Militia question 1

[Ed]

I take it from the looping nature of the thread at this point that the meaning of the second amendment and the long term future of firearms ownership has been adequitely dealt with.

 

[CFLarsen]

Depending on whose figures you believe

Are you now saying that there is doubt about the Kleck/Lott figure of about 2.3-2.4 million DGUs?

anywhere from 400,000 to 2 million people use a firearm every year to foil a crime.

The numbers are purely bogus.

 

[shanek]

Are you now saying that there is doubt about the Kleck/Lott figure of about 2.3-2.4 million DGUs?

I am saying that different people have come up with different numbers. I'm not saying (in this thread, at least) which ones I doubt and which ones I believe.

The numbers are purely bogus.

Evidence? The 400,000 figure was what the pro-gun side cooked up to try and refute Kleck's numbers. That was as low as they could make it. In fact, it was Tim Lambert himself whom I saw cite this figure.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am saying that different people have come up with different numbers. I'm not saying (in this thread, at least) which ones I doubt and which ones I believe.

I can understand why.

Evidence? The 400,000 figure was what the pro-gun side cooked up to try and refute Kleck's numbers. That was as low as they could make it. In fact, it was Tim Lambert himself whom I saw cite this figure.

Where are all the dead and wounded? 190,900 of them, to be precise.

 

[shanek]

Where are all the dead and wounded? 190,900 of them, to be precise.

I've refuted that several times, Claus. You're getting that figure with way to small a sample size to be reliable. The fact that you persist in asking about this shows just how much of a skeptic you aren't. You're like a creationist asking over and over again about the eye.

 

[Mycroft]

If there is a need for a linguistic analysis, then there is disagreement to what it means.

Oh that's lame.

We're talking law. Analysis of the text is part of the territory.

 

[CFLarsen]

I've refuted that several times, Claus. You're getting that figure with way to small a sample size to be reliable. The fact that you persist in asking about this shows just how much of a skeptic you aren't. You're like a creationist asking over and over again about the eye.

"Too small a sample size"?? I got that from Kleck's study: Sample size of 4,977!



You wanna go over it again? Sure:

From Kleck's study:

What the defender did with the gun: Wounded or killed offender: 8.3%
Source: Kleck

Now, with 2.3 million DGUs, that will give us 190,900 dead or wounded people.

Again, I emphasize that this is from Kleck's own study!

Still think you have "refuted" it?

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh that's lame.

We're talking law. Analysis of the text is part of the territory.

Interpreting a law will take place in court.

 

[shanek]

"Too small a sample size"?? I got that from Kleck's study: Sample size of 4,977!

Claus, that entire sample size is NOT for those killed and wounded. That only makes up a small portion of the total.

If I have a poll of, say, 1000 people, then that could be a good measure of them. However, if only half of them are women, and only half of them are married, then the resulting sample size of 250 would be way too small for me to say I can determine anything about married women. You cannot say the fraction is sufficient because the whole is.

In fact:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm

In a second variety of this fallacious line of reasoning, H cites estimates of the number of gunshot wound (GSW) victims treated in emergency rooms and falsely claims that "K-G report that 207,000 times per year the gun defender thought he wounded or killed the offender." In fact, we did not compute or report this 207,000 estimate, and we specifically cautioned against using our data on GSWs because they were based (unlike our estimates of DGU frequency in general) on a small sample. Moreover, we cautioned because we had done no detailed questioning of RS regarding why they thought that they had wounded their adversaries.

And also:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

Low as it is, even an 8% wounding rate is probably too high, both because of the censoring of less serious cases, which in this context would be cases without a wounding, and because the survey did not establish how Rs knew they had wounded someone. We suspect that in incidents where the offender left without being captured, some Rs "remembered with favor" their marksmanship and assumed they had hit their adversaries. If 8.3% really hit their adversaries, and a total of 15.6% fired at their adversaries, this would imply a 53% (8.3/15.6) "incident hit rate," a level of combat marksmanship far exceeding that typically observed even among police officers.

In any case, the 8.3% figure was produced [Page 174] by just seventeen sample cases in which Rs reported that they wounded an offender.

Of course, you know all this, but no amount of dishonesty is unjustified to you if you can continue to hold on to your little closed-minded world view.

 

[Chaos]

But this just isn't any law. It's a Constitutional amendment, and amendments are always passed after long and careful consideration.

No, it isn't! These debates survive! The writings of the people who wrote it survive! Why is there all this speculation?

Let me return this question: if it´s all so clear, why is there so much speculation and discussion?


One possible answer is: that´s because you can´t look into the minds of people who have been dead for almost 200 years to see what they think.

Another possibility: the constitution was intended to fit the United States of the late 18th century, and it is problematic, to say the least, to use it on the United States of the early 21st century.

 

[Ed]

Let me return this question: if it´s all so clear, why is there so much speculation and discussion?


One possible answer is: that´s because you can´t look into the minds of people who have been dead for almost 200 years to see what they think.

Another possibility: the constitution was intended to fit the United States of the late 18th century, and it is problematic, to say the least, to use it on the United States of the early 21st century.

Disagree. We know what they committed to paper when discussing this topic. Their thinking is clear. The problem is that some simply don't like their thoughts.

Discussions that revolve around changing the constitution to "fit modern times" is very, very scarey. If the SA gives you the vapors, how would you feel if the Free Speech thingie gave GW the vapors? I'd rather duke it out in court.

 

[shanek]

Let me return this question: if it´s all so clear, why is there so much speculation and discussion?

For pretty much the same reason there's speculation and discussion about astrology or homeopathy. Because there are people who want to take guns away and find themselves having to defend their position WRT the Constitution.

One possible answer is: that´s because you can´t look into the minds of people who have been dead for almost 200 years to see what they think.

You can read what they wrote.

Another possibility: the constitution was intended to fit the United States of the late 18th century, and it is problematic, to say the least, to use it on the United States of the early 21st century.

Then the proper course should be to amend the Constitution.

 

[CFLarsen]

For pretty much the same reason there's speculation and discussion about astrology or homeopathy. Because there are people who want to take guns away and find themselves having to defend their position WRT the Constitution.

So, you equate a political stance with a paranormal belief? You think that because someone disagrees with you politically, they are woowoos?

Wow.

 

[Chaos]

You can read what they wrote.

Have you never been misunderstood in what you wrote? I´m sure you were. I know for certain I am, now and then. And that makes me wonder why you won´t allow for the possibility that the founding fathers were misunderstood.

 

[Ed]

Have you never been misunderstood in what you wrote? I´m sure you were. I know for certain I am, now and then. And that makes me wonder why you won´t allow for the possibility that the founding fathers were misunderstood.

The issue is that we have tons of their writings, there is no mistake.

 

[CFLarsen]

Have you never been misunderstood in what you wrote? I´m sure you were. I know for certain I am, now and then. And that makes me wonder why you won´t allow for the possibility that the founding fathers were misunderstood.

Because that would open up a can of worms for shanek. And he does not want to go there, under any circumstances.

So, it is easier to take the path of the fanatic: Simply deny the possibility, and claim that his understanding is the only way to understand it.

Otherwise, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!

 

[shanek]

Have you never been misunderstood in what you wrote?

With all of the things that have been written, all of the debates, all of the letters, etc., it's ridiculous for anyone to say we're misunderstanding them in this.

 

[shanek]

So, it is easier to take the path of the fanatic: Simply deny the possibility, and claim that his understanding is the only way to understand it.

A very concise description of your tactics in this forum....

 

[CFLarsen]

With all of the things that have been written, all of the debates, all of the letters, etc., it's ridiculous for anyone to say we're misunderstanding them in this.

As usual, a non-answer to an uncomfortable question.

 

[CFLarsen]

A very concise description of your tactics in this forum....

BadaBing!