Open Carry: Oklahoma scores partial victory

[3point14]

I think that you overrate the actual amount of critical thinking on these forums. Just look at any hot topic thread. Also, does it necessarily matter anyway, after all "everybody is a skeptic when they are buying a used car". People who are into cars may know more about cars than the average member of these forums, and people who are into guns may know more about guns than the average member of these boards. (They might not know as much about logical debating terminology... but that doesn't mean that they are stupid).

Oh, I don't know how much actual critical thinking there is, but everyon here, as I have said, thinks they think critically. they go out of their way to assess things in a logical fashion. They may fail, but they do it.

I really, really don't see how you can think that a self selecting sample within a self selecting sample (People registered here who have also chosen to post on this thread) can be indicitive of the attitudes of the whole.

Just the 'self selecting sample' bit should be enough of a warning sign.

 

[Xulld]

But they're all the people that you know. Another self selecting sample.

Responsible gun owners mix with responsible gun owners.

I suspect irresponsible gun owners mix with irresponsible gun owners and that's clearly not you.

I said as much in my post.

Oh, I don't know how much actual critical thinking there is, but everyon here, as I have said, thinks they think critically. they go out of their way to assess things in a logical fashion. They may fail, but they do it.

I really, really don't see how you can think that a self selecting sample within a self selecting sample (People registered here who have also chosen to post on this thread) can be indicitive of the attitudes of the whole.

Just the 'self selecting sample' bit should be enough of a warning sign.

The easiest form of skepticism is blindly questioning some idea. However your position is an active claim. The claim here is that, out there somewhere are scary people with guns who shouldn't have them becuase they MAY misuse them. Also the context of this discussion is not gang bangers, or active organized criminals, but folks who own the gun with the idea to protect themselves. So within that group we are looking for data which either supports or refutes the narrative being presented.

I am curious what data supports this position. Data has already been presented to show that the vast majority of gun owners will NEVER engage in violence.

So I understand what you are saying . . . but think you are being less than fair here with your presentation of the level of skepticism in this thread.

Not only is the claim vague, but unsupported. Claims require support, and are where the burden of proof exists.

 

[3point14]

I said as much in my post.



The easiest form of skepticism is blindly questioning some idea. However your position is an active claim. The claim here is that, out there somewhere are scary people with guns who shouldn't have them becuase they MAY misuse them. Also the context of this discussion is not gang bangers, or active organized criminals, but folks who own the gun with the idea to protect themselves. So within that group we are looking for data which either supports or refutes the narrative being presented.

I am curious what data supports this position. Data has already been presented to show that the vast majority of gun owners will NEVER engage in violence.

So I understand what you are saying . . . but think you are being less than fair here with your presentation of the level of skepticism in this thread.

Not only is the claim vague, but unsupported. Claims require support, and are where the burden of proof exists.

I accept what you say, to a degree, but all we can be sure of is that we can't be sure either way.

All I am certain of is that a self selecting sample is not representative of the whole.

I also note that you've narrowed down 'gun owners' to "folks who own the gun with the idea to protect themselves.", which has pretty much cut out those who use guns for sport, those who use guns for their work (farmers and the like, who need them) and those who own guns because they think it's cool. I was under the impression that we were dealing with gun owners in general and those who want to open carry specifically. Neither of those catagories contain excusively "folks who own the gun with the idea to protect themselves."

I don't know guns, but I know statistics - self selecting samples are not reliable.

You are correct when you say that there is no evidence either way.

I think you are making a mistake to think that everyone else is like you.

 

[Xulld]

I also note that you've narrowed down 'gun owners' to "folks who own the gun with the idea to protect themselves.", which has pretty much cut out those who use guns for sport, those who use guns for their work (farmers and the like, who need them) and those who own guns because they think it's cool. I was under the impression that we were dealing with gun owners in general and those who want to open carry specifically. Neither of those catagories contain excusively "folks who own the gun with the idea to protect themselves."

Good catch. I did not mean to exclude those groups so much as make clear we are not talking about folks with the explicit desire to commit crime.

I think you are making a mistake to think that everyone else is like you.

I do not know that I am. I acknowledge a lack of data, and presented my own anecdote. I make no assumptions in this regard, and without data I can only go on my own experiences. I think it is a mistake to assume that any large population of gun owners are inherently dangerous without some kind of specific behaviors we want to call dangerous(ie removing the vagueness of the initial claim), and then statistics to present it as a problem.

 

[3point14]

Good catch. I did not mean to exclude those groups so much as make clear we are not talking about folks with the explicit desire to commit crime.


I do not know that I am. I acknowledge a lack of data, and presented my own anecdote. I make no assumptions in this regard, and without data I can only go on my own experiences. I think it is a mistake to assume that any large population of gun owners are inherently dangerous without some kind of specific behaviors we want to call dangerous(ie removing the vagueness of the initial claim), and then statistics to present it as a problem.

You know, I really hate it when people I disagree with are reasonable...


The problem, as you say, is lack of data, and, given our respective starting positions, we have a different null hypothesis, I think.


And you're right, the 'some gun owners are dangerous' is a pretty nonsense claim without any statistics to back it up, I appreciate that.

I'm acutely aware that half the polulation have an IQ under 100. I also deal with the general public every day and have for quite some time. This has given me a somewhat jaded view of the capacity for rational thought that most people have.



Once again, at jref, I've talked myself to a standstill.

 

[Xulld]

Certainly not scientific, and perhaps of no better quality than my own anecdotes, but one can go to youtube and see just about every kind of behavior ranging from extreme safety, to clear cases of negligent behavior in regards to guns.

I suppose facts such as these make it easy to see that people are poeple, some are safe some not so much. In that sense we clearly know the question (if better stated) is relevant even if we have no easy answers.

This is also why so much emphasis is placed on safety in gun circles of larger groupings. We know people can be negligent, and creating a system of safety practices is our (the gun community's) reaction to those facts. (accidents are rare, but taking measures to minimize or reduce the incidence is rational)

Another anecdote: the company I work for had a very remote company headquarters located out in the woods miles from any homes and with an excellent backstop (a dirt ditch/ravine with ~40 foot from bottom to edge) and we asked the owner if we could make use of this to shoot at after hours, or on the weekends. At first the owner was VERY skeptical, in fact that may be an understatement, he is a gun owner and pro 2A rights and all that, but still a rational person wanting to protect the investment that is his business. So he called the sheriffs office made sure it was legal, but then still had reservations about safety. I had shot with him in the past, and he knew how strict I am with safety. So he allowed us to shoot with the stipulation that I handle safety, and that anyone that wanted to shoot had to be shown the ropes by me first. My point here is that the natural tendency for most self preservation types, which include liability concerns, is to overstate safety, and enforce rules that minimize risk.

I see this same behavior a LOT when it comes to new gun owners. They will keep the gun unloaded, locked in a drawer, or with a gun lock. Of course familiarity breeds contempt (if we accept that old adage as being relevant). Clearly training reinforces good behaviors, but I have no data as to how many gun owners actually get training, my gut says few.

My brother is an example of someone who probably should not carry a gun. I have a friend who openly admits his temper is such that he should never own a firearm.

On the flip side I think often its easy to think to yourself how stupid people seem when we see so much to criticize, however I think sometimes this is also a confirmation bias, stupid is noteworthy, average behavior is not, and a person who fails to create a noteworthy situation may indeed be a data point in favor of humanity, but we often only see the true failures of logic and reasoning becuase that is what is noteworthy.

anyways . .. I am rambling. lol.

 

[arthwollipot]

Also the context of this discussion is not gang bangers, or active organized criminals, but folks who own the gun with the idea to protect themselves.

I didn't make that distinction in my comment.

Good catch. I did not mean to exclude those groups so much as make clear we are not talking about folks with the explicit desire to commit crime.

Nor that one, actually.

 

[RandFan]

The average American believes in creationism over evolution. I don't like being cynical but that's a pretty damning statistic. Sure you can operate heavy equipment and still be too god damn stupid to figure out that science actually is superior to mythology. I like to think most Americans are moderately decent and smart enough to get to work people but I think our relative safety (not to be confused with relative to European nations) lies mostly in anonymity, apathy and lack of imagination. It's really not all that hard to carry a weapon around without an accidental discharge. I think most people just wanting to live and let live so to be fair there's that also.

I think anyone who believes significant changes to gun laws to further restrict or even ban guns will have any real impact on crime are fooling themselves. But I'm not exactly impressed with the pro-gun side either. If I did feel the need to carry a gun I damn sure wouldn't think myself belonging to some noble group. The romanticism is a bit over played in my opinion (not directed at anyone in particular). There's nothing in our culture or crime statistics that stand out to me as demonstrative that 2nd Amendment rights have made us in someway a better nation. We are a violent nation by far compared to other modern liberal democracies. Now, I don't blame guns but I find no evidence that guns have ennobled us or made us any less violent or anymore safe in the aggregate. In the grand scheme of things I suspect it is a wash.

Just my 2 cents.