Poll: Do you think more guns means less crime?
Yes
No
I did until I saw these data
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-04-2015, 11:19 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 06:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 06:14 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  We still have the guns.

And will tomorrow.

Not if I legislate that you can't have them Smile Isn't democracy *beautiful* Smile Or I guess you could do the cold dead hands thing.

We'll still have guns - history shows this...

After the Soviets took over the country of Lithuania in the early 1940's - they banned private ownership of firearms.

When the Lithuanians finally booted the Soviets out in 1991 -- I saw live footage of people in Vilnius the capital.

These people had WWII vintage rifles, pistols and machine guns.

They'd been hiding them for over 50 years.

.....

I'm not too concerned about America being "disarmed" anytime soon...

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 11:33 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 11:19 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 06:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  Not if I legislate that you can't have them Smile Isn't democracy *beautiful* Smile Or I guess you could do the cold dead hands thing.

We'll still have guns - history shows this...

After the Soviets took over the country of Lithuania in the early 1940's - they banned private ownership of firearms.

When the Lithuanians finally booted the Soviets out in 1991 -- I saw live footage of people in Vilnius the capital.

These people had WWII vintage rifles, pistols and machine guns.

They'd been hiding them for over 50 years.

.....

I'm not too concerned about America being "disarmed" anytime soon...

We've also got another thing going for us in the fact that those tasked with upholding the laws tend to be pro-gun.

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation...spectives/
[Image: gun-surveyQ15.gif]
[Image: gun-surveyQ16.gif]




'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 04:36 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 06:00 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Asking me how many guns I've owned or what my experience level is with guns, is akin to a theist asking an atheist about their experience with the bible as a way of dismissing the atheist's opinion if they haven't read it or haven't read it as much as the theist. It's a flawed argument that has no actual bearing on the subject.

... except, that isn't why I asked, as you will have read by now.

Stop assuming you know the minds of people you don't know. You'll maintain your credibility and help foster a more-civil discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 04:50 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 01:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I am not sure what you mean by this "I don’t think using a coefficient of determination is appropriate here. This technique was developed to compare predictive models to sample population via a linear regression."

The point of the regression is to look for a correlation, that is it.

"Gun ownership and crime rates are not necessarily numbers in the same equation, and therefore a linear regression is kind of dicey."
Not the point. Correlations don't have to be similar types of data, even causations don't have to be. For instance, climate change can drive speciation, and they are not anywhere near the same types of variables or in the same sorts of "equations".

"...I completely appreciate the need (notice I didn’t say the Right) for people to be able to defend themselves and their families."
Defense is one thing, but I'd argue they are poor instruments for defense. Good home security and less-lethal options of defense can be just as effective. Too many people becoming compulsively suicidal and using guns (which have much higher rates of successful suicide than other methods), as well as too much domestic violence where guns are brandished about or used for me to think that the defense argument is a sound one.

The problem with your methodology is that you can find datasets with high coefficient of determination that still have no real-world relation. Data correlation/causation is determined by using more than one tool to verify correlation, data bias, variance sensitivity, etc, etc. The attached chart is a good example.
In this case your data is equally good at supporting the reverse hypothesis of “guns do not increase violence”, so while the argument that guns necessarily increase safety is faulty, the argument that gun ownership is bad to society is not supported either.

There are many ways to setup a good defense system, but if you are facing an intruder with a firearm, your only effective defense is a firearm of your own. Even with an alarm system, the best response time you can hope for is 7 to 8 minutes and that may be too long. Non-lethal weapons have a range and effectiveness disadvantage that I wouldn't want to bet my life on. You may not want to consider a gun as a component of your safety net and I can respect that, but it’s obvious to me that you have not been placed in a time or situation where your life was actually threaten by another person with hostile intent. Is this an anecdotal argument? Perhaps. But when it comes to my safety and that of my loved ones, a statistical probability of NOT zero is enough for me to plan for contingencies. Consider the following:

There were approximately 1,389,500 domestic fires in the U.S.[1]. If we look at the number of households in the census (est. 116.7MM)[2] there is a 1.14% provability my house will catch fire. I have fire insurance, smoke/CO detectors and a couple of fire extinguishers. Do you think I’m fear-mongering about domestic fires?

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics [3] there is an annual estimate of 3.7 million homes burglarized each year, resulting in an estimate of 266,560 unfortunate victims who happen to be there when the crime occurred. This leaves a 0.08% of a chance that either I or a member of my family will be hurt in such an event. I have a monitored alarm system, good locks and yes; a firearm at the ready.

With a 10-year yearly average of 109 people killed by tornadoes [4], my chances of being killed by one are minuscule in comparison, but because I live in a place where tornadoes are likely, I have a tornado shelter in my garage. Is this fear-mongering too?

What would you judge to be a good probability cutoff to disregard a potential threat? 1% chance, 0.001%? When it comes to personal decisions about your well being and security, national statistics are meaningless because your are 100% affected if it happens to you. I don’t expect to have an accident or to die every day, but I have health and life insurance in case I do.

To finalize an already long response; Guns are not the cause of domestic violence or suicides, and I don’t think conflagrating these topics adds anything to this discussion. Moreover Suicides rates [5] and domestic violence rates [6] are higher in countries in which gun ownership may be more restricted than the US. This is a non-sequitur appeal to emotion.

Best regards,

[1] http://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/
[2] http:// http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/brief...0br-14.pdf
[3] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
[4] http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/reso...lities.pdf
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...icide_rate
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiolog...c_violence


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bwolf74's post
30-04-2015, 04:54 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 04:50 PM)Bwolf74 Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 01:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I am not sure what you mean by this "I don’t think using a coefficient of determination is appropriate here. This technique was developed to compare predictive models to sample population via a linear regression."

The point of the regression is to look for a correlation, that is it.

"Gun ownership and crime rates are not necessarily numbers in the same equation, and therefore a linear regression is kind of dicey."
Not the point. Correlations don't have to be similar types of data, even causations don't have to be. For instance, climate change can drive speciation, and they are not anywhere near the same types of variables or in the same sorts of "equations".

"...I completely appreciate the need (notice I didn’t say the Right) for people to be able to defend themselves and their families."
Defense is one thing, but I'd argue they are poor instruments for defense. Good home security and less-lethal options of defense can be just as effective. Too many people becoming compulsively suicidal and using guns (which have much higher rates of successful suicide than other methods), as well as too much domestic violence where guns are brandished about or used for me to think that the defense argument is a sound one.

The problem with your methodology is that you can find datasets with high coefficient of determination that still have no real-world relation. Data correlation/causation is determined by using more than one tool to verify correlation, data bias, variance sensitivity, etc, etc. The attached chart is a good example.
In this case your data is equally good at supporting the reverse hypothesis of “guns do not increase violence”, so while the argument that guns necessarily increase safety is faulty, the argument that gun ownership is bad to society is not supported either.

There are many ways to setup a good defense system, but if you are facing an intruder with a firearm, your only effective defense is a firearm of your own. Even with an alarm system, the best response time you can hope for is 7 to 8 minutes and that may be too long. Non-lethal weapons have a range and effectiveness disadvantage that I wouldn't want to bet my life on. You may not want to consider a gun as a component of your safety net and I can respect that, but it’s obvious to me that you have not been placed in a time or situation where your life was actually threaten by another person with hostile intent. Is this an anecdotal argument? Perhaps. But when it comes to my safety and that of my loved ones, a statistical probability of NOT zero is enough for me to plan for contingencies. Consider the following:

There were approximately 1,389,500 domestic fires in the U.S.[1]. If we look at the number of households in the census (est. 116.7MM)[2] there is a 1.14% provability my house will catch fire. I have fire insurance, smoke/CO detectors and a couple of fire extinguishers. Do you think I’m fear-mongering about domestic fires?

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics [3] there is an annual estimate of 3.7 million homes burglarized each year, resulting in an estimate of 266,560 unfortunate victims who happen to be there when the crime occurred. This leaves a 0.08% of a chance that either I or a member of my family will be hurt in such an event. I have a monitored alarm system, good locks and yes; a firearm at the ready.

With a 10-year yearly average of 109 people killed by tornadoes [4], my chances of being killed by one are minuscule in comparison, but because I live in a place where tornadoes are likely, I have a tornado shelter in my garage. Is this fear-mongering too?

What would you judge to be a good probability cutoff to disregard a potential threat? 1% chance, 0.001%? When it comes to personal decisions about your well being and security, national statistics are meaningless because your are 100% affected if it happens to you. I don’t expect to have an accident or to die every day, but I have health and life insurance in case I do.

To finalize an already long response; Guns are not the cause of domestic violence or suicides, and I don’t think conflagrating these topics adds anything to this discussion. Moreover Suicides rates [5] and domestic violence rates [6] are higher in countries in which gun ownership may be more restricted than the US. This is a non-sequitur appeal to emotion.

Best regards,

[1] http://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/
[2] http:// http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/brief...0br-14.pdf
[3] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
[4] http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/reso...lities.pdf
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...icide_rate
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiolog...c_violence

Awed....

Seriously.

I WISH I could make that coherent of a response without lapsing into "and yo momma too"....

Bowing

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
30-04-2015, 07:55 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 04:50 PM)Bwolf74 Wrote:  There are many ways to setup a good defense system, but if you are facing an intruder with a firearm, your only effective defense is a firearm of your own. Even with an alarm system, the best response time you can hope for is 7 to 8 minutes and that may be too long. Non-lethal weapons have a range and effectiveness disadvantage that I wouldn't want to bet my life on. You may not want to consider a gun as a component of your safety net and I can respect that, but it’s obvious to me that you have not been placed in a time or situation where your life was actually threaten by another person with hostile intent. Is this an anecdotal argument? Perhaps. But when it comes to my safety and that of my loved ones, a statistical probability of NOT zero is enough for me to plan for contingencies.
What you are not considering is that with effective gun laws the likelihook of your attackers possing guns can go down considerably.

The trade off for making guns available to you is that you make those guns available to them also.
So now you are much more likely to face an attacker that is armed.

If you were both at the ready then you have a 50:50 chance of winning a shoot out. Doesn't sound great to me.
But it is more than likely that they sneak up on you, not letting you know that they are a threat. So they have their gun pointed at you, you have your gun under your jacket or locked in a safe.
What do you do when they demand your gun?
You give it to them. Now they have two guns and you have none.

Unless of course you have the talents of Rambo, in that last movie, wow, he pulled his gun out and shot for of them before they could even pull the trigger. Way to go Rambo!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
01-05-2015, 04:35 AM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 07:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 04:50 PM)Bwolf74 Wrote:  There are many ways to setup a good defense system, but if you are facing an intruder with a firearm, your only effective defense is a firearm of your own. Even with an alarm system, the best response time you can hope for is 7 to 8 minutes and that may be too long. Non-lethal weapons have a range and effectiveness disadvantage that I wouldn't want to bet my life on. You may not want to consider a gun as a component of your safety net and I can respect that, but it’s obvious to me that you have not been placed in a time or situation where your life was actually threaten by another person with hostile intent. Is this an anecdotal argument? Perhaps. But when it comes to my safety and that of my loved ones, a statistical probability of NOT zero is enough for me to plan for contingencies.
What you are not considering is that with effective gun laws the likelihook of your attackers possing guns can go down considerably.

The trade off for making guns available to you is that you make those guns available to them also.
So now you are much more likely to face an attacker that is armed.

If you were both at the ready then you have a 50:50 chance of winning a shoot out. Doesn't sound great to me.
But it is more than likely that they sneak up on you, not letting you know that they are a threat. So they have their gun pointed at you, you have your gun under your jacket or locked in a safe.
What do you do when they demand your gun?
You give it to them. Now they have two guns and you have none.

Unless of course you have the talents of Rambo, in that last movie, wow, he pulled his gun out and shot for of them before they could even pull the trigger. Way to go Rambo!

You can't just wish or legislate guns away. They are here, millions and millions of them. The gun control laws only hurt the innocent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like KUSA's post
01-05-2015, 05:26 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(01-05-2015 04:35 AM)KUSA Wrote:  You can't just wish or legislate guns away. They are here, millions and millions of them. The gun control laws only hurt the innocent.

... Because they prevent the innocent from getting guns so that they can shoot the guilty... who already have guns because they're guilty... God damn rule of law. It's a pity murder's illegal. We could just murder all the guilty in their beds. And the rich. Fuck the rich too. And lawyers. Fucken lawyers.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
01-05-2015, 10:45 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 07:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What you are not considering is that with effective gun laws the likelihook of your attackers possing guns can go down considerably.

The trade off for making guns available to you is that you make those guns available to them also.
So now you are much more likely to face an attacker that is armed.

Not so. Firstly, by definition, criminals are criminal because they disregard the law. Secondly, a black market for weapons already exists, in which criminals can avail themselves of the gun of their choice.

(30-04-2015 07:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If you were both at the ready then you have a 50:50 chance of winning a shoot out. Doesn't sound great to me.
But it is more than likely that they sneak up on you, not letting you know that they are a threat. So they have their gun pointed at you, you have your gun under your jacket or locked in a safe.
What do you do when they demand your gun?
You give it to them. Now they have two guns and you have none.

Unless of course you have the talents of Rambo, in that last movie, wow, he pulled his gun out and shot for of them before they could even pull the trigger. Way to go Rambo!

In one's own home, the chances of winning a shoot-out would be more in favor of the resident, it seems to me; he knows the layout of the home even in the dark, which is when most burglaries occur. The likelihood of an intruder "sneaking up on you" in your bedroom would appear to be very low unless you have two entrances for the room.

Additionally, "leave or I'll shoot" can often get the job done without gunfire, because the thief is not looking for a gunfight, he's looking for valuables, and usually will not risk his life when he cannot even be sure that there are valuables. Such an order is even more effective when the sound of a pump-action shotgun follows it.

And for Christ's sake, get some better taste in movies. It's hard to respect anyone who can sit through a Sylvester Stallone movie.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
01-05-2015, 01:17 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 07:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 04:50 PM)Bwolf74 Wrote:  There are many ways to setup a good defense system, but if you are facing an intruder with a firearm, your only effective defense is a firearm of your own. Even with an alarm system, the best response time you can hope for is 7 to 8 minutes and that may be too long. Non-lethal weapons have a range and effectiveness disadvantage that I wouldn't want to bet my life on. You may not want to consider a gun as a component of your safety net and I can respect that, but it’s obvious to me that you have not been placed in a time or situation where your life was actually threaten by another person with hostile intent. Is this an anecdotal argument? Perhaps. But when it comes to my safety and that of my loved ones, a statistical probability of NOT zero is enough for me to plan for contingencies.
What you are not considering is that with effective gun laws the likelihook of your attackers possing guns can go down considerably.

The trade off for making guns available to you is that you make those guns available to them also.
So now you are much more likely to face an attacker that is armed.

If you were both at the ready then you have a 50:50 chance of winning a shoot out. Doesn't sound great to me.
But it is more than likely that they sneak up on you, not letting you know that they are a threat. So they have their gun pointed at you, you have your gun under your jacket or locked in a safe.
What do you do when they demand your gun?
You give it to them. Now they have two guns and you have none.

Unless of course you have the talents of Rambo, in that last movie, wow, he pulled his gun out and shot for of them before they could even pull the trigger. Way to go Rambo!

I disagree. The data that the OP presented clearly indicates that gun ownership rates have no relation to violent crime. DC has the most restrictive gun laws in the country and the highest murder rate. Mexico has very restrictive gun laws and the the cartels and kidnapping gangs are wreaking daily havoc on the lives of decent people.
I do train often and part of my training is how to brandish my concealed gun as quickly as possible, so I would like to think my chances are better than 50:50, but if I didn't have my gun my odds of survival in a shootout are more or less 0.0%
Like I've said before; If you don't feel a gun is for you I completely respect that. I'm not trying to sell you mine or even change your mind. I feel people need to be more informed about their security and how firearms are an important component in a comprehensive system, but I'm not evangelizing here. Don't want a gun; don't have one.

Regarding the Rambo thing... yeah.. that would be cool Big Grin

Cheers!


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: