Why gun control push fizzled?

[Giz]

Again, if you're trying to prove a position and the available data either doesn't support it or supports something else, than you must-

1. Attack the study
2. Attack studies in general.
3. Say the study doesn't address "the real issue" and refuse to discuss it.

Once you learn these simple rules you can argue anything: up is down, left is right, black is white.

So what is your position on John Lott's "More guns, less crime"?

(Careful, no attacking now!)

 

[Sabretooth]

...but does anyone have any data to support that gun owners suffer less crime than non-gun owners? Because if you want the political process to recognize self-protection as an important part of gun ownership you have to make a case for it.

And for the 3rd time I'm telling you now, I attempted to answer this question back in post 165. Not to mention that others have pointed out exactly what I said...that the "statistics" you're looking for do not exist in a verifiable or scientific form.

But, I want to know, in your opinion, how many defensive uses of firearms are enough to make self-defense a legitimate reason for gun ownership?

Thousands? Hundreds? Dozens? One?

The fact is that there are many defensive uses of firearms. There are many websites dedicated to collecting news stories from around the country that speak of DGU's (Defensive Gun Use). They are easy to find. Are you familiar with how Google.com works?

So, for the last time, there are no concrete statistics on DGU's. If there were, this debate would most likely be a slam-dunk in either direction. Stop asking, please.

 

[triforcharity]

Actually what happened in this thread is, so far as I can see...

Someone objected to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo referring to sportsmen and hunters in some remarks he made about guns. Objected that he didn't mention self-defense.

I don't think many government officials are going to be quoted talking about guns for self-protection. That's a road they don't want to go down.

So I wrote, how big an issue is that? How important a role does gun ownership play in personal safety. Not that it makes you feel safe to have a gun -- though I guess that's a legitimate point -- but does anyone have any data to support that gun owners suffer less crime than non-gun owners? Because if you want the political process to recognize self-protection as an important part of gun ownership you have to make a case for it.

The first rule of debate is, if someone asks a question you don't have a good answer for than you must-

1. Attack the question.
2. Attack the questioner
3. Say the question posed "is not the real issue" and refuse to entertain it.

I think all we're seeing is variations on those three rules.

I've hilited your strawman argument for your easy identification. That is not a position anyone in this thread has held. I could be wrong. Maybe you can show why this was even brought up? Didn't YOU bring this up to begin with? BTW, Me personally, I don't carry a gun, or have guns, so that I will be a less likely victim of crime. I carry it because of two reasons. 1- I want to be able to defend myself against any threat to my life, or the lives of those around me if I need to and 2- Well, because I *********** can.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Where are you getting your numbers? The site I cited p) includes state and federal lands under "public". California also has lots of ranches and farms and undeveloped land. It doesn't all look like LA.

I used your numbers.

Look at them again. Look at the first 4-5 columns. Your cite says that 42% of California is publicly owned. That is why CA is ranked 7th while TX is ranked 47th.

 

[WildCat]

Are you *********** kidding me? 50 rounds PER YEAR?!?!?! I shoot that before breakfast some days....wow...

I can't find a cite online, but that's what a cop friend told me years ago. It may have changed, so I don't have 100% confidence in it. It actually may be worse, on this forum (post #15) a poster who says he's a Chicago cop says "we are required to shoot a 30 round course once a year". And then "I would estimate that out of the 13,000 of us, probably 9-10,000 fire less than 200 rounds per year. When you do the annual qualification you shoot whats in your gun and magazines from last year. When you leave they give you a new box of fifty rounds."

 

[Dr. Keith]

Funding rubbish just gets you more rubbish.


If your auto mechanic kept damaging your car instead of fixing it, would you keep going to him and also start bringing in your wife's car... or would you stop going there?

Luckily our government is more accountable to us. If they are really doing objectively rubbish studies they could have been fired or rules could have been put into place that were content neutral to improve the quality of research. Instead they just placed a whole area off limits.

The fact was that it wasn't all that rubbish, so content neutral rules would not have helped, it just wasn't what the NRA wanted. Sometimes facts are stubborn.

 

[Giz]

The fact was that it wasn't all that rubbish, so content neutral rules would not have helped, it just wasn't what the NRA wanted. Sometimes facts are stubborn.

Care to provide any studies that weren't rubbish?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Why do you ask me? Shouldn't you be asking the doctors who concluded "more regulations means less gun crime"?

There was such a kerfuffle over them being doctors, I don't remember any actual criticisms of their methods. I'm not saying they weren't made, I'm telling you how big an error it was to derail the conversation into their credentials instead of attacking the actual merits of the study.

It could be ****, but I like it because it was the study that made Tri angry because doctors were studying public health matters. Makes me smile every time.

 

[newyorkguy]

And for the 3rd time I'm telling you now, I attempted to answer this question back in post 165. Not to mention that others have pointed out exactly what I said...that the "statistics" you're looking for do not exist in a verifiable or scientific form.

But, I want to know, in your opinion, how many defensive uses of firearms are enough to make self-defense a legitimate reason for gun ownership?

Thousands? Hundreds? Dozens? One?

The fact is that there are many defensive uses of firearms. There are many websites dedicated to collecting news stories from around the country that speak of DGU's (Defensive Gun Use). They are easy to find. Are you familiar with how Google.com works?

So, for the last time, there are no concrete statistics on DGU's. If there were, this debate would most likely be a slam-dunk in either direction. Stop asking, please.

Okay I'll ignore the snarky comments and just say this -if you can't cite anything to support that guns are proven to be effective in ensuring citizens' safety, than you can't say that they are. You can't expect someone like Andrew Cuomo to tell the public they need guns to ensure their safety. I already stated my feelings clearly.

...

I don't see the public supporting the goal of increased gun ownership as a way to make society safer. I'm sorry I just don't think most Americans want that kind of society. Where a) everybody's carrying a gun or b) has one in their home. I don't have a big problem with 'b' but I'm don't want to see 'a' either.

 

[WildCat]

I used your numbers.

Look at them again. Look at the first 4-5 columns. Your cite says that 42% of California is publicly owned. That is why CA is ranked 7th while TX is ranked 47th.

Oh, I see now and stand corrected. I'm still not seeing the relevance to homicide rates though. Do you think more federal land means more homicides or fewer homicides, and why?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Care to provide any studies that weren't rubbish?

Care to provide any other are of study that was completely shut down over claims that the studies were rubbish rather than implementing content neutral controls over study grants?

Stem Cell Research? That's a shining example of the same short sighted mentality.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Oh, I see now and stand corrected. I'm still not seeing the relevance to homicide rates though. Do you think more federal land means more homicides or fewer homicides, and why?

I'm saying the states are very different in many ways and that if you are trying to show some correlation then you would be better served to show it across many states than to cherry pick two very different states and say: look they are different in this area but the same in this one! Aha, that means something!

You have data for all 50 states. Use it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I can't find a cite online, but that's what a cop friend told me years ago. It may have changed, so I don't have 100% confidence in it. It actually may be worse, on this forum (post #15) a poster who says he's a Chicago cop says "we are required to shoot a 30 round course once a year". And then "I would estimate that out of the 13,000 of us, probably 9-10,000 fire less than 200 rounds per year. When you do the annual qualification you shoot whats in your gun and magazines from last year. When you leave they give you a new box of fifty rounds."

That is frightening. I may have second thoughts about living there. How 'bout I just find you a job down here? We are enjoying a cool summer so far, haven't yet reached 100!

 

[WildCat]

There was such a kerfuffle over them being doctors, I don't remember any actual criticisms of their methods.

I gave several actual criticisms. Here's 2:
1. It just counts numbers of laws without any study as to the content of those laws.
2. A state which allows home rule entities to regulate firearms (such as New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois at the moment, Hawaii and Connecticut) will have far more firearms laws than one which has a single set of state laws and home rule firearms laws are preempted.

You hand waved that away as "unconvincing" IIRC.

 

[WildCat]

That is frightening. I may have second thoughts about living there. How 'bout I just find you a job down here? We are enjoying a cool summer so far, haven't yet reached 100!

As someone with red hair the thought of moving to a place with so much sunshine horrifies me!

 

[Dr. Keith]

I gave several actual criticisms. Here's 2:
1. It just counts numbers of laws without any study as to the content of those laws.
2. A state which allows home rule entities to regulate firearms (such as New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois at the moment, Hawaii and Connecticut) will have far more firearms laws than one which has a single set of state laws and home rule firearms laws are preempted.

Did they make no effort to control for these issues? Did they discuss why they chose this proxy and whether there were other proxies available?

You hand waved that away as "unconvincing" IIRC.

I think I was so tired from the "doctors can't study the public health impact of gun laws" BS that I just didn't care. All credibility was used up by then.

 

[Dr. Keith]

As someone with red hair the thought of moving to a place with so much sunshine horrifies me!

Well, you could either burn in the sun or at the stake down here. We all know that gingers don't have souls!!!

 

[triforcharity]

It could be ****, but I like it because it was the study that made Tri angry because doctors were studying public health matters. Makes me smile every time.

It should make you smile, because that claim came from your rear. I complained that DOCTORS were doing studies on LAW. Do you call a doctor when you need a good defense attorney? I'd think I'd call....I dunno, what's the word I'm looking for.....um....someone who studies....the *********** law? Maybe you would like to talk to my attorney on medical information, he's a great lawyer, he should be able to answer your medical questions....

 

[triforcharity]

Okay I'll ignore the snarky comments and just say this -if you can't cite anything to support that guns are proven to be effective in ensuring citizens' safety, than you can't say that they are. You can't expect someone like Andrew Cuomo to tell the public they need guns to ensure their safety. I already stated my feelings clearly.

Wow. Is it the words that WildCat and other's have used, or is it the concept that eludes you? Also, you're cherry picking and quotemining. Guns have been used quite effectively for self defense. http://www.guns.com/category/self-defense/ Here's quite a few different articles that talk about DGU's.

 

[Sabretooth]

if you can't cite anything to support that guns are proven to be effective in ensuring citizens' safety, than you can't say that they are.

Your IF:THEN logic is flawed.

There are hundreds upon thousands of instances where people use their firearm defensively every single year. Many are easily verifiable by news and police reports.

What more "proof" do you need?

You're asking for a comprehensive compilation of DGU's for me to prove my point. Sorry, that's not how it works, not for this. It's like asking for a precise count of water droplets in a lake, and then telling me the lake doesn't exist if I don't know the exact quantity.

Again, I'm accusing you of being extremely disingenuous.

The evidence is easily available across the internetz. Typing a search for "defensive gun use" came up with over 10 million hits.

You can't expect someone like Andrew Cuomo to tell the public they need guns to ensure their safety. I already stated my feelings clearly.

I wouldn't expect Cuomo to be able to convey the importance of tying your shoes properly. Cuomo doesn't want guns in the hands of anyone in his State, so he intentionally spins the available data.

Andy made that desperate, emotional cry about "needing to do something" about the horrible assault weapons in NY that are killing all our babies! Yeah. 514 gun murders in 2011...and a whopping 5 of those committed with long guns of varying types (including the dreaded AR-15). Talk about a crock of ****.

NY already had strict gun laws before Sandy Hook, and he used it as a springboard to even further choke citizens. The SAFE Act was designed to be a headlines grab so Andy could get some face time before 2016.

How about presenting some facts with your next post.