statisticians model other realities all the time.

Hey, I model other realities all the time, too!

You don't question their methods when they're modelling climate change

Well, first of all, yes I do, because I want to know how they came to that conclusion, as well. And second, that's not the same thing, anyway.

 

[Belz...]

After thinking about this I changed my mind. You can indeed know with great accuracy what would have happened had the change not occurred. Besides that there is already a huge body of evidence that points to the fact that gun control, including a ban on concealed carry, leads to a reduction in gun related crime. The fact remains that the states with the strictest gun laws have the fewest gun related deaths.

Aw, qayak! We were this close to actually agreeing on something!

 

[TJM]

Yep. This thread is going pretty much exactly how I expected it to.

Biased article is biased. I trust the source of that article about as much as I trust the NRA.

The fact remains that the states with the strictest gun laws have the fewest gun related deaths.

Except for that pesky California, which dog gone it, seems to clock in around 2,500 to 3,000 fatalities a year from firearms, no matter what.

You'd think somebody want to might to starting trying to get at the root of underlying issues that drive people toward murder and suicide rather than the method used.

Naw, way easier to draft anti-gun legislation and make it look like our leaders are actually doing something other than sucking up a paycheck.

 

[Mark F]

You'd think somebody want to might to starting trying to get at the root of underlying issues that drive people toward murder and suicide rather than the method used.

Naw, way easier to draft anti-gun legislation and make it look like our leaders are actually doing something other than sucking up a paycheck.

Remember, the primary purpose of legislation is to re-elect the legislator. So much the better if it is an ill-conceived knee-jerk reaction to some random event that merely gives the perception said legislator is doing something about it.

 

[casebro]

Remember, the primary purpose of legislation is to re-elect the legislator. So much the better if it is an ill-conceived knee-jerk reaction to some random event that merely gives the perception said legislator is doing something about it.

Keep the people scared so they elect you to protect them. Dems want to make us scared of guns, NRA wants to keep us scared of being un-armed. The wheels on the bus go round and round, powered by our election cycle.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Keep the people scared so they elect you to protect them. Dems want to make us scared of guns, NRA wants to keep us scared of being un-armed. The wheels on the bus go round and round, powered by our election cycle.

You are supposed to be scared of guns, otherwise the thought that telling a cop that you are armed shouldn't be reasonable for them to panic and shoot. As it has been found to be reasonable to panic just because someone is carrying a legal fire arm clearly at least the police know that people with guns are terrifying and something everyone should feel is a threat.

 

[BStrong]

Keep the people scared so they elect you to protect them. Dems want to make us scared of guns, NRA wants to keep us scared of being un-armed. The wheels on the bus go round and round, powered by our election cycle.

How true that is.

I Live in the city with the strictest set of gun control laws in a gun control happy state.

None of those laws prevented this - go to 1:33 - 1:34. That's automatic weapon (or a semi-auto with an illegal trigger activator) fire:

 

[BStrong]

You are supposed to be scared of guns, otherwise the thought that telling a cop that you are armed shouldn't be reasonable for them to panic and shoot. As it has been found to be reasonable to panic just because someone is carrying a legal fire arm clearly at least the police know that people with guns are terrifying and something everyone should feel is a threat.

I encountered legally armed folks and never felt the need to shoot them out of hand.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I encountered legally armed folks and never felt the need to shoot them out of hand.

And clearly you are not what people look for in a cop anymore. The courts found it clear, having a gun while black is fundamentally threatening. Even the NRA doesn't try to argue with that.

 

[Mark F]

And clearly you are not what people look for in a cop anymore. The courts found it clear, having a gun while black is fundamentally threatening. Even the NRA doesn't try to argue with that.

As it turns out HGWB (Having Gun While Black) is even scarier than PWB (Presidenting While Black).

 

[BStrong]

And clearly you are not what people look for in a cop anymore. The courts found it clear, having a gun while black is fundamentally threatening. Even the NRA doesn't try to argue with that.

I know you don't want to hear it, but there are now and always have been a hell of a lot more men like me otj than the sorry excuses you believe are the majority.

 

[Cain]

Why should law-abiding citizens have to apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Why should we have background checks on guns if criminals will still get guns? Hell, a background check means someone with bad intentions will obtain his firearm by financially supporting criminal characters; if we had no restrictions, then he'd purchase his gun from a taxpayer. It's almost as if the discussion should have to do with the extent of gun control, not the legitimacy of regulation. It's almost as if the discussion should be informed by statistics than than intuition.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I know you don't want to hear it, but there are now and always have been a hell of a lot more men like me otj than the sorry excuses you believe are the majority.

Yea but you always cover for them and make sure they get their severance packages and jobs at different departments. In exactly how many of these shootings does the partner testify against the killer?

It always seems to be only the crappy cops around whenever there is a shooting, why aren't the supposed majority of cops who are good ever around?

The answer is simple it is about 15% bad cops 15% good cops and 70% neutral cops. BUt the culture is sure to weed out the good ones so that the neutral ones know to protect the bad ones.

I would testify against my coworkers if they freak out and kill someone, but that seems far to high a standard to hold cops to.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why should law-abiding citizens have to apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Why should we have background checks on guns if criminals will still get guns? Hell, a background check means someone with bad intentions will obtain his firearm by financially supporting criminal characters; if we had no restrictions, then he'd purchase his gun from a taxpayer. It's almost as if the discussion should have to do with the extent of gun control, not the legitimacy of regulation. It's almost as if the discussion should be informed by statistics than than intuition.

That is why virginia is letting everyone allowed to own a gun carry concealed. A true dream of gun owners there. All that training and safety BS is really not needed.

 

[qayak]

Biased article is biased. I trust the source of that article about as much as I trust the NRA.



Except for that pesky California, which dog gone it, seems to clock in around 2,500 to 3,000 fatalities a year from firearms, no matter what.

You'd think somebody want to might to starting trying to get at the root of underlying issues that drive people toward murder and suicide rather than the method used.

Naw, way easier to draft anti-gun legislation and make it look like our leaders are actually doing something other than sucking up a paycheck.

No, California is low at 7.4 per 100,000. Louisiana is at 19. The majority are above California.

 

[Civet]

I know you don't want to hear it, but there are now and always have been a hell of a lot more men like me otj than the sorry excuses you believe are the majority.

I'm strongly inclined to think that most cops are good cops, but I also know that different police departments sometimes have very different cultures and that some tolerate a lot more corruption than others. Have you ever been in a situation where you witnessed misconduct on the part of another officer? If so, how did you handle it?

 

[TJM]

No, California is low at 7.4 per 100,000. Louisiana is at 19. The majority are above California.

Perhaps in bizarro anti-gun land where high is low so the numbers look good.

3,000 dead ain't low, no matter how you skew it.

 

[SezMe]

But then, you'd say "230 people died after these swimming pools were installed, compared to 189 in the same amount of time prior to their installation." not "only 189 people would've died if these pools weren't there!". You just can't know the latter.

No, you can't know the latter but the previous data are a first approximation that may need adjusting. The point is while we can't know alternative futures there are valid methods to make reasonable forecasts. It's done with the weather, stock markets, quarterly earnings forecasts, ticket sales, etc., etc. There's no reason it can't be done for guns.