CT shooting 20+ dead.

[TheBeardedDude]

Also, this is a pop culture article for research and as with so many other times this happens, they use wording that isn't strictly correct (scientifically determined vs saying statistically significant). I can't evaluate their claims as I don't have their numbers, but what exactly about this would be biased?

And also, how do you refute this "According to the AAP, the safest home for children and teens is one without guns. If there are guns in the home, scientific evidence shows the risk of injury or death is greatly reduced when they are stored unloaded and locked, with the ammunition locked in a separate place."


If the guns are not there, then the risk approaches 0 for their chances of being injured by guns. If the guns are there, the odds are >0 they will be injured.

[Chas]

(18-12-2012 11:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Also, this is a pop culture article for research and as with so many other times this happens, they use wording that isn't strictly correct (scientifically determined vs saying statistically significant). I can't evaluate their claims as I don't have their numbers, but what exactly about this would be biased?

And also, how do you refute this "According to the AAP, the safest home for children and teens is one without guns. If there are guns in the home, scientific evidence shows the risk of injury or death is greatly reduced when they are stored unloaded and locked, with the ammunition locked in a separate place."


If the guns are not there, then the risk approaches 0 for their chances of being injured by guns. If the guns are there, the odds are >0 they will be injured.

But we can't usefully look at risks in isolation; risks must be compared and weighed against each other and in context.

For instance, there are no children or teens in my home. I live alone, in a rural setting, and I am handicapped.

What are my risks? What are my risk mitigators?

[TheBeardedDude]

(18-12-2012 11:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(18-12-2012 11:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Also, this is a pop culture article for research and as with so many other times this happens, they use wording that isn't strictly correct (scientifically determined vs saying statistically significant). I can't evaluate their claims as I don't have their numbers, but what exactly about this would be biased?

And also, how do you refute this "According to the AAP, the safest home for children and teens is one without guns. If there are guns in the home, scientific evidence shows the risk of injury or death is greatly reduced when they are stored unloaded and locked, with the ammunition locked in a separate place."


If the guns are not there, then the risk approaches 0 for their chances of being injured by guns. If the guns are there, the odds are >0 they will be injured.

But we can't usefully look at risks in isolation; risks must be compared and weighed against each other and in context.

For instance, there are no children or teens in my home. I live alone, in a rural setting, and I am handicapped.

What are my risks? What are my risk mitigators?

It is not your home I am worried about, unless your weapons are stolen. But I care about that because I also don't want your shit to be stolen.

The argument I keep hearing is that people don't want to pay more for their ammunition or pay more for a license or whatever. People don't like to spend more money on their hobby. This is an argument that is lost on me. Your pocketbook for the safety of others? I'll take it. I'll pay too! I never said I don't own a gun!

[TheBlackKnight]

(18-12-2012 11:43 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  

(18-12-2012 11:41 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  How are any statistics bullshit? They are cooked up by biased sources with an agenda. Like this http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/a...ocal+token

The same reason they are so effective for criminals is the same reason I own them for protection.

So your argument is that the statistics (cold hard numbers) are bullshit so you won't believe them?

You prefer emotion to make your arguments?

Did you read any thing else? And we aren't talking about "cooked" statistics either. This is not a statistical analysis looking for a p-value to reject a claim or doing a fast fourier transform to find a pattern or a principal component analysis to try and connect 2 things. This is a and b are correlated. It is regression.

"cold hard numbers" are and can be completely stanted ,which I why I don't use a lot of pro-gun numbers on the flip side.

(18-12-2012 11:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Also, this is a pop culture article for research and as with so many other times this happens, they use wording that isn't strictly correct (scientifically determined vs saying statistically significant). I can't evaluate their claims as I don't have their numbers, but what exactly about this would be biased?

And also, how do you refute this "According to the AAP, the safest home for children and teens is one without guns. If there are guns in the home, scientific evidence shows the risk of injury or death is greatly reduced when they are stored unloaded and locked, with the ammunition locked in a separate place."


If the guns are not there, then the risk approaches 0 for their chances of being injured by guns. If the guns are there, the odds are >0 they will be injured.

because that is boy in the bubble logic. Your kids stand to gain incredible safety in the home if things like:GUNS,house hold chemicals, cars,water heaters, forks and knives, the lawn mower etc etc where taken out. You know your kid will never choke and die if you take all the food and give it away?It's true,charity makes you safer!



What practical experience do you have with firearms?

[Chas]

(18-12-2012 11:59 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  

(18-12-2012 11:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  But we can't usefully look at risks in isolation; risks must be compared and weighed against each other and in context.

For instance, there are no children or teens in my home. I live alone, in a rural setting, and I am handicapped.

What are my risks? What are my risk mitigators?

It is not your home I am worried about, unless your weapons are stolen. But I care about that because I also don't want your shit to be stolen.

The argument I keep hearing is that people don't want to pay more for their ammunition or pay more for a license or whatever. People don't like to spend more money on their hobby. This is an argument that is lost on me. Your pocketbook for the safety of others? I'll take it. I'll pay too! I never said I don't own a gun!

And I am not arguing against rational, useful gun control.

I argue against emotionally-driven, fact-poor, no evidence proposals.

The U.S. is not likely to enact laws like those in the U.K. or Canada. Not in the near future, at least.

So let's work on solving actual problems, like mental health, poverty, and drug laws that lead to violent behavior.

And, yes, rational, useful firearms legislation.

[TheBeardedDude]

(18-12-2012 12:02 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  

(18-12-2012 11:43 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  So your argument is that the statistics (cold hard numbers) are bullshit so you won't believe them?

You prefer emotion to make your arguments?

Did you read any thing else? And we aren't talking about "cooked" statistics either. This is not a statistical analysis looking for a p-value to reject a claim or doing a fast fourier transform to find a pattern or a principal component analysis to try and connect 2 things. This is a and b are correlated. It is regression.

"cold hard numbers" are and can be completely stanted ,which I why I don't use a lot of pro-gun numbers on the flip side.

(18-12-2012 11:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Also, this is a pop culture article for research and as with so many other times this happens, they use wording that isn't strictly correct (scientifically determined vs saying statistically significant). I can't evaluate their claims as I don't have their numbers, but what exactly about this would be biased?

And also, how do you refute this "According to the AAP, the safest home for children and teens is one without guns. If there are guns in the home, scientific evidence shows the risk of injury or death is greatly reduced when they are stored unloaded and locked, with the ammunition locked in a separate place."


If the guns are not there, then the risk approaches 0 for their chances of being injured by guns. If the guns are there, the odds are >0 they will be injured.

because that is boy in the bubble logic. Your kids stand to gain incredible safety in the home if things like:GUNS,house hold chemicals, cars,water heaters, forks and knives, the lawn mower etc etc where taken out. You know your kid will never choke and die if you take all the food and give it away?It's true,charity makes you safer!



What practical experience do you have with firearms?

I have a 30-06 rifle at home and a 12 gauge pump shotgun. I was raised in the gun culture shooting .22 rifles for fun at my uncle's house at 2-liter bottles full of hot water and soap. I used to squirrel hunt. My favorite moment shooting a gun was a double-action .45 caliber revolver (long barrel and scope, it is my brothers).

So you base your argument off of, I don't like how some people use numbers, so fuck them all! Very scientific and reasonable. Not conspiracy theorist at all.

[TheBeardedDude]

(18-12-2012 12:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(18-12-2012 11:59 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It is not your home I am worried about, unless your weapons are stolen. But I care about that because I also don't want your shit to be stolen.

The argument I keep hearing is that people don't want to pay more for their ammunition or pay more for a license or whatever. People don't like to spend more money on their hobby. This is an argument that is lost on me. Your pocketbook for the safety of others? I'll take it. I'll pay too! I never said I don't own a gun!

And I am not arguing against rational, useful gun control.

I argue against emotionally-driven, fact-poor, no evidence proposals.

The U.S. is not likely to enact laws like those in the U.K. or Canada. Not in the near future, at least.

So let's work on solving actual problems, like mental health, poverty, and drug laws that lead to violent behavior.

And, yes, rational, useful firearms legislation.

See, sometimes we can find good ground to work on. That is all I want. Realization that it isn't a simple problem with a simple solution and that regulation of guns (within reason) can help.