casebro
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 19,788
The Good Guy With A Gun Theory, Debunked
- Thread starter arthwollipot
- Start date
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Pikers. the both of you.
Only 'cause we don't count all the things that can kill you, unlike you lot with your guns.
If we put an economic value on bitey things, we'd be king o' the world!
Can't argue with that
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Well, if coming to conclusions without any numbers is "making up their own facts", I wonder how the NRA supports their conclusions...
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
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.
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:
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
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.
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."
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:
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 19,788
I guess you would have to post an itemized list of those claims if you want a refutation.
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
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.
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 19,788
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?
SezMe
post-pre-born
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
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
I don't think that's the most important question to be asking.
I think a more important claim to be addressing is "more guns, less death".
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]"
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
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.
And Americans will keep dying.
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
Philosopher
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.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
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.