• 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.

The Good Guy With A Gun Theory, Debunked

Giz said:
By scale, I meant "of international importance". Siberia is big in land area, but who knows the mayor of Siberia?

.....
Click to expand...

Not me, but, in terms of scale, I think Siberia has a Governor, not a Mayor. Or whatever they call them in Roosia. Govenrski, lives in a mansion in Siberioskiiy?

Now back to California, which has an economy of $2.5T. Pikers. the both of you. :D
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Well, if coming to conclusions without any numbers is "making up their own facts", I wonder how the NRA supports their conclusions...
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of the NRA either, so I'll have to constantly monitor my BS filter when taking either side's arguments into consideration, even though I'm quite obviously on the pro side. Both sides engage in lies and fear mongering. Full stop.

I will have to say some of that pro-gun lying and fear-mongering are actually turning out to be true when pro-gun advocates warned us about when California passed its Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA). In it's original inception, the CA Dept of Justice (DOJ) mandated that handguns manufactured and / or sold In CA be able to reliably fire ammunition without malfunction and be able to pass drop tests. The DOJ would then maintain a roster of guns that would be certified for sale in CA once they passed their tests.

Consumer safety, dontchaknow. Not at all about banning guns. The DOJ wanted us to have best quality handguns by weeding out inferior and unsafe designs.

Skip ahead nearly 20 years and numerous pro-gun rights groups (NRA among them) are fighting in court to stop the DOJ from its defacto ban on new semi automatic handguns which do not meet the requirement for non-existent microstamping standards under the UHA. Only semi autos that eject a microstamped cartridge are consider a safe handgun under the UHA. New models that don't have this non-existent standard aren't legal for sale in CA.

It's a legal fight of great significance - Should California prevail, The DOJ could theoretically ban revolvers too since they don't eject spent cartridges and therefore can be deemed unsafe handguns under the UHA.

Nice. :thumbsup:

NRA, among others, warned us about this when it was proposed back in the late 90's. Now they, among others, get to say "Told ya."
 
Last edited:
AJM8125 said:
I'm no fan of the NRA either, so I'll have to constantly monitor my BS filter when taking either side's arguments into consideration, even though I'm quite obviously on the pro side. Both sides engage in lies and fear mongering. Full stop.

I will have to say some of that pro-gun lying and fear-mongering are actually turning out to be true when pro-gun advocates warned us about when California passed its Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA). In it's original inception, the CA Dept of Justice (DOJ) mandated that handguns manufactured and / or sold In CA be able to reliably fire ammunition without malfunction and be able to pass drop tests. The DOJ would then maintain a roster of guns that would be certified for sale in CA once they passed their tests.

Consumer safety, dontchaknow. Not at all about banning guns. The DOJ wanted us to have best quality handguns by weeding out inferior and unsafe designs.

Skip ahead nearly 20 years and numerous pro-gun rights groups (NRA among them) are fighting in court to stop the DOJ from its defacto ban on new semi automatic handguns which do not meet the requirement for non-existent microstamping standards under the UHA. Only semi autos that eject a microstamped cartridge are consider a safe handgun under the UHA. New models that don't have this non-existent standard aren't legal for sale in CA.

It's a legal fight of great significance - Should California prevail, The DOJ could theoretically ban revolvers too since they don't eject spent cartridges and therefore can be deemed unsafe handguns under the UHA.

Nice. :thumbsup:

NRA, among others, warned us about this when it was proposed back in the late 90's. Now they, among others, get to say "Told ya."
Click to expand...


That's quite a lot of effort for a non-response to my post. Or are you seriously suggesting that the NRA's "predictions" about legislative efforts absolve them of any responsibility to support their various claims with actual numbers?
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
That's quite a lot of effort for a non-response to my post. Or are you seriously suggesting that the NRA's "predictions" about legislative efforts absolve them of any responsibility to support their various claims with actual numbers?
Click to expand...

I guess you would have to post an itemized list of those claims if you want a refutation.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
The general claim "more guns, less crime" would be a good place to start.
Click to expand...

Well, as Lott would probably offend you, how about the state of Vermont? Vermont has the most firearms ownership and just about the lowest crime and murder rates... It's a sociology/economic/cultural issue - not scary guns, that is a symptom.
 
3point14 said:
I think the US is a perfect storm of miseducation by the media, availability of small arms and, crucially - and this last bit is the kicker - inequality of income.

I don't think the guns help. I don't think they're the root of the issue, this is:




https://thinkprogress.org/study-income-inequality-is-tied-to-increase-in-homicides-84076065498a/

"A World Bank sponsored study subsequently confirmed these results on income inequality concluding that, worldwide, homicide and the unequal distribution of resources are inextricably tied."
Click to expand...

Yes, I have posted these graphs before

1449453d9d144aab90.png


1449453da73bd6bb03.png


14494570578e678161.png
 
jimbob said:
Yes, I have posted these graphs before

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1449453d9d144aab90.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1449453da73bd6bb03.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/14494570578e678161.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Chart 1 seems to be about 100 countries short of "the world".

Chart 2, why exclude Mexico?

Chart 3, USA seems about right in the middle.

So, what was your point you were trying to make with them?
 
Giz said:
Well, as Lott would probably offend you, how about the state of Vermont? Vermont has the most firearms ownership and just about the lowest crime and murder rates... It's a sociology/economic/cultural issue - not scary guns, that is a symptom.
Click to expand...

What a poor example. Vermont has no large cities and and incredibly homogeneous population. As such it is a outlier and provides no useful insight to the general problem.

ETA: Doesn't Lott offend you? If not, why not?
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
What a poor example. Vermont has no large cities and and incredibly homogeneous population. As such it is a outlier and provides no useful insight to the general problem.

ETA: Doesn't Lott offend you? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

That just proves my point. Vermont has guns, but not gun crime. Therefore the issue is with socio-economic-cultural problems in the other states... Not with guns.
 
Ian Osborne said:
Guns don't offer protection – whatever the National Rifle Association says
Click to expand...

Did you read the study? They specifically say that the headline results don't allow for being involved in criminal activity or location. Here's a snippet where they caveat their work:

"However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1)."

In other words, if you engage in criminal activity or are nearby a lot of criminal activity, then you have more chance of being in a violent criminal altercation. (Stop the press!)

If they had controlled for location and frequency of prior arrest, then it might have been an interesting study... But they didn't (probably because they knew that would screw up their nice figure).


Just to illustrate why frequency of prior arrest (that they didn't control for) is so important:

"People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[66] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[96] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[66][97] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[98]"
 
You know, whenever studies show something gun owners don't like, they'll cut it this way, cut it that way, decide that whatever protocols were used are the wrong ones, and dismiss the results out of hand. If you compare two countries' gun ownership and gun crime rates, they say you can't compare different countries, but if you point to one country where gun crime went down after a gun ban, they'll point to another where it didn't.

And Americans will keep dying.
 
Ian Osborne said:
... dismiss the results out of hand...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've noticed some out of hand dismissing of inconvenient truths. (However, If you review my post you'll see where I pointed out the overwhelming factors they had failed to control for in their methodology. Perhaps your post was in the form of a self critique?)
 
Dr.Sid said:
How much crime in US is done with illegally held weapons ? I believe it's a lot. You should fight illegal weapons before you limit legal ones, IMHO.
Click to expand...

The problem is that how many of those guns were transferred from the legal to illegal gun markets without the sellers committing a crime? The illegal guns start off as legal guns after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom