Gun Control is ridiculous

CFLarsen, you said;

"I'm saying that Kleck & Lott's numbers are more incredulous than Mack's UFO abduction numbers. Mack's respondents imagined what had happened. Kleck & Lott's respondents imagined what would have happened.
Their number of "defensive gun uses" are based on what people thought would have happened. Accept their numbers, and you accept that precognition exists.
If we go with Kleck & Lott's numbers, we face a mountain of not only wounded, but also corpses, that never show up in the statistics."

Then;

"Go check the numbers yourself: Just over 2 million DGUs? Check the percentage of actual bodily harm from DGUs.
Then, check the actual statistics of dead and wounded.
Don't take my word for it. Check it out yourself."


I do not need to check out Kleck and Lott’s numbers to know that some Americans use their firearms for legal self defense. I accept that there may be significant errors in their work. It still does not change the fact that there are zero people abducted by UFO’s, and a greater (and less incredulous) number of people who defend themselves with firearms. There are other sources such as court records and video that records the fact that people use firearms to defend themselves. You are still wrong in your comparison between the two.

Ranb
 
HarryKeogh said:
So are you basing it on skin-color? What's the cut-off shade for being black or not? Or are all stand-up comedians black? Is Sinbad, a stand-up comic, black?Please, what criteria are you using?
Click to expand...

Is Michael Jackson black?
 
Ranb said:
If we go with Kleck & Lott's numbers, we face a mountain of not only wounded, but also corpses, that never show up in the statistics."
Click to expand...

Again, they're Kleck's numbers. Lott had nothing to do with them. Even after this has been pointed out repeatedly, Claus insists on continuing this lie.

Also, Claus's number that he uses to make his pile of corpses is data from just THIRTEEN sample cases. It has been explained to him in other threads, by several different people, that this is way to small to make any statistical extrapolations. It was explained to him, patiently, carefully, and at length, that this number is way, way, WAY below the margin of error, and he was even shown the math.

And yet he persists in what he now knows to be a false claim.

Trust me: the only thing you can do with him is put him on ignore. Especially before he starts accusing you of Federal Class 1 felonies.
 
CFLarsen said:
Wow. You are really desperate to distance yourself from that one, aren't you?

You used it as a xenophobic slur. Don't blame me for that.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. I am skeptical that you are really offended. If you were, I apologize.

Now, back to the real questions you are avoiding:

Do you find any of my assumptions on the number of legitimate guns on planes unreasonable?

You are assuming that an attack is imminent once you see the gun. On what do you base this assumption?

Do you still maintain that it is not far more likely that the person on a plane with a gun has it there legitimately?

Which is the more rational response to seeing an individual on a plane with a gun:

1. Attacking immediately with a view to killing the man;

or

2. Letting a member of the flight crew know of your observations in a discrete manner?

You have claimed that I have changed your premise. Please explain where this is wrong:

I see your premise as this (and it has always been this): You see a man on a plane with a gun. That is it. That is the premise, the situation, the set up. What am I missing here?

Following from that premise, we ask: what do you do about it?

Your answer: quick murder by whatever means necessary.

My answer: tell a crew member.

I think my answer is more supported by evidence and rational thinking. What is supporting your answer?
 
Brickroad said:
Something I've been wondering for a very long time, Claus.

Say you did see a man with a gun on a flight, and you killed him. It was then revealed the man was an air marshal who was carrying the gun legally.

What does that make you?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. What do you think it makes me?

Ranb said:
I do not need to check out Kleck and Lott’s numbers
Click to expand...

Oh yes, you do.

Ranb said:
to know that some Americans use their firearms for legal self defense. I accept that there may be significant errors in their work. It still does not change the fact that there are zero people abducted by UFO’s,
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. The point is that the numbers collected in each study is based on what people think happened (in Mack's case) and what people think would have happened (in Kleck's and Lott's cases).

shanek said:
Again, they're Kleck's numbers. Lott had nothing to do with them. Even after this has been pointed out repeatedly, Claus insists on continuing this lie.
Click to expand...

Nowhere have I said that they are the same numbers. I have referred to them as two seperate studies in the past. You know that, yet you try to create this false impression.

If I am wrong, why do you have to make up lies about what I say?

shanek said:
Also, Claus's number that he uses to make his pile of corpses is data from just THIRTEEN sample cases. It has been explained to him in other threads, by several different people, that this is way to small to make any statistical extrapolations. It was explained to him, patiently, carefully, and at length, that this number is way, way, WAY below the margin of error, and he was even shown the math.

And yet he persists in what he now knows to be a false claim.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Your record of...shall we say "creative handling of data" is well-known.

shanek said:
Trust me: the only thing you can do with him is put him on ignore. Especially before he starts accusing you of Federal Class 1 felonies.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about?

Have the courtesy - and stomach - to address my posts directly.

Thanz said:
No, I didn't. I am skeptical that you are really offended. If you were, I apologize.
Click to expand...

The insincere apology: You "apologize", but you don't really think I'm offended. :rolleyes:

Thanz said:
My answer: tell a crew member.
Click to expand...

How fast did the hijackers take over the planes?
 
CFLarsen said:
.....You are missing the point. The point is that the numbers collected in each study is based on what people think happened (in Mack's case) and what people think would have happened (in Kleck's and Lott's cases)......
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. I claim that people use guns to justifiably defend themselves; you claim they do not. It is interesting that when I say that people have defended themselves with firearms, you call it the John Mack argument. You say that people’s claims of self-defense are less believable than claims of UFO abduction. You say that those claims are based on what they imagined would happen. You seem to believe that anyone who carries a gun has never been attacked or needed to defend him or herself. I never brought up anything about Kleck or Lott, but you do in order to muddy the waters.

But of course, you feel free to use your imagination to justify your potential actions in the event you see an armed person on an aircraft. Ironic.

Ranb
 
Clarification on the whole Kleck/Lott thing:

Gary Kleck is a criminologist at FSU. Here's some info on his study:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
Click to expand...

That's Kleck. As I said before, he has nothing to do with John Lott.

Lott is the author of More Guns, Less Crime. His book had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with surveying people about DGUs. He looked at data in states and localities before and after a change in the gun laws and found that the laws reduced crime.

Why does Claus keep lumping him in with Kleck? Because lots of people (not the least of which is Kleck himself) have problems with Lott: when asked for his data, he claimed that he lost it in a hard drive crash. He even admitted to posting under an assumed name to promote his own book. Lott just isn't a credible person, so Claus (whose credibility is a lot worse than even Lott's) lumps them together because he can't refute the Kleck data or find any way to impugn Kleck's character.

So please, any time you see him refer to "Kleck and Lott's numbers," please call him on it for the liar he is.
 
Ranb said:
You are missing the point. I claim that people use guns to justifiably defend themselves; you claim they do not.
Click to expand...

Where do I do that?

Ranb said:
It is interesting that when I say that people have defended themselves with firearms, you call it the John Mack argument. You say that people’s claims of self-defense are less believable than claims of UFO abduction. You say that those claims are based on what they imagined would happen. You seem to believe that anyone who carries a gun has never been attacked or needed to defend him or herself. I never brought up anything about Kleck or Lott, but you do in order to muddy the waters.
Click to expand...

Well, if we can't bring up Kleck/Lott, what data do you base your assessment on?

Ranb said:
But of course, you feel free to use your imagination to justify your potential actions in the event you see an armed person on an aircraft. Ironic.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Guns onboard planes are an inherent risk. Hence, the strict control measures.

shanek said:
Clarification on the whole Kleck/Lott thing:

Gary Kleck is a criminologist at FSU. Here's some info on his study:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html



That's Kleck. As I said before, he has nothing to do with John Lott.

Lott is the author of More Guns, Less Crime. His book had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with surveying people about DGUs. He looked at data in states and localities before and after a change in the gun laws and found that the laws reduced crime.

Why does Claus keep lumping him in with Kleck? Because lots of people (not the least of which is Kleck himself) have problems with Lott: when asked for his data, he claimed that he lost it in a hard drive crash. He even admitted to posting under an assumed name to promote his own book. Lott just isn't a credible person, so Claus (whose credibility is a lot worse than even Lott's) lumps them together because he can't refute the Kleck data or find any way to impugn Kleck's character.

So please, any time you see him refer to "Kleck and Lott's numbers," please call him on it for the liar he is.
Click to expand...

:hb: :hb: :hb: :hb: :hb: :hb: :hb: :hb: :hb:
 
Claus, if the two of us were on a plane, and you witnessed me get out of my seat and kill another passenger with my bare hands, what would that make me?
 
So, you really don't have any opinions about killing innocent people on planes? Honestly? You have no idea what to make of such a person?
 
CFLarsen said:
Where do I do that?

Well, if we can't bring up Kleck/Lott, what data do you base your assessment on?

Nonsense. Guns onboard planes are an inherent risk. Hence, the strict control measures.
Click to expand...

In post #1184 you said, “I'm saying that Kleck & Lott's numbers are more incredulous than Mack's UFO abduction numbers.” Since all UFO abduction claims are without merit, then you must feel the same about all self-defense claims.

I did not say you could not bring up Kleck/Lott, I said it did not matter because some people do in fact use firearms to defend themselves. It appears that you are saying there is no self-defense in the USA with firearms.

I don’t think the TSA considers passengers killing any armed person on an aircraft a “strict control measure” as you call it.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
In post #1184 you said, “I'm saying that Kleck & Lott's numbers are more incredulous than Mack's UFO abduction numbers.” Since all UFO abduction claims are without merit, then you must feel the same about all self-defense claims.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. There are official stats which are much more reliable than Kleck & Lott.

Ranb said:
I did not say you could not bring up Kleck/Lott, I said it did not matter because some people do in fact use firearms to defend themselves.
Click to expand...



No, you said I brought them up to muddy the waters.

Ranb said:
It appears that you are saying there is no self-defense in the USA with firearms.
Click to expand...

I'm not. The methods of Kleck & Lott are simply not reliable, that's all.

Brickroad said:
So, your feelings about the killer in this scenario change depending on whether or not the victim is innocent. Is that a fair assumption?
Click to expand...

How do you know he is innocent?
 
shanek said:
Lott is the author of More Guns, Less Crime. His book had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with surveying people about DGUs. He looked at data in states and localities before and after a change in the gun laws and found that the laws reduced crime.
Click to expand...

Except in Minnesota, it would seem...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom