The Good Guy With A Gun Theory, Debunked

[Belz...]

Funny, you never asked for a citation from Mark F. Your request for citation is dishonest. I might still dig it up later, but it's clear that you're trying to apply a hypocritical standard of evidence.

"You must answer every single unsupported claim everywhere at all times, otherwise you're dishonest!" is not very convincing, Zig. He asked the question to you because he doesn't believe you. You can refuse to give him what he wants, but your chosen strategy here is ridiculous.

 

[Ziggurat]

"You must answer every single unsupported claim everywhere at all times, otherwise you're dishonest!" is not very convincing, Zig. He asked the question to you because he doesn't believe you. You can refuse to give him what he wants, but your chosen strategy here is ridiculous.

The fact that he doesn't believe me is precisely the point: he will believe any claim that supports his position, and disbelieve any that doesn't.

And I haven't refused, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

 

[Belz...]

The fact that he doesn't believe me is precisely the point: he will believe any claim that supports his position, and disbelieve any that doesn't.

Yeah but isn't that true of most people anyway? We have beliefs and opinions and of course we'd like to see evidence for the contrary before we accept it.

I'd think you'd ask for the same thing.

 

[Mark F]

In this you have just substituted your own bias ("law abiding citizen") for the NRA's (just about anybody) or the anti-gun nuts (nobody). What makes your particular criterion better than anyone else's?

And does a jay walking ticket debar someone from being able to buy a gun? After all, she is not "law abiding". Yeah, I know that's a silly question but it raises the very important question about what "law abiding" really means.

Also, what limits would you place on the definition of a "gun". Can a "law abiding" citizen care these:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/19575965cc5c46439.jpg[/qimg]

Again, it's a silly question but it raises the issue of what kind of gun any "law abiding" citizen should be able to own.

How about less time wasting silly questions and more real ones?

 

[qayak]

Are you under some sort of impression that I'm in favour of CC? Should I obsessively read every post on the forum and call absolutely every single one on their inaccuracies lest you find me guilty of hypocrisy? Or are you just miffed that someone dared to call you on your "common sense" comment, something that usually doesn't fly here?



Then don't make such silly claims.

I think your ability to read leaves a lot to be desired.

I know you haven't been around long but your claim that "common sense comments" don't fly on the ISF can only be chalked up to willful ignorance. That you always call the ones that don't support you view on gun nuttery is pretty obvious.

Back to the point made: My point was to illustrate that the poster had left out an entire set of statistical facts that rendered their point moot. Statistically speaking my common sense statement is true. I understand that you may be unable to grasp how that could be possible but it is.

The point was this: There is no way of knowing how many times the drawing of a gun diffused a situation and there is no way of knowing how many times guns were drawn inappropriately but both are irrelevant to the discussion so we can disregard them.

Carry on.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Also, what limits would you place on the definition of a "gun". Can a "law abiding" citizen care these:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/19575965cc5c46439.jpg[/qimg]

Nobody can get these .. it's a photoshop

 

[Belz...]

I think your ability to read leaves a lot to be desired.

I know you haven't been around long but your claim that "common sense comments" don't fly on the ISF can only be chalked up to willful ignorance. That you always call the ones that don't support you view on gun nuttery is pretty obvious.

Ooh! By all means: what are my views on gun nuttery? Do you even know where I stand on the topic?

My point was to illustrate that the poster had left out an entire set of statistical facts that rendered their point moot. Statistically speaking my common sense statement is true.

Oh, cool. Where are those statistics?

The point was this: There is no way of knowing how many times the drawing of a gun diffused a situation and there is no way of knowing how many times guns were drawn inappropriately but both are irrelevant to the discussion so we can disregard them.

Of course you're correct here. MY point was that you can't make the claim you made because you don't know either. You suspect, which is fine, but "common sense" is so often wrong that you can't really expect to bring it up without being called on it.

 

[qayak]

This doesn't answer my question. How do you determine what would've happened in another reality?

There is a whole science behind it and it often causes a huge issue for people who like 1-1 cause and effect correlations. It isn't 100% accurate but in large populations it is statistically significant. Vegas was built on knowing what will happen in alternate realities. Understanding the science gives you the ability to have people believe billion dollar casinos are built by people breaking even and they better hurry back to Vegas so they can break even again.

Gun owners like to throw out examples of one "law abiding citizen" and extrapolate that into 55 million "law abiding citizens" which serves their purpose but is completely inaccurate. Science says the most accurate way to deal with the issue is to see it as 55 million gun owners, 3% of whom own an average of 17 guns.

The outcry from "law abiding citizens" arises when they are told what conclusions the science leads to. Then they double down on the one "law abiding citizen" fallacy.

 

[Belz...]

There is a whole science behind it and it often causes a huge issue for people who like 1-1 cause and effect correlations. It isn't 100% accurate but in large populations it is statistically significant. Vegas was built on knowing what will happen in alternate realities. Understanding the science gives you the ability to have people believe billion dollar casinos are built by people breaking even and they better hurry back to Vegas so they can break even again.

Sure, but a host of factors may come into play. You can say what happened before the change, but you can't say with any amount of certainty what would've happened had the change not occured. That's the distinction I'm making. Maybe you think it's a distinction without a difference. Maybe it is. I just thought it was important to point out. YMMV.

 

[qayak]

Ooh! By all means: what are my views on gun nuttery? Do you even know where I stand on the topic?

It is irrelevant to the discussion so I couldn't care less.

Oh, cool. Where are those statistics?

The exact same ones the poster quoted.

Of course you're correct here. MY point was that you can't make the claim you made because you don't know either.

That's what I said in my original post and in context to the post I was responding to. Even if there is no known number it doesn't mean there isn't a number. So neither one of us knows the actual numbers but there are numbers and evidence suggests that the statistic they ignored will be higher than the statistic they used to support their position.

 

[Belz...]

It is irrelevant to the discussion so I couldn't care less.

Finely dodged. You have no idea where I stand but because I disagree with you on one aspect of the debate you assume that I stand against you on the general topic.

 

[Giz]

There is a whole science behind it and it often causes a huge issue for people who like 1-1 cause and effect correlations. It isn't 100% accurate but in large populations it is statistically significant. Vegas was built on knowing what will happen in alternate realities. Understanding the science gives you the ability to have people believe billion dollar casinos are built by people breaking even and they better hurry back to Vegas so they can break even again.

Gun owners like to throw out examples of one "law abiding citizen" and extrapolate that into 55 million "law abiding citizens" which serves their purpose but is completely inaccurate. Science says the most accurate way to deal with the issue is to see it as 55 million gun owners, 3% of whom own an average of 17 guns.

The outcry from "law abiding citizens" arises when they are told what conclusions the science leads to. Then they double down on the one "law abiding citizen" fallacy.

Given the "study" was about concealed carriers, how about this:
............................
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...e-gun-owners-are-least-likely-criminals-17355

there were about 103 crimes per hundred thousand officers,” the report reads. “For the U.S. population as a whole, the crime rate was 37 times higher—3,813 per hundred thousand people.”
permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” the report says. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10. That is just one-seventh*of the rate for police officers.
..................................

So, it isn't ccw holders getting involved in crime. Which means that any increase in crime in those states must be due to other factors than concealed carry.

 

[qayak]

Sure, but a host of factors may come into play. You can say what happened before the change, but you can't say with any amount of certainty what would've happened had the change not occured. That's the distinction I'm making. Maybe you think it's a distinction without a difference. Maybe it is. I just thought it was important to point out. YMMV.

That's true.

 

[Belz...]

That's true.

Which part? The distinction without a difference?

 

[3point14]

Sure, but a host of factors may come into play. You can say what happened before the change, but you can't say with any amount of certainty what would've happened had the change not occured. That's the distinction I'm making. Maybe you think it's a distinction without a difference. Maybe it is. I just thought it was important to point out. YMMV.

If this holds then one can never, ever say if a thing (any thing at all) is a success because one can just site the above applied to any measurement ever and state "You don't know what would have happened if..."

It essentially means you have no method of evaluating any change to anything, anywhere.

 

[Ziggurat]

If this holds then one can never, ever say if a thing (any thing at all) is a success because one can just site the above applied to any measurement ever and state "You don't know what would have happened if..."

It essentially means you have no method of evaluating any change to anything, anywhere.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Rather, it means that observational studies without a control group often can't determine the causation behind a correlation. This isn't new, everybody should already know that. But people keep forgetting it whenever it's convenient to.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Rather, it means that observational studies without a control group often can't determine the causation behind a correlation. This isn't new, everybody should already know that. But people keep forgetting it whenever it's convenient to.

Science is the wrong tool to determine such things, that is what we have ideology for, and why statistics never matter anyway. It would be like thinking seatbelts a save lives, when all we can really say is that they correlate with saved lives.

 

[Belz...]

If this holds then one can never, ever say if a thing (any thing at all) is a success because one can just site the above applied to any measurement ever and state "You don't know what would have happened if..."

It essentially means you have no method of evaluating any change to anything, anywhere.

No, all you have to do is have a target and then see if you've hit it. You don't need a hypothetical future, just a good record of the past.

 

[Giz]

If this holds then one can never, ever say if a thing (any thing at all) is a success because one can just site the above applied to any measurement ever and state "You don't know what would have happened if..."

It essentially means you have no method of evaluating any change to anything, anywhere.

No, it just means you can’t take two groups of people suffering from X, give one of the groups homeopathic remedies and if they do slightly better than the ‘control’, use it as proof of homeopathy working.


For the umpteenth time:
- It isn’t concealed carriers committing crimes
So what is the mechanism whereby you can link increased concealed carry to increased crime?

 

[3point14]

No, all you have to do is have a target and then see if you've hit it. You don't need a hypothetical future, just a good record of the past.

How do you know at that point that whatever your target was, it wouldn't have been achieved by doing nothing?