Maybe it is OK to defend yourself....

[Kerberos]

Previous Thread

Ok so it's a phone survey - that offers several problems, first not everybody respond to phone surveys, and the people who refuse to participate are seldom a representative sample. Also the count relies exclusively on the testimony of the alleged victim. Also it seems quite clear from line one that the author has an axe to grind. All in all I'm unwilling to accept this number as reliable based on such questionable evidence.

Well, if the gun was used defensively it would follow without that weapon they would have been the victim of a crime.

Not necessarily, the victim might have defended himself with other means or run away.

At least we could assume the probability of those people being a victim would increase without a weapon.

That much I agree on, that is assuming of course the number is accurate, which I'm not willing to concede based on the available evidence. An interesting piece of information would be how often the police records defensive gun use. While the number is likely to be understated due to unreported cases, one would assume that most people would report attempted burglaries, assaults, rapes etc.

 

[shuize]

I know this is a bit off topic, but if someone could give a brief answer I'd appreciate it.

I've heard that juries have fallen out of favor in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Canada. A post above indicated that criminal juries are still used in the U.K., but I've heard that there are no grand juries and no civil juries. Is that accurate?*



*Edited to add: I've since started a new thread on this question.

 

[Ed]

Ok so it's a phone survey - that offers several problems,

All surveys have problems and fewer and fewer are face to face. Unfortunately, given your creiteria, virtually every poll is fatally flawed.

 

[Kerberos]

All surveys have problems and fewer and fewer are face to face. Unfortunately, given your creiteria, virtually every poll is fatally flawed.

I fail to see how, certainly all polls have problems but a survey of for example what people vote, wont suffer from the same subjectivity problems as this one. A person can reasonably be trusted on what he's going to vote, he is not necessarily to be trusted on whether his gun use was self-defence or really necessary.

 

[merphie]

Ok so it's a phone survey - that offers several problems, first not everybody respond to phone surveys, and the people who refuse to participate are seldom a representative sample. Also the count relies exclusively on the testimony of the alleged victim. Also it seems quite clear from line one that the author has an axe to grind. All in all I'm unwilling to accept this number as reliable based on such questionable evidence.

You should look at the data more closely. There's more to it than your simplification. You could also look at this Article. It is a response from Kleck.

Not necessarily, the victim might have defended himself with other means or run away.

Sure. They could also yell "fire". Criminals are known to never give chase.

That much I agree on, that is assuming of course the number is accurate, which I'm not willing to concede based on the available evidence. An interesting piece of information would be how often the police records defensive gun use. While the number is likely to be understated due to unreported cases, one would assume that most people would report attempted burglaries, assaults, rapes etc.

Defensive gun use is not a crime and not tracked by police. The NCVS is about the best source of information for unreported crimes.

 

[merphie]

A person can reasonably be trusted on what he's going to vote, he is not necessarily to be trusted on whether his gun use was self-defence or really necessary.

Trusted to vote? The founding fathers of the USA didn't seem to think so.

Why wouldn't an individual be trusted with a gun?

Furthermore, can we trust police and the government with the same power? No, clearly not.

I have always believed: If one group has guns then we must all have guns. (Or the availability)

 

[DavidJames]

Why wouldn't an individual be trusted with a gun? ...

And then you say...

I have always believed: If one group has guns then we must all have guns. (Or the availability)

Can you exlain this apparent contradiction? It seems you think people with guns can be trusted yet if someone else has one, everyone should have one?

 

[Kerberos]

Trusted to vote? The founding fathers of the USA didn't seem to think so.

People can IMO mainly be trusted to know and be honest about what they're going to vote, whether they vote wisely is another and quite different question. People who use their guns on the other hand cannot necessarily be trusted in the same way.

 

[merphie]

Can you exlain this apparent contradiction? It seems you think people with guns can be trusted yet if someone else has one, everyone should have one?

How do you confuse a question with a statement of opinion?

 

[merphie]

People can IMO mainly be trusted to know and be honest about what they're going to vote, whether they vote wisely is another and quite different question. People who use their guns on the other hand cannot necessarily be trusted in the same way.

We could draw futher comparisons. How can someone be trusted with vehicle? In my neighborhood, how can I trust a kid on a bicycle?

If I use my gun am I not subject to laws reguarding it's use? Why don't you rob banks?

 

[DavidJames]

How do you confuse a question with a statement of opinion?

Do you trust an individual with a gun?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Do you trust an individual with a gun?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...718&e=6&u=/ap/20041028/ap_on_re_us/deli_death

No. Monkey Credo: most people are idiots, and cannot be trusted with even dull scissors.

 

[CFLarsen]

He's actually referring to this source.

It has a better sample size (5 or 6 thousand) but is still just a telephone survey.

Where do you see the 5 or 6 thou?

 

[merphie]

Do you trust an individual with a gun?

Depends on the person. Same goes for Cops and government.

 

[Kerberos]

We could draw futher comparisons. How can someone be trusted with vehicle? In my neighborhood, how can I trust a kid on a bicycle?

If I use my gun am I not subject to laws reguarding it's use? Why don't you rob banks?

Please read what I wrote.

 

[merphie]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...718&e=6&u=/ap/20041028/ap_on_re_us/deli_death

No. Monkey Credo: most people are idiots, and cannot be trusted with even dull scissors.

Unless I am mistaken a loaded gun can not be carried around by individuals in the city. He was an Excop too. Hrmmm. . .

 

[merphie]

Please read what I wrote.

I did. It seems you have the opinion that all people are stupid and evil.

 

[DavidJames]

Depends on the person.

So why must everyone have guns?

Oh, and please answer CFLarsen's question.

edit to remove dumb question

 

[TragicMonkey]

I did. It seems you have the opinion that all people are stupid and evil.

Ah! A realist!

 

[Kerberos]

I did. It seems you have the opinion that all people are stupid and evil.

Well you certainly don’t seem too bright. Here is what I said, I've emphasised the relevant part

"People can IMO mainly be trusted to know and be honest about what they're going to vote, whether they vote wisely is another and quite different question. People who use their guns on the other hand cannot necessarily be trusted in the same way. "

I'll even explain it to you: If people say they're going to vote Kerry, then it's almost certainly because they are going to vote Kerry. If they say they used their gun in self-defence that's not necessarily true, the concept of self-defence is much more ambiguous than whether you vote for Kerry or Bush, and people are likely to consciously or subconsciously portray the situation is such a way that it makes themselves look best. Do you understand what I'm saying now, or do you prefer to persist attacking that ridiculous straw man?