I'm all for gun control

Crowlogic said:
But I'll give you this guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.
Click to expand...
And there you have it. So when and what are you going to do about people who misuse firearms, people who misuse edged weapons, people who misuse automobiles, people who misuse baseball bats and on and on?
 
Crowlogic said:
Cherry pick?
Click to expand...
Do you know what the odds of being killed by a rampaging gunman are? We ran the numbers here in another thread a month or so back. The odds are statistically insignificant. In other words, fear of this kind of demise are irrational. Pure and simple. The odds are not even part of any crime statistics. There are 300,000,000 people in America and a handful of people die every year by a rampaging gunman. Aside from the sensational nature it doesn't rate as a legitimate concern. You are far more likely to be stabbed to death. But you know what, no one is going to start a thread condemning knives.

ETA: I don't think this was a rampaging gunman now so I will appologize for suggesting otherwise. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Hi

Crowlogic said:
Cherry pick? Cherry pick my arse! That link fell into my lap it’s a Yahoo headline! Of course you've never heard of Yahoo maybe. Did you open the link?

Now then you listed a whole bunch of things that can cause death. Let’s add choking on a peanut butter sandwich too it. The difference here, and its huge difference, is that nearly all of what you list cause death by accident. Now while a small number of accidental deaths occur with private firearms the overwhelming majority of them are intentional. But I'll give you this guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.
Click to expand...


Yes. Cherry pick. Just because the orchard is large and get a lot of front-page advertising doesn't mean anything; Cherry picking is cherry picking.

You take one incident, that of two guys from out of town getting mixed up in their female companions fist-fight by drawing guns, and use it to paint a picture of the 40 to 75 million people who do not, have not, and probably never will draw their guns to respond to a fist fight.

You pick a cherry, and, BING, you have a model for the behavior of an entire demographic.

I would have used peanut butter sandwiches if I'd been able to find a headline. Give it time.

Now that you've hit the second to most important factor - people with guns kill people - the next step is to realize exactly what kind of people with guns kill people.

C'mon, bud! You just have to ask yourself, "what kind of guy draws down on a girl punching up on his girl?" If that's too hard, ask yourself, "what kind of person is responsible for the 12,352 firearm homicides in the US in 2005?" You may get some idea of the answer in the word, "homicide." As a hint: It's the same kind of people who committed the 5,772 non-firearm homicides in the same period.
 
Last edited:
Crowlogic said:
Cherry pick? Cherry pick my arse! That link fell into my lap it’s a Yahoo headline! Of course you've never heard of Yahoo maybe. Did you open the link?
Click to expand...
It's on Yahoo! Ergo, a single case is statistically valid!!!1111oneoneone

Knife still needs sharpening. :rolleyes:

Now then you listed a whole bunch of things that can cause death. Let’s add choking on a peanut butter sandwich too it. The difference here, and its huge difference, is that nearly all of what you list cause death by accident. Now while a small number of accidental deaths occur with private firearms the overwhelming majority of them are intentional. But I'll give you this guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.
Click to expand...

And people with guns also prevent crime done to themselves. But since lots of crooks don't like getting shot, it doesn't end up in the paper. Not quite as interesting, see.
 
Lonewulf said:
It's on Yahoo! Ergo, a single case is statistically valid!!!1111oneoneone

Knife still needs sharpening. :rolleyes:



And people with guns also prevent crime done to themselves. But since lots of crooks don't like getting shot, it doesn't end up in the paper. Not quite as interesting, see.
Click to expand...

Very weak argument! Can you furnish us with some examples? Does not hold a candle to the other side of the coin such as the recent shoot out in Toys R Us.
 
Crowlogic said:
Very weak argument!
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Look back at the posts made under the name "Crowlogic" in this thread. Take the "Very weak argument!" line, and apply it to each of those.

Can you furnish us with some examples?
Click to expand...
"some examples" isn't statistically valid, nor does it demonstrate anything at all. Not to mention that, quite frankly, it has to be a very slow day at the news desk to run a story about a successful defense of one's home, or the prevention of a crime. The more juicy the story, the more it's pounced upon, and shootouts are extremely juicy. More juicy than someone actually defending their home.

A google search led me here: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gun-homeowner-year-2003954-police-irvine

Which seems to agree, overall, with what I'm talking about, so I'll use it.

I fail to see how "a few examples" are going to be considered strong evidence one way or the other. Arguing for an overall policy based on "a few examples" is a "Very weak argument!"

Does not hold a candle to the other side of the coin such as the recent shoot out in Toys R Us.
Click to expand...
Because confirmation bias is deep within the media as well as personal perception; not all stories are covered equally.

And shootouts are, on the whole, rare. Tragic, but rare. And when there's a shootout, it gets reported; period.
 
Last edited:
Crowlogic said:
Very weak argument! Can you furnish us with some examples? Does not hold a candle to the other side of the coin such as the recent shoot out in Toys R Us.
Click to expand...
Well fortunately Crowlogic it is you who have the "very weak argument." I suggest that you start looking for information that is not from the anti-firearm lobby or your emotions.

A place to start could easily be the work of Dr. Gary Kleck, Professor , School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University. If necessary I can make quotes but they come down to an easy to grasp concept.

Dr. Kleck was of the foregone conclusion that would be about the same as yours. But he wanted to make an absolute proof of that so he began researching papers on the topic and without exception found them to be lacking in proper documentation and basically full of data to support preformed conclusions. So he set out to do a better job of proving that firearms in society are a threat.

At the conclusion of his work he acknowledges that his original assumption, similar to yours, was incorrect and that firearms are used by the law abiding more times to stop or prevent a crime during a year than they are used by criminals in committing a crime. Two other anti-firearm scholars were engaged by the US DoJ to refute that work done by Kleck. Their conclusion was that if anything Dr. Kleck's believe in the number of times a year firearms are used to stop to prevent a crime is on the low side.

Suggested reading -- Point Blank Guns and Violence in America by Gary Kleck, PhD. Published by Aldine Ce Gruyter division of Walter de Gruyter, Inc. Hawthorne, New York.

For you position on this matter Crowlogic we also have the following: a quote from one of the most prominent criminologists in the world, Marvin Wolfgang - -
What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research.
...
Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it.
...
The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
Click to expand...
--- Marvin E. Wofgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)
 
Lonewulf said:
Because confirmation bias is deep within the media as well as personal perception; not all stories are covered equally.
Click to expand...

I do believe you have that correct Lonewulf. I think that many would do well to read some of the work that has been done along that line. I offer the following as a starting place.
http://hematite.com/dragon/mediawatch.html - Gun Rights Forces Outgunned onTV
It is not a lengthy read and the pie chart does a better job of demonstration than the words.

I tried my link and while it looks correct it does not seem to work. Have not got the nack of making links back yet and the method here is a little different that I was used to. So use this to make the connection
http://hematite.com/dragon/mediawatch.html
 
Last edited:
Drudgewire said:
+2

And even though I was doing a bit of trolling myself in response, since it was brought up I figure at least a couple of folks may be curious. This just came home with me (actually it's going under the Christmas tree, but it's a done deal):

[qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/p22_target.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Excellent choice; that's what my daughter shoots.

However, a real man shoots a .22 that looks like this:

quantum-of-phallus.jpg


(My latest purchase).
 
I understand completely. When I saw it on the rack at the gun store I actually blurted out "oh my god what is that beautiful thing right there?"

True story.
 
Lonewulf said:
The "Outgunned on TV" link is a 404. :(
Click to expand...
That is why I posted the url as an independent alph numeric grouping, no title or explanation. The second one lower in the post that I made just worked for me. As the link in my post before the edit it does show up as a 404. My apologies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom