To Arm or to Disarm.

[MightyMouse 12]

lies, damn lies,and statistics * 250

 

To be clear:

 

One is +- 250% more likely to be murdered by a gun if he owns a gun.

 

I am not stating that he is 250% more likely to be murdered if he owns a gun.

 

Big difference between the 2 statements

[SIUYA 11]

Zdo - "False narratives repeated often enough may become accepted as truths... but they are still false.

 

lies, damn lies,and statistics * 250"

 

Absolutely - using false or selective statistics to prove a point or bust a myth is done by both sides......

I just looked at the Australian myth in the pdf you posted - very selective. (I did not worry about the others) The pdf is from 2012 - but they use only data until 2000.

 

What they then fail to mention is that the trend for both homicides and for homicides by gun victims has declined over the long term.

 

Was this due to better policing, less guns (or more as the gun ban has not changed the number of weapons in Australia as has been recently shown - gun lovers and haters selectively forgot this ), better gun checks, more responsible owners, better economic conditions......??? a combination of all.

 

and this one......

Myth: Registration does not lead to confiscation

(eg; Fact: It did in Australia. In 1996, the Australian government confiscated over 660,000 previously legal weapons from their citizens.)

---- I know of people who laughed at handing in their previously useless old weapons that either never got used, or sat in cupboards. They then went out and registered and purchased new ones that they are more likely to use thanks to the government buy back --- a more accurate description than confiscation.

 

 

Trying to bust a myth using poor data inferences is the same as telling a lie enough times that it becomes the truth.

 

Like a trader saying - Fact:- I made money last month trading,

---when the reality is - if it had not been for the brokerage, slippage, missed trade that would dug myself out of the hole, and the fact that my bank account is less at the end of the month than it was at the stat, but at some stage during the month i was up.

 

So thanks for pointing out that - i assume he is pro-gun - load of selective rubbish. Good to keep a balanced argument. The gun lovers have their own spurious stats they use too often.

[MightyMouse 12]

Original Study

MMS: Error

 

Condensed version with criticisms

A gun in the home increases personal safety

 

The NRA and its lobbying to block violence research

 

Gun violence research: NRA and Congress blocked gun-control studies at CDC. - Slate Magazine

 

NRA's Courageous Stance: Arm Schools, Silence Research - Forbes

 

This is the organization you support. If I supported an organization so vehemently, I would want to know as much about its motives as I could.

[SIUYA 11]

If I supported an organization so vehemently, I would want to know as much about its motives as I could.

 

money, or sex usually

[MightyMouse 12]

money, or sex usually

 

It really is that simple.

[MightyMouse 12]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k_C9QJ41Jx0

 

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kkax7WOKI]Pack Your Bags Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]

 

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5kuOMIVts]Pack Your Bags Part 3 - YouTube[/ame]

 

He is the quintessential gun nut. And, he is a pussy. So much for diehard support of the second amendment. It appears that the fear of butt cheek violation in prison will change anyone's tune. You can't bring your gun to prison.

Edited February 12, 2013 by MightyMouse

[SunTrader 10]

Wow! That is the gun nut work book! Awesome. It should come with tear out pictures that the gun nuts can color with crayons.

 

oxymoron: gunfacts

[zdo 20]

Zdo - "False narratives repeated often enough may become accepted as truths... but they are still false.

 

lies, damn lies,and statistics * 250"

 

Absolutely - using false or selective statistics to prove a point or bust a myth is done by both sides......

 

Good to keep a balanced argument. The gun lovers have their own spurious stats they use too often.

 

... and it's been good to see that you post matching 250 + word expositions everytime the gun haters whip out their lies, dam lies and statistics. ... very helpful with "good to keep a balanced argument."

[zdo 20]

This is the organization you support. .

 

Who is this "you" in this sentence?

[zdo 20]

He is the quintessential gun nut. And, he is a pussy...

 

This 'association' game is one we all need to get good at.

It is so supportive of getting at the real issues.

... and coordinates so well with LUMPING, etc.

 

So...

 

For TheDude, SunTrader, Tams, MightyMouse and other ‘to Disarms’,

here’s a guy who will stand with you

http://moonbattery.com/?p=25224

 

and I understand that Dormer guy is in the ‘to Disarms’ tank with you too. Hooray!

[Tams 20]

This 'association' game is one we all need to get good at.

It is so supportive of getting at the real issues.

... and coordinates so well with LUMPING, etc.

 

So...

 

For TheDude, SunTrader, Tams, MightyMouse and other ‘to Disarms’,

here’s a guy who will stand with you

http://moonbattery.com/?p=25224

 

and I understand that Dormer guy is in the ‘to Disarms’ tank with you too. Hooray!

 

I like it when people call me out by name.

 

I like it when people call me out by name but have never really read any of my posts,

because it shows their ignorance: they don't know where I stand, and they make assumptions. They make an ass out of themselves.

[MightyMouse 12]

Who is this "you" in this sentence?

 

Whoever supports the NRA is who.

[SunTrader 10]

Dormer who is that?

 

Oh right, the one doing all the killing out in Cali - with what else a gun.

 

So this nutjob is in favor of taking away guns?

 

Really good advocate for either side! :haha:

[MightyMouse 12]

This 'association' game is one we all need to get good at.

It is so supportive of getting at the real issues.

... and coordinates so well with LUMPING, etc.

!

 

I call him a pussy because he ranted about people who would not join him in his war against foes of the second amendment; but, he folded like a clam when he came under pressure, recanting his statement saying he was sorry and that he was angry. Pussy for backing down.

[zdo 20]

...

I like it when people call me out by name but have never really read any of my posts,

because it shows their ignorance....

 

Tams, ... we can't read your posts ... you only post pictures

 

Let's associate some more

you get associated with MM because you lik all his posts.

[Tams 20]

Tams, ... we can't read your posts ... you only post pictures

 

Let's associate some more

you get associated with MM because you lik all his posts.

 

this is where you failed.

 

I "Like" his post, does not necessarily mean I am in his camp, or I "agree" with him, it merely means I like his argument, I appreciate the thoughts he put into his post, and the points he put forth. The title of this thread is "To Arm or to Disarm", not my camp against your camp.

 

"Like" a post does not put me in one camp or the other; most of the children cannot comprehend that. As a matter of fact I have confused a few immature people on annonymous internet forums -- they think that I belong to their camp just because I "like" their posts.

no no no I do not belong to your "camp", or his "camp", or their "camp".

 

Currently the gun people like to divide people into camps -- either you are pro guns, or you are against the 2nd amendment.

 

LOL

 

I am not saying your are naive, nobody can call you out to say that you are naive. Only you can prove whether you are or you are not. Either way it does not matter to me, because i have no opinion of you. i don't need to. It doesn't mean that you are not worthy of an opinion, i am merely saying that i don't have an opinion of you. I am repeating this just so that you know what i am talking about, you do not need to make unnecessary assumptions, like you did in previous posts.

[MightyMouse 12]

The murder rate in 2002 among males in the US was 8.8 per 100,000. The NRA and NRA supporters will sell you the line that that number is not impacted by guns because "guns don't kill, people kill." So, removing guns, according to the NRA, would more likely increase that number of male homicides per 100,000 people because a lot of the victims would have no means of protecting themselves. The driver of these numbers is the "Bad Guy" they are the ones who do the killing and will kill no matter what. The don't need guns. They will use a hammer, a bat, a knife, a club, etc.

 

So following the NRA's logic, you might expect that if you grouped together a lot of bad guys and made them live in the same location, and began collecting stats, that that they would be more likely to kill each other with or without guns since they are bad guys who have a very high propensity to commit murder. I would expect that the homicide rate among the males in this community to be a lot higher than the male homicide rate of 8,8 for males and 6.1 per 100,000 overall that is experienced in the general population in 2002. The world would be a better place right? According to the NRA if we ship the bad guys off somewhere (Send them to Australia again?) and we could experience a utopian society void of bad guys. It wouldn't matter if we had a right to bear arms because we removed the real problem; the bad guy who pulls the trigger and would kill with or without a gun.

 

The US has, indirectly, conducted this experiment and collected stats. The community that these "bad guys" live in is the US Prison System. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has collected data on prison crime for decades. The most recent data I could find was for 2002. The prison homicide rate in 2002 was 4 per 100,000. The homicide rate in prisons had been trending down just as it has in the general population since 1980.

 

It struck me as odd that the homicide rate in prisons, 4 per 100k, is about 30% less than it is out of prison, 6.1 per 100k or put another way, we stand a 150% higher chance of being murdered out of prison than we do if we were in prison ( much higher if you are male). Prisons hold bad guys. A lot of these guys are already there for murder. A lot are there for other violent crimes. Yet, the murder rate is lower than the murder rate in the non prison population. These guys are safer in prison than we are out of prison. Is that odd?

 

What could be the reason? Simple, there are no guns allowed in prison. A lack of guns make committing murder a lot harder even for the bad guys.Of course the NRA will attempt to shamelessly walk you down an illogical path:

 

Prisoners are actually correct. They are all innocent and shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

Prisoners practice professional courtesy. They only victimize non-prisoners and there are no non-prisoners in prison.

 

Women are the problem. There are no women in male prisons so there is no need to commit murder.

 

A criminal is immediately rehabilitated when he enters the prison system and no longer wants to commit murder.

 

Any other silly NRA statement

 

The experiment that can't be conducted but would have very interesting results is to find out what would happen if we added guns to the prison system. According to the NRA, guns are not the problem. According to NRA logic the homicide rate in prisons would stay the same or even decrease since these guys can now defend themselves and guns don't kill people. I don't think it is a stretch of imagination to think that adding guns to the prison population would be the quickest way of reducing the number of existing inmates. The homicide rate would simply soar.

 

I think we can we say that a gun makes a bad guy worse. But, can we say that guns can turn a good guy into a bad guy? Again, I find it odd that a free, law abiding, male in the US is more likely to be murdered than a criminal in the prison system. Your best bet, to prevent your own murder from occurring, is to commit a crime and stay in prison. The best way to prevent your own homicide by a gun is to get rid of your gun since you are 2.7 times (I rounded down to 2.5 previously) more likely to be killed by a gun if you own a gun.Odd? The main difference? Availability of guns. When you add guns to any system you increase the rate of death. It is the very simply hypothesis I have held throughout this thread. If we would like to reduce the number of deaths outside of the prison population, then we need better control of guns. It is guns that turn good guys into bad guys. Profits be damned. It is no wonder that the NRA fought to stop research involving violence.

Edited February 13, 2013 by MightyMouse

[Colonel B 10]

Has anyone mentioned the printers yet? I was just wondering because I am not going to go through 900 some posts of bickering.

 

 

But yea what about the printers. What do you guys think about that? I can get the codes if you want. I really think because of this, the debate is over. There is no way to control it now no matter how hard you try. My opinion is that the Dems get shellacked in the next election. Now with the printers it could be a big deal even in Europe. There is no chance or hope for gun control at this point.

[Tams 20]

Has anyone mentioned the printers yet? I was just wondering because I am not going to go through 900 some posts of bickering.

 

 

But yea what about the printers. What do you guys think about that? I can get the codes if you want. I really think because of this, the debate is over. There is no way to control it now no matter how hard you try. My opinion is that the Dems get shellacked in the next election. Now with the printers it could be a big deal even in Europe. There is no chance or hope for gun control at this point.

 

the printer will be another social change in the scale of the industrial revolution. Not so much the guns, of course the guns will be indiscriminately reproduced, but the impact is in the manufacturing and retail, where many product that are produced in China will no longer be so. They will be manufactured right in the users' home. and you think the retail scene is bad in usa? the vacant mall will be vacant land soon.

[Colonel B 10]

Its going to be impossible to get a reasonable magazine ban now. I can go make 20 of them the day after the ban and say they are grandfathered or 20 a month from now. If they don't allow 30 round mags and seize all of them then I can still make 20 of them tomorrow. Or make them at a future point in time. Now that you can manufacture mags from a suitcase what prevents some one from making a 60 round mag?

 

So the point is that if someone wanted to rob a bank or commit some nefarious act. They could just make the mags the night before the crime. Instead of having to go through all the trouble of finding the mags and buying them. Same goes for AR lowers. I wonder how long it would take to make a complete AR or AK variant minus the barrel and gas tubes. I mean really the only things that you would need are a barrel, gas tube, springs, and the bolt.

[SunTrader 10]

Weren't we supposed to commuting by our own personal flying machines by now ala The Jetsons?

 

Although things change fast nowadays, I'd say "perfected" personal printing machines are still a long way off. And will have only certain capability allowed.

 

Just like there are those who can crack software most of us can't so we rely on the out of the box configuation. Pipedream for those who believe different.

Edited February 13, 2013 by SunTrader

[zdo 20]

The NRA and its lobbying to block violence research

 

.

 

Government Research – beyond oxymoron

 

Has it recurred to anyone there might have been legitimate reasons to “block” that research?

 

Gov’t funded, clearly biased from the start, skewed testing and metrics already designed, plans already in place for how to massage the data to ‘create’ stats, without regard for all the variables not controlled for… all to get close to the result the ‘senator’ was looking for to begin with. Then after all that grant money is spent, which is never enough somehow – forcing them to take shortcuts, etc. , false correlations will trotted out to be used to support false premises and fake causations. All done, ostensibly, to control processes that don’t have a chance in hades of being controlled.

“Let’s Pretend…” = more gov’t waste.

Government research is much worse than an oxymoron.

Please don’t tell anyone because I don’t want to be put off the drone list, but I would hope the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence could lease some members of congress to block similar government ‘research’ if it was blindingly clear the agenda and ends were pro gun lies…

[zdo 20]

Breaking News!

Gun violence problem has now been solved

Obama gun control executive orders call for CDC gun violence research, 17 years after 1996 NRA-supported freeze.

 

Combined with their record in ending poverty, improving education, the war on drugs, curing disease, and ... the list of their accomplishments goes on and on...

this puts the nail in the coffin of any remaining 'stupid' government talk

[MightyMouse 12]

Breaking News!

Gun violence problem has now been solved

Obama gun control executive orders call for CDC gun violence research, 17 years after 1996 NRA-supported freeze.

 

Combined with their record in ending poverty, improving education, the war on drugs, curing disease, and ... the list of their accomplishments goes on and on...

this puts the nail in the coffin of any remaining 'stupid' government talk

 

Do you mean to say that we should do nothing or that we should have a better govt in place to help with some of the issues you listed above?

[zdo 20]

Do you mean to say that we should do nothing or that we should have a better govt in place to help with some of the issues you listed above?

 

Both.

 

I’m saying the better government that would “help” with this and other “issues” used as examples is simply unattainable at the this point… unrealistic… such 'programs' and interventions have been tried, failed, same tried again with 'better' funding, failed, new(same old) programs, failed… degrading rapidly now… not getting better at it...

It’s just like this unrealistic ‘cause’ you’re hooked on…how much we would we have to “better” government to get any real traction is a lot like -

How far into the gun supply would we have to go before it started making an impact on your gun deaths?

A reduction of ?? %.

 

These studies (that one side will vehemently resist) will not be effective … wasting our money on stats or whatever - anything the govt would “do” on this or the other issues would be geometrically LESS effective than ANYTHING you might do... which would also be very ineffective - unless you are working very locally, very diligently, very personally with the ‘at risks’ you drive by every day... instead of staying “suddenly upset” in your Lanza projections.

Do what you will on this issue. Just don’t expect me to want to help pay for fake studies – for either ‘side’ of this arming issue.