Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate

[Tartarus Sauce]

I think I've finally figured out a way to settle the gun debate: shoot all the statisticians.

[Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver]

(15-05-2013 08:36 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  It's very common for one to vaguely imply things and then claim" I never said that" when you call them on it. It's a verbal luxury not deserved.

as for they much less commonly include acknowledgment of decades-old gun control,this is false as the gun buyer's world is flanked by the NFA of '34 and GCA of '68, plus various state restrictions. Pro gun people don't want anymore gun control, because it's failed to actually have a impact on violent crime(example: the "assault" weapons ban), and that's why gun grabbers have to result to comparing us to other countries using dubious numbers that unclude suicide and airsoft/paintball incidents in "violent gun crime".

That's false. We now know that studies about the effectiveness of gun control on violent crime have been hamstrung and muzzled by the NRA-ILA while conveniently highlighting a few existing statistics eg Chicago crime rates, etc. The NRA has also halted further investigation and prosecution of corrupt firearms dealers for political purposes as well.

Gun control can work if it can universally corner the supply of guns, but this is not possible due to the capricious nature of state gun laws. California, Illinois, New York and DC have fruitless results with gun control because people smuggle guns freely bought in Nevada, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida (it is so bad LE often calls I-95 the 'Iron Corridor'). If the latter mentioned states had tougher gun laws, this illicit trade would dry up overnight.

Yeah, criminals get their guns freely. And the NRA is doing everything in its power to ensure it continues.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras...n_science/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/us/nra-gun-research

[fat cat]

(15-05-2013 05:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, rights precede government or society. What we agree on are freedoms and limitations of rights.

If that's true, then what is the source of rights?

(15-05-2013 08:36 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  It's very common for one to vaguely imply things and then claim" I never said that" when you call them on it.

It's also very common for one to claim somebody vaguely implied something even when that person had no such intention of implying that something. Only TheBeardedDude can truly tell us whether he was implying what you believe he was. Your conversations might be more effective if you ask people, rather than tell them, what implicit arguments they are trying to make.

(15-05-2013 08:36 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  It's a verbal luxury not deserved.

I have no concern for adhering to the idea that anybody "deserves" anything, positive or negative.

(15-05-2013 08:36 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  as for they much less commonly include acknowledgment of decades-old gun control,this is false as the gun buyer's world is flanked by the NFA of '34 and GCA of '68, plus various state restrictions.

You missed my point, and going back to my post, I see that's due to my own failure to specify something. Sorry.

I meant that while many argue new legislation is unconstitutional on certain premises, they make no mention that the NFA, GCA, and other existing gun control are also unconstitutional on those premises. My point was that such people might be using unconstitutionality as a biased reason to discourage firearm restrictions.

(15-05-2013 08:36 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  Pro gun people don't want anymore gun control, because it's failed to actually have a impact on violent crime(example: the "assault" weapons ban)

I'm well aware that is the position of many gun advocates. But how do they know gun control has failed to have an impact on violent crime? Any study I've come across on the subject said whether or not gun control was effective was inconclusive.

Aside from studies, if a person chose not to attempt breaking a gun law and thus couldn't execute violent crime with a firearm and told nobody of that decision, the rest of us human beings would be completely unaware of that specific instance of the law's efficacy. That's just one example of how ineffective gun control efficacy measures can be.

Besides, whether or not violent crime is prevented by gun control is just one part of what people intend gun control for. I believe it's already been mentioned in this thread that even when the law against murder isn't effective in prevention, it can at least be effective in punishment, and the same can be true for firearm restrictions.

[Chas]

(16-05-2013 01:02 AM)fat cat Wrote:  

(15-05-2013 05:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, rights precede government or society. What we agree on are freedoms and limitations of rights.

If that's true, then what is the source of rights?

I have the right to my person; each of us has that right. All else is either a logical consequence of that, or it is negotiated.

[TheBlackKnight]

(15-05-2013 10:27 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  

(15-05-2013 08:36 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  It's very common for one to vaguely imply things and then claim" I never said that" when you call them on it. It's a verbal luxury not deserved.

as for they much less commonly include acknowledgment of decades-old gun control,this is false as the gun buyer's world is flanked by the NFA of '34 and GCA of '68, plus various state restrictions. Pro gun people don't want anymore gun control, because it's failed to actually have a impact on violent crime(example: the "assault" weapons ban), and that's why gun grabbers have to result to comparing us to other countries using dubious numbers that unclude suicide and airsoft/paintball incidents in "violent gun crime".

That's false. We now know that studies about the effectiveness of gun control on violent crime have been hamstrung and muzzled by the NRA-ILA while conveniently highlighting a few existing statistics eg Chicago crime rates, etc. The NRA has also halted further investigation and prosecution of corrupt firearms dealers for political purposes as well.

Gun control can work if it can universally corner the supply of guns, but this is not possible due to the capricious nature of state gun laws. California, Illinois, New York and DC have fruitless results with gun control because people smuggle guns freely bought in Nevada, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida (it is so bad LE often calls I-95 the 'Iron Corridor'). If the latter mentioned states had tougher gun laws, this illicit trade would dry up overnight.

Yeah, criminals get their guns freely. And the NRA is doing everything in its power to ensure it continues.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras...n_science/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/us/nra-gun-research

1st, you expected different from the NRA?

2nd, if you wish to be taken serious don't link me to a article on the CDC researching gun violence, who loves to include suicide in their numbers of "violent gun deaths" to make statistics appear how they want. The CDC groups like the American Association of Pediatrics have no bid'ness telling us about things of a criminal nature.


I read the other article,and this one is purposely vague

Quote:Last year, the NRA used its influence in Florida to push through legislation that would punish doctors if they asked patients whether they owned a gun.
And buried inside President Barack Obama's signature health care legislation is a little-known provision that prevents the government and health insurers from asking about gun ownership

My question is what kind of doctors are asking about firearms ownership,why, and how are they qualified to do so?? Are they concerned about lead contamination, or storage of cleaning solvents in the house?

Quote:But public health experts say it's all part of an attempt by the NRA-led pro-gun lobby to hamstring lawmakers.

It seems to me they are taking Eric Holder's advice and trying to turn Gun Control into the next Tobacca aint cool brah campaign. Seriously, is there something I dont know? I clean my guns using gloves, I wash my hands after a range trip, I always wear safety gear when at the range and when making ammo. I'm not sure I've had many booboo's in my 20+ years handling firearms aside from a cut here or there. Actually, machine gun barrels get pretty hot. So where is the real MEDICAL threat here?

[Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver]

(16-05-2013 08:02 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  1st, you expected different from the NRA?

2nd, if you wish to be taken serious don't link me to a article on the CDC researching gun violence, who loves to include suicide in their numbers of "violent gun deaths" to make statistics appear how they want. The CDC groups like the American Association of Pediatrics have no bid'ness telling us about things of a criminal nature.

Again patently false. The CDC is right to do studies of gun violence including suicides in their data as certain types of gun control could easily prevent a lot of suicides using firearms. As for the AAP, as their members are the people having to treat juveniles injured or killed by gunshot wounds, I'd say that perfectly well qualifies them to weigh in on the gun control issue.

[fat cat]

(16-05-2013 04:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have the right to my person; each of us has that right. All else is either a logical consequence of that, or it is negotiated.

You had already conveyed the idea within those two statements in an earlier post, and I understood it then, too. I was asking what the source of the right to your person is, not whether you have it.

I'll try putting it another way. You said rights precede government and society. If that's the case, what is a "right", and how do we know each of us has the "right to my person"?

[Chas]

(16-05-2013 11:10 PM)fat cat Wrote:  

(16-05-2013 04:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have the right to my person; each of us has that right. All else is either a logical consequence of that, or it is negotiated.

You had already conveyed the idea within those two statements in an earlier post, and I understood it then, too. I was asking what the source of the right to your person is, not whether you have it.

I'll try putting it another way. You said rights precede government and society. If that's the case, what is a "right", and how do we know each of us has the "right to my person"?

We could approach this as a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Assume that I do not have the right to my person. What then? Then no rights whatsoever can be defined except as negotiated, but negotiated on what basis?

[TheBlackKnight]

(16-05-2013 11:00 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  

(16-05-2013 08:02 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  1st, you expected different from the NRA?

2nd, if you wish to be taken serious don't link me to a article on the CDC researching gun violence, who loves to include suicide in their numbers of "violent gun deaths" to make statistics appear how they want. The CDC groups like the American Association of Pediatrics have no bid'ness telling us about things of a criminal nature.

Again patently false. The CDC is right to do studies of gun violence including suicides in their data as certain types of gun control could easily prevent a lot of suicides using firearms. As for the AAP, as their members are the people having to treat juveniles injured or killed by gunshot wounds, I'd say that perfectly well qualifies them to weigh in on the gun control issue.

It's not a medical issue. A majority a firearms "accidents" are all due to user error, and a small number to actual mechanical malfunction, which is STILL partly user error.The AAP puts out intelligent statistics on firearms that mirror "a new study says that households who own a vehicle are XXX% more likely to have a car accident." That's the kind of crack reporting I need in my life. Great stuff.

Don't worry tho, a Senator from Mass is introducing a bill that required all pistols to have "smart" technology that only permits the user to fire LOL. Its pretty safe to say that guy doesn't know much about firearms or computers. I'm sure Obama will make it happen with all his new found free time.?

[fat cat]

(17-05-2013 08:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  Assume that I do not have the right to my person. What then?

Then you do not have the right to your person. Since I know not what specifically is "the right to your person", I can't with honesty give more an answer than that.

(17-05-2013 08:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  Then no rights whatsoever can be defined except as negotiated, but negotiated on what basis?

Okay, so you're saying all our rights can only be defined, because we have the right to our person. What I'm asking, though, is how the right to our person is defined in the first place. If the right to our person is the basis for all our negotiated rights, on what basis is that right assumed?