Stern Show!
Chris Morton
Threatening to behead the lobster was hilarious, nevermind the roach, mealworms
and cod!
He proved beyond at doubt that PETA chicks [nevermind the rest] are stupid and
you can trick them into stuff!
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
apostate
> Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
210lb.
> rapists.
When's the last time you heard of a woman driving off an attacker by pulling
a handgun?
Ward M. Clark
news:u9kncgm...@news.supernews.com...
A good friend of mine's wife deterred an attacker with the .357 she keeps in
her purse. She's licensed to carry. The would-be attacker - assumed to be
a would-be rapist - grabbed her by the arm and tried to drag her towards a
car. She broke loose, got her revolver and pointed it at him, whereupon he
fled. This was, if memory serves, about three years ago.
In 1981, I was repossessing a car in Lincoln Park, on the south end of the
Chicago metro area. I stopped at a convenience store, just after dark, in
the repossessed car looking for directions to the interstate. I had to park
around the corner of the store.
When I left, there was a kid (17-18) sitting on the hood of the car. As I
approached the car, he stood up an revealed a small folding knife of some
sort and said something about 'your money.' I pulled aside one side of the
old Army trenchcoat I wore and showed him the old .45 horse pistol I had
holstered on my belt. He stopped, looked, shrugged, folded up the knife and
walked off. I left.
I'd have to look it up for a specific number, but as I recall the Kleck
study estimates well over a million incidents a year in which crimes are
deterred by the presence of a firearm in the hands of the would-be victim -
in most of the cases, the gun is never fired, just displayed or "brandished"
if you will.
--
Ward M. Clark
Author, Lecturer, Traveler & Bum
www.frombearcreek.com
www.pathwai.org
Kevin Brandon
Are you saying it hasn't happened or that they shouldn't have the option?
Kevin
apostate
> "apostate" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > "Chris Morton" <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote
> >
> > > Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight
with
> > 210lb.
> > > rapists.
> >
> > When's the last time you heard of a woman driving off an attacker by
pulling
> > a handgun?
>
> Are you saying it hasn't happened or that they shouldn't have the
option?
Law enforcement experts will tell you guns in the hands of joe citizen for
protection are more likely to be used on the citizen than the attacker.
OTOH, if the danger in the environment warrants it, (in Vancouver, Canada it
doesn't) I would carry a weapon myself. My question remains, that would be
pretty sexy story for the press but I haven't heard it. Women who are
victimized are usually surprised and overpowered before they can "draw".
Once that happens, all of a sudden the weapon is a big detriment. It sounds
all Western "right-to-bear-arms" cool but the reality is more complex.
apostate
> "apostate" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:u9kncgm...@news.supernews.com...
> > "Chris Morton" <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote
> >
> > > Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight
with
> > 210lb.
> > > rapists.
> >
> > When's the last time you heard of a woman driving off an attacker by
> pulling
> > a handgun?
> >
> >
>
> A good friend of mine's wife deterred an attacker with the .357 she keeps
in
> her purse. She's licensed to carry. The would-be attacker - assumed to
be
> a would-be rapist - grabbed her by the arm and tried to drag her towards a
> car. She broke loose, got her revolver and pointed it at him, whereupon
he
> fled. This was, if memory serves, about three years ago.
It's still a very rare occurence, and statistically she had more chance of
having the gun used on her than having it successfully driving off the
attacker.
> In 1981, I was repossessing a car in Lincoln Park, on the south end of the
> Chicago metro area. I stopped at a convenience store, just after dark, in
> the repossessed car looking for directions to the interstate. I had to
park
> around the corner of the store.
>
> When I left, there was a kid (17-18) sitting on the hood of the car. As I
> approached the car, he stood up an revealed a small folding knife of some
> sort and said something about 'your money.' I pulled aside one side of
the
> old Army trenchcoat I wore and showed him the old .45 horse pistol I had
> holstered on my belt. He stopped, looked, shrugged, folded up the knife
and
> walked off. I left.
You shoulda made the little fucker dance.
>
> I'd have to look it up for a specific number, but as I recall the Kleck
> study estimates well over a million incidents a year in which crimes are
> deterred by the presence of a firearm in the hands of the would-be
victim -
> in most of the cases, the gun is never fired, just displayed or
"brandished"
> if you will.
Yes I'd like to see that, because my impression is that studies show more
incidents are made worse than are averted.
Although I love the idea of drawing heat on a punk, and making him piss his
worthless pants..
Ward M. Clark
> "Ward M. Clark" <wardm...@NSattbi.com> wrote
> > "apostate" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:u9kncgm...@news.supernews.com...
> > > "Chris Morton" <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight
> with
> > > 210lb.
> > > > rapists.
> > >
> > > When's the last time you heard of a woman driving off an attacker by
> > pulling
> > > a handgun?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > A good friend of mine's wife deterred an attacker with the .357 she
keeps
> in
> > her purse. She's licensed to carry. The would-be attacker - assumed to
> be
> > a would-be rapist - grabbed her by the arm and tried to drag her towards
a
> > car. She broke loose, got her revolver and pointed it at him, whereupon
> he
> > fled. This was, if memory serves, about three years ago.
>
> It's still a very rare occurence, and statistically she had more chance of
> having the gun used on her than having it successfully driving off the
> attacker.
Actually, that's not true. The study that's often cited in making that
claim, the Kellerman study, dishonestly only examined instances in which the
attacker was ***killed*** in the victim's home - it didn't count incidents
outside the home, and it didn't count incidents in which the attacker was
wounded, or driven off. When you factor those in, the odds are completely
reversed.
See:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kleck.interview.html
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
http://reason.com/0001/fe.js.cold.shtml
>
> > In 1981, I was repossessing a car in Lincoln Park, on the south end of
the
> > Chicago metro area. I stopped at a convenience store, just after dark,
in
> > the repossessed car looking for directions to the interstate. I had to
> park
> > around the corner of the store.
> >
> > When I left, there was a kid (17-18) sitting on the hood of the car. As
I
> > approached the car, he stood up an revealed a small folding knife of
some
> > sort and said something about 'your money.' I pulled aside one side of
> the
> > old Army trenchcoat I wore and showed him the old .45 horse pistol I had
> > holstered on my belt. He stopped, looked, shrugged, folded up the knife
> and
> > walked off. I left.
>
> You shoulda made the little fucker dance.
>
I was perfectly happy to just get the hell out of there.
> >
> > I'd have to look it up for a specific number, but as I recall the Kleck
> > study estimates well over a million incidents a year in which crimes are
> > deterred by the presence of a firearm in the hands of the would-be
> victim -
> > in most of the cases, the gun is never fired, just displayed or
> "brandished"
> > if you will.
>
> Yes I'd like to see that, because my impression is that studies show more
> incidents are made worse than are averted.
Honest studies don't show that. Kellerman was roundly lambasted for his
lousy technique; for one thing, he absolutely refused to make his raw data
available for review.
See:
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kellerman-schaffer.html
http://www-stat.ucdavis.edu/~corrigan/gunweb/Gun%20Control%20Science%20Misfi
res.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~conserve/medical.htm
>
> Although I love the idea of drawing heat on a punk, and making him piss
his
> worthless pants..
I really like the idea of the punks knowing that, say, 3% of the population
is packing, but not having any idea who. "What's behind Door Number Three?
An easy robbery, or a bullet in the chest?"
The record of CCW shows that it works. It works very, very well.
apostate
>
> I really like the idea of the punks knowing that, say, 3% of the
population
> is packing, but not having any idea who. "What's behind Door Number
Three?
> An easy robbery, or a bullet in the chest?"
>
> The record of CCW shows that it works. It works very, very well.
This seems like a topic where statistics could paint very different
pictures, depending on one's predisposition. I know that guns accidently
kill a lot of people, yet it makes sense that a populus packin' concealed
weapons is probably a mighty strong deterrent to personal crime. Since this
topic is outside the realm of my interest in studying up on, and off-topic,
I'll defer.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
> "Ward M. Clark" <wardm...@NSattbi.com> wrote
>>I really like the idea of the punks knowing that, say, 3% of the population
>>is packing, but not having any idea who. "What's behind Door Number Three?
>>An easy robbery, or a bullet in the chest?"
>>The record of CCW shows that it works. It works very, very well.
> ... I know that guns accidently
> kill a lot of people, yet it makes sense that a populus packin' concealed
> weapons is probably a mighty strong deterrent to personal crime. ...
Canadians, in general, tend to have a very different perspective and
perception about guns than US citizens.
Chris Morton
Earlier this week?
The first was my grandmother. Of course she didn't even pull it. She kept it
in her coat pocket, and told the guy who was following her to "Cross the street,
go back the way you came, or get SHOT." He chose option 2.
The "American Rifleman" has a column of nothing but defensive gun uses EVERY
month. In fact, I think they've been printing it since before I was born. I
remember JFK alive, if that's any hint.
--
Chris Morton
>
>"Kevin Brandon" <brand...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> "apostate" <n...@email.com> wrote
>> > "Chris Morton" <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote
>> >
>> > > Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight
>with
>> > 210lb.
>> > > rapists.
>> >
>> > When's the last time you heard of a woman driving off an attacker by
>pulling
>> > a handgun?
>>
>> Are you saying it hasn't happened or that they shouldn't have the
>option?
>
>Law enforcement experts will tell you guns in the hands of joe citizen for
>protection are more likely to be used on the citizen than the attacker.
WHICH "law enforcement experts"?
If they tell you that, they're lying, since there isn't any such evidence.
>OTOH, if the danger in the environment warrants it, (in Vancouver, Canada it
>doesn't) I would carry a weapon myself. My question remains, that would be
>pretty sexy story for the press but I haven't heard it. Women who are
They've been intentionally suppressed. Media typically oppose firearms
ownership and concealed carry.
>victimized are usually surprised and overpowered before they can "draw".
Cite an example of this happening. I've been asking people to do so for more
than ten years. Nobody's EVER been able to do so. If you can, you'll be the
first.
>Once that happens, all of a sudden the weapon is a big detriment. It sounds
>all Western "right-to-bear-arms" cool but the reality is more complex.
The reality is that a certain sub-culture demands victimization.
--
Chris Morton
>It's still a very rare occurence, and statistically she had more chance of
>having the gun used on her than having it successfully driving off the
>attacker.
It's not a rare occurance at all. There's a page full of them in the "American
Rifleman" EVERY month.
>> I'd have to look it up for a specific number, but as I recall the Kleck
>> study estimates well over a million incidents a year in which crimes are
>> deterred by the presence of a firearm in the hands of the would-be
>victim -
>> in most of the cases, the gun is never fired, just displayed or
>"brandished"
>> if you will.
>
>Yes I'd like to see that, because my impression is that studies show more
>incidents are made worse than are averted.
Your impression is either wrong, or you're reading studies which are
deliberately dishonest. US Dept. of Justice statistics say that resisting with
a gun is the SAFEST course of action when faced with a violent crime.
>Although I love the idea of drawing heat on a punk, and making him piss his
>worthless pants..
That's irrelevant. What matters is that you defend yourself and anyone in your
care.
--
Chris Morton
>Actually, that's not true. The study that's often cited in making that
>claim, the Kellerman study, dishonestly only examined instances in which the
>attacker was ***killed*** in the victim's home - it didn't count incidents
>outside the home, and it didn't count incidents in which the attacker was
>wounded, or driven off. When you factor those in, the odds are completely
>reversed.
That's absolutely correct.
Were the same "reasoning" applied to self-defense using the martial arts, nobody
could be said to have defended themselves unless they beat or choked their
assailant to death.
--
Chris Morton
>
>"Ward M. Clark" <wardm...@NSattbi.com> wrote
>[..]
>>
>> I really like the idea of the punks knowing that, say, 3% of the
>population
>> is packing, but not having any idea who. "What's behind Door Number
>Three?
>> An easy robbery, or a bullet in the chest?"
>>
>> The record of CCW shows that it works. It works very, very well.
>
>This seems like a topic where statistics could paint very different
>pictures, depending on one's predisposition. I know that guns accidently
>kill a lot of people, yet it makes sense that a populus packin' concealed
That's incorrect too. Guns accidentally kill very few people, and less now than
at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken.
--
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
> In article <u9lj4u6...@news.supernews.com>, "apostate" says...
-
>>This seems like a topic where statistics could paint very different
>>pictures, depending on one's predisposition. I know that guns accidently
>>kill a lot of people, yet it makes sense that a populus packin' concealed
> That's incorrect too. Guns accidentally kill very few people,
It is?
Over the past fifteen years there has been a yearly average of 1300
people in the US killed by accidental gun deaths and you call that "very
few people? 12,178 people killed in the 1990s and you call that "very
few people"? That is the population of my home town.
Compare that to Canada with an average of 67 accidental deaths a year in
the same period.
The Canadian rate is half the US rate.
> and less now than
> at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken.
I doubt you could support that statement. You should stick with facts
that are supportable.
Jonathan Ball
> Chris Morton wrote:
>
>> In article <u9lj4u6...@news.supernews.com>, "apostate" says...
>
> -
>
>>> This seems like a topic where statistics could paint very different
>>> pictures, depending on one's predisposition. I know that guns accidently
>>> kill a lot of people, yet it makes sense that a populus packin'
>>> concealed
>>
>
>> That's incorrect too. Guns accidentally kill very few people,
>
>
>
> It is?
>
> Over the past fifteen years there has been a yearly average of 1300
> people in the US killed by accidental gun deaths and you call that "very
> few people? 12,178 people killed in the 1990s and you call that "very
> few people"? That is the population of my home town.
>
> Compare that to Canada with an average of 67 accidental deaths a year in
> the same period.
>
> The Canadian rate is half the US rate.
You might not want to look too hard at the comparison.
According to a Canadian gun control web site
(http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm), the U.S.
has a per capita rate of gun ownership more than three
times that of Canada (.82 vs. .25, firearms of all
types), but its rate of accidental death by firearms
per 100,000 population is only 50% higher.
Furthermore, handguns make up a much smaller percentage
of all privately owned guns in Canada, about 16%,
versus 34% in the U.S; and handgun ownership in Canada
is restricted to police, members of gun clubs or
collectors. But U.S. government statistics
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/gmwki_97.pdf) make clear
that accidental death by handguns, as opposed to other
specified types of guns, are by far the most numerous.
(In the PDF file, look for ICD 9 codes 9220 through
9229.)
>
>
>> and less now than
>> at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken.
>
>
>
> I doubt you could support that statement. You should stick with facts
> that are supportable.
As a percentage of total deaths by firearms, accidental
deaths are pretty small. The much greater rate of
firearm deaths in the U.S. compared to Canada is
accounted for by deliberate gun use (including
suicides), not by accidents.
I don't know about lower than at "any time" in the last
100 years, but from 1993 through 1998, the rate of
accidental death from all types of firearm missile,
both specified and unspecified, has fallen *every* year:
1993 - 1,521
1994 - 1,356
1995 - 1,225
1996 - 1,134
1997 - 981
1998 - 866
Source:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/unpubd/mortabs/gmwki.htm;
download each of the 6 PDF files; search for ICD-9 code
922.
By contrast, the same files show that deaths from
assault by firearms and explosives (ICD-9 965) fell
from 18,271 in 1993 to 11,802 in 1998. Deaths from
suicide by firearm (ICD-9 955) fell from 18,954 in 1993
to 17,432 in 1998.
Pretty clearly, accidental deaths by firearms in the
U.S. are dwarfed by those resulting from criminal
assault and suicide.
Chris Morton
>
>Chris Morton wrote:
>
>> In article <u9lj4u6...@news.supernews.com>, "apostate" says...
>-
>>>This seems like a topic where statistics could paint very different
>>>pictures, depending on one's predisposition. I know that guns accidently
>>>kill a lot of people, yet it makes sense that a populus packin' concealed
>
>> That's incorrect too. Guns accidentally kill very few people,
>
>
>It is?
Yes, it is.
>Over the past fifteen years there has been a yearly average of 1300
>people in the US killed by accidental gun deaths and you call that "very
>few people? 12,178 people killed in the 1990s and you call that "very
>few people"? That is the population of my home town.
How many people were killed on average per year in auto accidents, or by medical
malpractice?
Your home town would have to grow a LOT to equal that.
>Compare that to Canada with an average of 67 accidental deaths a year in
>the same period.
>
>The Canadian rate is half the US rate.
Cite the respective populations.
Comparing absolute numbers between vastly disparate populations is meaningless.
>> and less now than
>> at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken.
>
>
>I doubt you could support that statement. You should stick with facts
>that are supportable.
Actually, I CAN support it. It's publicly available information.
What's your evidence that there's an INCREASE?
You can't produce any.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
> IgnoranceistheFirstStep wrote:
>> Chris Morton wrote:
>>> In article <u9lj4u6...@news.supernews.com>, "apostate" says...
Actually, we would want to look hard at the comparison, as you have
done. All sorts of interesting issues arise when one does so.
Handgun ownership is incredibly restricted in Canada, probably
shockingly so to US citizens. Canadians are quite unfamiliar, and
uncomfortable, with guns in general.
The comparison between gun ownership rates differences (3x) and accident
rate differences (2x) might suggest that Canadians are more unfamiliar
with guns and, when handling a gun, are more likely to accidently kill
themselves or others because of the unfamiliarity.
-
> I don't know about lower than at "any time" in the last 100 years, but
> from 1993 through 1998, the rate of accidental death from all types of
> firearm missile, both specified and unspecified, has fallen *every* year:
>
> 1993 - 1,521; 1994 - 1,356; 1995 - 1,225;
> 1996 - 1,134; 1997 - 981; 1998 - 866
And there are the stats that can be supported. The rate was pretty
stable at around 1450 a year for quite some time. After the peak in
1993, the rate is consistently falling and drops further to 824 in
1999, the last year reported.
I wonder what is accounting for the consistent reduction.
> Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/unpubd/mortabs/gmwki.htm;
> download each of the 6 PDF files; search for ICD-9 code 922.
Or one could go to:
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html
for a searchable database.
> By contrast, the same files show that deaths from assault by firearms
> and explosives (ICD-9 965) fell from 18,271 in 1993 to 11,802 in 1998.
> Deaths from suicide by firearm (ICD-9 955) fell from 18,954 in 1993 to
> 17,432 in 1998.
>
> Pretty clearly, accidental deaths by firearms in the U.S. are dwarfed by
> those resulting from criminal assault and suicide.
Very much so but Chris brought up accidental deaths and was a bit lazy
with his claims.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
> In article <3C9B4C1F...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
>
>>Chris Morton wrote:
-
>>>That's incorrect too. Guns accidentally kill very few people,
>>It is?
>
> Yes, it is.
I'm sorry but 1300 people a year for a decade is hardly "very few people".
-
> How many people were killed on average per year in auto accidents, or by medical
> malpractice?
That's irrelevant. You did not make a comparison in your original claim.
You are also making a tu quoque argument. Deaths in auto accidents or through
malpractice do not justify accidental gun deaths.
-
>>The Canadian rate is half the US rate.
>
> Cite the respective populations.
When I use the term "rate", the populations are figured into it.
> Comparing absolute numbers between vastly disparate populations is meaningless.
Why don't you read what I wrote. The term "rate" means that I was not
comparing absolute numbers.
>>>and less now than
>>>at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken.
>>I doubt you could support that statement. You should stick with facts
>>that are supportable.
> Actually, I CAN support it. It's publicly available information.
So where is it? If you can, then cough it up. To support it you have to
point to a table that shows comparable stats for every year over the
past 100 years.
> What's your evidence that there's an INCREASE?
WTF are you talking about? Where did I claim there is an increase?
> You can't produce any.
You seem to have problems producing a coherent argument.
Jonathan Ball
Which is a little odd, on the surface, because I would
have thought that, with firearms harder to obtain,
*and* with firearm ownership much more heavily weighted
towards long guns, Canadians would be more likely to be
familiar with their guns.
I think that gun ownership in Canada is probably much
more closely related to hunting. I'd like to see
specific hunting accident rates, which I would expect
to be higher for the U.S.
>
>
>
> -
>
>
>
>> I don't know about lower than at "any time" in the last 100 years, but
>> from 1993 through 1998, the rate of accidental death from all types of
>> firearm missile, both specified and unspecified, has fallen *every* year:
>>
>> 1993 - 1,521; 1994 - 1,356; 1995 - 1,225;
>> 1996 - 1,134; 1997 - 981; 1998 - 866
>
>
>
>
> And there are the stats that can be supported. The rate was pretty
> stable at around 1450 a year for quite some time. After the peak in
> 1993, the rate is consistently falling and drops further to 824 in
> 1999, the last year reported.
>
> I wonder what is accounting for the consistent reduction.
Me, too. I don't think there was any great tightening
of gun control laws during that period. Also, as John
Lott (a classmate of mine at UCLA) has pointed out, it
was during this period that "shall issue" concealed
weapons laws were being passed in a number of states.
That would likely have caused an increase in handgun
ownership, so ceteris paribus, I would have expected to
see an increase in accidental death rates, not a decrease.
>
>
>> Source:
>> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/unpubd/mortabs/gmwki.htm;
>> download each of the 6 PDF files; search for ICD-9 code 922.
>
>
>
>
> Or one could go to:
> http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html
>
> for a searchable database.
Wish I had found that! I hate digging through .pdf files.
>
>
>> By contrast, the same files show that deaths from assault by firearms
>> and explosives (ICD-9 965) fell from 18,271 in 1993 to 11,802 in
>> 1998. Deaths from suicide by firearm (ICD-9 955) fell from 18,954 in
>> 1993 to 17,432 in 1998.
>>
>> Pretty clearly, accidental deaths by firearms in the U.S. are dwarfed
>> by those resulting from criminal assault and suicide.
>
>
>
>
>
> Very much so but Chris brought up accidental deaths and was a bit lazy
> with his claims.
I think I'd have to agree.
However, I kind of like the catchiness of his signature
line, even if in general I don't like debate by bumper
sticker slogans. In the world of bumper sticker
slogans, his is pretty good.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
> IgnoranceistheFirstStep wrote:
-
>> Handgun ownership is incredibly restricted in Canada, probably
>> shockingly so to US citizens. Canadians are quite unfamiliar, and
>> uncomfortable, with guns in general.
>>
>> The comparison between gun ownership rates differences (3x) and
>> accident rate differences (2x) might suggest that Canadians are more
>> unfamiliar with guns and, when handling a gun, are more likely to
>> accidently kill themselves or others because of the unfamiliarity.
>
> Which is a little odd, on the surface, because I would have thought
> that, with firearms harder to obtain, *and* with firearm ownership much
> more heavily weighted towards long guns, Canadians would be more likely
> to be familiar with their guns.
It seems to me that Canadians that do own guns are more familiar with
them and have, in general, a greater amount of training.
But Canadians in general are not all that familiar and one would have to
look into the circumstances surrounding the accidental deaths. A key
issue would be whether the deaths are people who own the guns or people
unfamiliar with guns but somehow came into contact with them (through
gun owning friends, for example).
> I think that gun ownership in Canada is probably much more closely
> related to hunting. I'd like to see specific hunting accident rates,
> which I would expect to be higher for the U.S.
That's a potential way of addressing the hypothesis. Most of the
accidental deaths in Canada are in the home, in rural areas, and with
legally owned hunting guns. (Canadian Medical Association Journal 1996;
155: 1285-1289)
An interesting source for this issue is:
http://www.research.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/
-
Chris Morton
Handguns ownership is FAR less restricted in Canada than in the City of Chicago.
It's possible to legally own a handgun in Canada without bribing somebody.
>> I don't know about lower than at "any time" in the last 100 years, but
>> from 1993 through 1998, the rate of accidental death from all types of
>> firearm missile, both specified and unspecified, has fallen *every* year:
>>
>> 1993 - 1,521; 1994 - 1,356; 1995 - 1,225;
>> 1996 - 1,134; 1997 - 981; 1998 - 866
>
>
>
>And there are the stats that can be supported. The rate was pretty
>stable at around 1450 a year for quite some time. After the peak in
>1993, the rate is consistently falling and drops further to 824 in
>1999, the last year reported.
>
>I wonder what is accounting for the consistent reduction.
Education in firearm usage.
>> By contrast, the same files show that deaths from assault by firearms
>> and explosives (ICD-9 965) fell from 18,271 in 1993 to 11,802 in 1998.
>> Deaths from suicide by firearm (ICD-9 955) fell from 18,954 in 1993 to
>> 17,432 in 1998.
>>
>> Pretty clearly, accidental deaths by firearms in the U.S. are dwarfed by
>> those resulting from criminal assault and suicide.
>
>
>
>
>Very much so but Chris brought up accidental deaths and was a bit lazy
>with his claims.
My claims were true, and you've not presented any evidence to the contrary.
And if I'm not mistaken, YOU brought up ACCIDENTAL deaths.
Chris Morton
>
>Chris Morton wrote:
>
>> In article <3C9B4C1F...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
>>
>>>Chris Morton wrote:
>-
>
>>>>That's incorrect too. Guns accidentally kill very few people,
>>>It is?
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>
>
>I'm sorry but 1300 people a year for a decade is hardly "very few people".
It is compared to other causes of death.
Do only accidental deaths due to firearms matter?
>>How many people were killed on average per year in auto accidents, or by medical
>> malpractice?
>
>
>That's irrelevant. You did not make a comparison in your original claim.
It's absolutely relevant... unless you only care about accidents in which
firearms were involved.
>
>You are also making a tu quoque argument. Deaths in auto accidents or through
>malpractice do not justify accidental gun deaths.
How is an ACCIDENT "justified"?
Either you care about accidental deaths or only accidental GUN RELATED deaths.
Which is it?
>>Comparing absolute numbers between vastly disparate populations is meaningless.
>
>
>Why don't you read what I wrote. The term "rate" means that I was not
>comparing absolute numbers.
You switched from one to the other. You first discussed numbers, then switched
to rates. Which one are you going to stick with?
>>>>and less now than
>>>>at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>I doubt you could support that statement. You should stick with facts
>>>that are supportable.
>> Actually, I CAN support it. It's publicly available information.
>
>
>So where is it? If you can, then cough it up. To support it you have to
>point to a table that shows comparable stats for every year over the
>past 100 years.
I'll see what I can do. I don't have it handy here. I've seen it posted
previously.
>> What's your evidence that there's an INCREASE?
>
>
>
>WTF are you talking about? Where did I claim there is an increase?
So then you're stipulating that it's stayed the same or declined?
>> You can't produce any.
>
>
>You seem to have problems producing a coherent argument.
You seem highly defensive.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
-
> Handguns ownership is FAR less restricted in Canada than in the City of Chicago.
That is simple, unsupported and ignorant bullshit. I doubt that you have
the slightest clue what is required for someone to legally own a handgun
in Canada and the restrictions placed on them.
But, I could be wrong, so why don't you actually produce some real data
or information to support your claims. Here's a chance for you to do it
for the first time.
Now, don't try and point it at me and say that I have to provide
something to counter your (currently unsupported) claim or else your
claim is true. The absence of evidence is not evidence, as you seem to
think.
-
> My claims were true,
Your "claims" were, and are, unsupported and inaccurate generalizations.
> and you've not presented any evidence to the contrary.
I have but you appear too ignorant to understand it. You are doing a
very poor job of dispelling the idea that gun owners can be rather ignorant.
However, even if I had not, it would be irrelevant as the issue is your
initial claim and you still haven't produced anything to back up your
"claims". Where's the annual data for the past 100 years?
An absence of evidence is not evidence to support your claim.
> And if I'm not mistaken, YOU brought up ACCIDENTAL deaths.
You are mistaken. If you weren't so lazy, you would have taken the time
to look at the headers in the post you wrote. You are an unskilled
usenet wannabe. Go back to your usual hole.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
> In article <3C9B7442...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
-
>>I'm sorry but 1300 people a year for a decade is hardly "very few people".
> It is compared to other causes of death.
That isn't what you wrote. "Guns accidentally kill very few people, and
less now than at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken."
There's two parts to your claim. The only comparison you make in terms
of accidental gun deaths is to previous years.
1300 people a year in the US is not "very few people". Japan's 1 or 2 a
year is "very few people".
> Do only accidental deaths due to firearms matter?
In terms of your claim, yes.
>>>How many people were killed on average per year in auto accidents, or by medical
>>>malpractice?
>>That's irrelevant. You did not make a comparison in your original claim.
> It's absolutely relevant... unless you only care about accidents in which
> firearms were involved.
It is completely irrelevant. You made a false assertion and now you are
moving the goalposts all over the place as you try and cover your tracks.
The issue is your inaccurate and unsupported claim.
>>You are also making a tu quoque argument. Deaths in auto accidents or through
>>malpractice do not justify accidental gun deaths.
> How is an ACCIDENT "justified"?
You are attempting to do just that by moving the goalpost and bringing
in irrelevant comparisons.
> Either you care about accidental deaths or only accidental GUN RELATED deaths.
> Which is it?
The issue is accidental gun deaths. That's an impressively lousy
statement - three fallacies in one sentence; a false bifurcation, a
strawman, and a goalpost move.
>>>Comparing absolute numbers between vastly disparate populations is meaningless.
>>Why don't you read what I wrote. The term "rate" means that I was not
>>comparing absolute numbers.
> You switched from one to the other. You first discussed numbers, then switched
> to rates. Which one are you going to stick with?
I noted the absolute number and, because it is improper to make such a
comparison, I correctly and appropriately noted the rate comparison.
You, for whatever reason, ignored my comments about rate and made an
inappropriate counter-argument.
Why can't you read for comprehension?
-
>>>Actually, I CAN support it. It's publicly available information.
>>So where is it? If you can, then cough it up. To support it you have to
>>point to a table that shows comparable stats for every year over the
>>past 100 years.
>
> I'll see what I can do. I don't have it handy here. I've seen it posted
> previously.
IOW, you'll never do it. I am near certain that no legitimate statistics
on that issue exist beyond the past 20 or 30 years.
>>>What's your evidence that there's an INCREASE?
>>WTF are you talking about? Where did I claim there is an increase?
> So then you're stipulating that it's stayed the same or declined?
I'm doing nothing of the sort. Quit whacking strawmen arguments.
>>You seem to have problems producing a coherent argument.
>
> You seem highly defensive.
Not at all. I'm describing what I see in your posts. You produce some
BS unsupported statement and then spend the rest of the time trying to
shift the burden onto the other person.
Like I said, you are just a usenet wannabe. Go back to your regular hole.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
-
> I really like the idea of the punks knowing that, say, 3% of the population
> is packing, but not having any idea who. "What's behind Door Number Three?
> An easy robbery, or a bullet in the chest?"
>
> The record of CCW shows that it works. It works very, very well.
Hi Ward -
Could you help me out here - what is "CCW" and could you point me to
their record on that point?
Chris Morton
>
>Chris Morton wrote:
>
>-
>
>
>
>>Handguns ownership is FAR less restricted in Canada than in the City of Chicago.
>
>
>That is simple, unsupported and ignorant bullshit. I doubt that you have
Really?
Tell everyone what's required to buy a handgun in Canada and in Chicago.
>the slightest clue what is required for someone to legally own a handgun
>in Canada and the restrictions placed on them.
I have very much more than an "idea", since I know a number of Canadian
shooters.
It's painfully obvious that you don't know ANYTHING about gun laws in Chicago.
Prove me wrong.
Tell everyone what it takes to LEGALLY bring a new handgun into Chicago.
>But, I could be wrong, so why don't you actually produce some real data
>or information to support your claims. Here's a chance for you to do it
>for the first time.
Not only COULD you be wrong, you are 100% wrong.
But please, do tell everyone what it takes to own a new handgun in Chicago.
>Now, don't try and point it at me and say that I have to provide
>something to counter your (currently unsupported) claim or else your
>claim is true. The absence of evidence is not evidence, as you seem to
>think.
You've made a claim regarding gunlaws in Chicago. Back it up.
Hint: I'm FROM Chicago.
>Your "claims" were, and are, unsupported and inaccurate generalizations.
You don't appear to have sufficient information on the subject to say.
Chris Morton
>
>Chris Morton wrote:
>
>> In article <3C9B7442...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
>-
>>>I'm sorry but 1300 people a year for a decade is hardly "very few people".
>> It is compared to other causes of death.
>
>
>That isn't what you wrote. "Guns accidentally kill very few people, and
>less now than at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken."
And that is correct.
>There's two parts to your claim. The only comparison you make in terms
>of accidental gun deaths is to previous years.
>
>1300 people a year in the US is not "very few people". Japan's 1 or 2 a
>year is "very few people".
That's merely your interpretation.
I could just as easily say that 6,000,000 is a lot whereas 1300 is very few.
It's pretty obvious to me that you ONLY care about deaths in which firearms were
involved. Something else that killed 10,000 people probably wouldn't arouse
your attention.
>> Do only accidental deaths due to firearms matter?
>
>
>In terms of your claim, yes.
"Very few" is a relative term. Why is YOUR definition the right one, especially
given the FAR greater death rate due to other causes. If you only care about
gun related deaths, it's apparent that guns are your concern, not deaths.
That's an irrational stance.
>>>>How many people were killed on average per year in auto accidents, or by medical
>>>>malpractice?
>>>That's irrelevant. You did not make a comparison in your original claim.
>> It's absolutely relevant... unless you only care about accidents in which
>> firearms were involved.
>
>
>It is completely irrelevant. You made a false assertion and now you are
>moving the goalposts all over the place as you try and cover your tracks.
No, you're now trying to figure out a way to avoid looking at far greater causes
of accidental death.
Either you care about deaths or just gun related deaths. Apparently it's the
latter.
>The issue is your inaccurate and unsupported claim.
The issue is your fixation on guns rather than deaths.
Other types of accidental deaths don't appear to matter to you at all.
>>>You are also making a tu quoque argument. Deaths in auto accidents or through
>>>malpractice do not justify accidental gun deaths.
>> How is an ACCIDENT "justified"?
>
>
>You are attempting to do just that by moving the goalpost and bringing
>in irrelevant comparisons.
You are attempting not to be pinned down regarding your REAL concerns. It isn't
working.
If automobile accidents and malpractice kill more than guns, but you fixate
solely on guns, it's not really the deaths that matter to you, but the guns.
If that's the case, just admit it and move on.
>>Either you care about accidental deaths or only accidental GUN RELATED deaths.
>> Which is it?
>
>
>The issue is accidental gun deaths. That's an impressively lousy
>statement - three fallacies in one sentence; a false bifurcation, a
>strawman, and a goalpost move.
ONLY accidental gun deaths? Are other accidental deaths unimportant?
Especially when gun related accidental deaths are low and DECLINING?
>Why can't you read for comprehension?
Why can't you be more candid regarding your motivations?
>>>>Actually, I CAN support it. It's publicly available information.
>>>So where is it? If you can, then cough it up. To support it you have to
>>>point to a table that shows comparable stats for every year over the
>>>past 100 years.
>>
>> I'll see what I can do. I don't have it handy here. I've seen it posted
>> previously.
>
>
>IOW, you'll never do it. I am near certain that no legitimate statistics
> on that issue exist beyond the past 20 or 30 years.
Your near certainly wrong. But you seem committed to argue by assertion. Your
arguments have been refuted at every turn and by several people. It seems to
bother you.
>>>>What's your evidence that there's an INCREASE?
>>>WTF are you talking about? Where did I claim there is an increase?
>> So then you're stipulating that it's stayed the same or declined?
>
>
>I'm doing nothing of the sort. Quit whacking strawmen arguments.
It increased, it decreased, or it stayed the same.
Choose one.
>>>You seem to have problems producing a coherent argument.
>>
>> You seem highly defensive.
>
>
>Not at all. I'm describing what I see in your posts. You produce some
>BS unsupported statement and then spend the rest of the time trying to
>shift the burden onto the other person.
You're projecting. You clearly know nothing about gun laws in the United
States, in Chicago in particular.
>Like I said, you are just a usenet wannabe. Go back to your regular hole.
Obviously you know you're in trouble and have resorted to name calling in lieu
of an argument.
Prove how smart you are and tell everybody how much easier it is to LEGALLY own
a handgun in Chicago than in Canada.
Chris Morton
Concealed Carry of a Weapon.
Review its recent history in Florida and Texas.
The Ohio House just voted to legalize CCW this week.
--
Kevin Brandon
> Chris Morton wrote:
>
> > In article <u9lj4u6...@news.supernews.com>, "apostate" says...
> -
> >>This seems like a topic where statistics could paint very different
> >>pictures, depending on one's predisposition. I know that guns accidently
> >>kill a lot of people, yet it makes sense that a populus packin' concealed
>
> > That's incorrect too. Guns accidentally kill very few people,
>
>
> It is?
>
> Over the past fifteen years there has been a yearly average of 1300
> people in the US killed by accidental gun deaths and you call that "very
> few people?
Out of a population of 270 million plus? Yes.
12,178 people killed in the 1990s and you call that "very
> few people"?
That is the population of my home town.
>
> Compare that to Canada with an average of 67 accidental deaths a year in
> the same period.
You're comparing apples and oranges. How can you make such a
comparison without allowing for all differences in demographics. Have
you compared population density, economic disparity, racial
inequality, educational differences, employment statistics...? The
list is almost endless and deems any comparison between any two
countries practically worthless. The only true comparison would be to
compare a specific region prior to the passage of a law concerning
firearms ownership to the same region after such a law is enacted.
In the majority of cases in wich a law favorable to gun ownership
(such as concealed carry laws) has been enacted in the U.S., there has
been a decrease in gu-related crimes in the affected area. In almost
every case where a law that places restrictions on firearms ownership
has been enacted, the opposite result has taken place. The only
notable exception is the decrease in the crime rate following the
passage of the Brady Law. However, the Bradu Law was passed following
a decade long decrease in violent crime and the rate of this decrease
actually slowed after the law went into effect.
>
> The Canadian rate is half the US rate.
Irrelevant.
>
>
> > and less now than
> > at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken.
>
>
> I doubt you could support that statement. You should stick with facts
> that are supportable.
OK,
Source: National Safety Council's 1992 edition of "Accidental Facts"
Year Accidental As percentage of
______________Firearms Deaths______________________ population_____
1910 1,900 .0021
1920 2,700 .0026
1930 3,200 .0026
1940 2,375 .0018
1950 2,174 .0014
1960 2,334 .0013
1970 2,406 .0012
1980 1,955 .0009
1990 1,400 .0006
______________________________________________________________________
From all the information i have seen, firearms ownership has
increased even faster than the U.S, population, so the percentages
would show an even greater decline. As you can see, the number of
accidental deaths from firearms has always been a very "few people".
Compared to real killing machines, automobiles, guns are among the
safest tools in existence. Accidental deaths due to automobiles are 28
times the number of accidental deaths from firearms.
This is another point the anti-gunners overlook when making flawed
statistical comparisons bewteen the U.S. and other countries: the U.S.
leads in nearly all causes of deaths. Therefore, there is no evidence
that guns cause crime, the evidence suggests that the U.S, is still a
very young nation and hasn't yet shed it's youthful "frontier
mentality". Americans live dangerously, and Americans die in the
process. If you want to decrease the number of deaths, do what the
evidence suggests is the correct action and start packing. While
you're at it, sell your car and buy a horse.
If you still wish to use flawed comparisons between different
countries as a basis for such conclusions, then perhaps you would be
interested in finding out exactly what chemical substance in olives
causes violent crime to be at its highest levels in countries with a
high per capita consumption of olive oil.
Kevin
Kevin Brandon
Correction to my earlier post: violent crime is lower in countries
with a higher consumption of olive oil, not higher.
Kevin
Ward M. Clark
It's a term generally used to describe liberalized concealed handgun carry
laws - "Carrying Concealed Weapons."
See:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:NYpOonI2iLAC:www.journals.uchicago.edu/
JLS/lott.pdf++%22Lott+and+Mustard%22&hl=en
Jonathan Ball
> In article <3C9B7442...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
> >
> >Chris Morton wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3C9B4C1F...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
> >>
> >>>Chris Morton wrote:
> >-
> >
> >>>>That's incorrect too. Guns accidentally kill very few people,
> >>>It is?
> >>
> >> Yes, it is.
> >
> >
> >I'm sorry but 1300 people a year for a decade is hardly "very few people".
>
> It is compared to other causes of death.
>
> Do only accidental deaths due to firearms matter?
No. But you didn't make a comparison initially.
>
> >>How many people were killed on average per year in auto accidents, or by medical
> >> malpractice?
> >
> >
> >That's irrelevant. You did not make a comparison in your original claim.
>
> It's absolutely relevant... unless you only care about accidents in which
> firearms were involved.
It *might* have been relevant, if you had introduced a comparison in
the first place. But you didn't. You wrote "Guns accidentally kill
very few people." If you had written "Guns accidentally kill very few
people compared to [fill in other accidental death cause]", then you
might be able to do something with it.
>
> >
> >You are also making a tu quoque argument. Deaths in auto accidents or through
> >malpractice do not justify accidental gun deaths.
>
> How is an ACCIDENT "justified"?
Stop bullshitting. That's not what he meant, and you know it.
But why do you "justify" minimizing the importance of accidental gun
deaths because the numbers appear, to you, to be insignificant, either
in absolute terms or compared to other forms of accidental death? You
*are* justifying it in that way.
>
> Either you care about accidental deaths or only accidental GUN RELATED deaths.
> Which is it?
>
> >>Comparing absolute numbers between vastly disparate populations is meaningless.
> >
> >
> >Why don't you read what I wrote. The term "rate" means that I was not
> >comparing absolute numbers.
>
> You switched from one to the other. You first discussed numbers, then switched
> to rates. Which one are you going to stick with?
The rate was both implied in his numbers, and also explicitly
mentioned. Anyone with half a wit knows that Canada's population is
about a tenth of the U.S. population, so 67 accidental gun deaths per
year in Canada is roughly equal to 670 in the U.S. He didn't specify
the year in which there were 67 accidental gun deaths in Canada,
though, and that would be necessary to know. If it were 1993, then he
is correct in saying that the Canadian accidental gun death rate is
about half the U.S. rate. If it's for 1998, then the rates are much
closer to being equal.
>
> >>>>and less now than
> >>>>at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken.
> >>>I doubt you could support that statement. You should stick with facts
> >>>that are supportable.
> >> Actually, I CAN support it. It's publicly available information.
> >
> >
> >So where is it? If you can, then cough it up. To support it you have to
> >point to a table that shows comparable stats for every year over the
> >past 100 years.
>
> I'll see what I can do. I don't have it handy here. I've seen it posted
> previously.
My bet is that you've *never* seen a an accidental gun death rate,
either explicit or implicit, for a 100 year interval.
>
> >> What's your evidence that there's an INCREASE?
> >
> >
> >
> >WTF are you talking about? Where did I claim there is an increase?
>
> So then you're stipulating that it's stayed the same or declined?
He's stipulating nothing. WTF is the matter with you? You implied in
your question that he said or implied there was an increase. He
didn't. He also didn't say that there was a decrease, or that the
rate held steady. He simply didn't say. But you implied that he did.
You're incredibly sloppy.
>
> >> You can't produce any.
> >
> >
> >You seem to have problems producing a coherent argument.
>
> You seem highly defensive.
You seem incredibly sloppy.
You have a catchy sig line, but it *is* only bumper sticker
sloganeering, and it doesn't negate the fact that you're incredibly
sloppy with facts and with understanding what people have actually
said.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
-
> It's a term generally used to describe liberalized concealed handgun carry
> laws - "Carrying Concealed Weapons."
Oh, it appeared to be an acronym for an organization.
It makes sense now.
As for the Lott & Mustard (1997) as support, a few comments. First,
unlike Mr. Morton, I figured that you'd have something to back up your
claim. The L&M study is quite interesting, I hope I can produce
something that generates that kind of interest and controversy.
However, the study is problematic. It contains a number of assumptions
that, while they might make sense, they are unsupported with data. As an
example, they assume that a change in the CCW law means a change in the
number of people carrying CCW. In general, the authors don't handle
perceptual data very well and assume perceptions rather than back them
up somehow. Going through the tables raises a couple of serious issues.
I did not see the kinds of statistical tests for significance I would
expect to see in those kinds of analysis. As far as I could see, they do
not use appropriate statistical tests for significance between samples.
This is a serious flaw. I also did not see any mention of how they
controlled for multicolinearity. I might have missed it but the type of
data they use and the variables they use would likely cause serious
colinearity problems and failing to address it could lead to erroneous
results. Finally, they make causal claims on the basis of associational
data and analyses. While their conclusions might be supported by the
data, their strong causal assertions are not.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
> IgnoranceistheFirstStep <blee...@fan.club> wrote in message news:<3C9B4C1F...@fan.club>...
>
>>Chris Morton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <u9lj4u6...@news.supernews.com>, "apostate" says...
>>>
>> -
>>
>>>>This seems like a topic where statistics could paint very different
>>>>pictures, depending on one's predisposition. I know that guns accidently
>>>>kill a lot of people, yet it makes sense that a populus packin' concealed
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>That's incorrect too. Guns accidentally kill very few people,
>>>
>>
>>It is?
>>
>>Over the past fifteen years there has been a yearly average of 1300
>>people in the US killed by accidental gun deaths and you call that "very
>>few people?
>>
>
> Out of a population of 270 million plus? Yes.
His comment was not qualified by such a comparison. And since he was
talking to a Canadian, 1300 is hardly "very few".
>>Compare that to Canada with an average of 67 accidental deaths a year in
>>the same period.
>>
>
> You're comparing apples and oranges.
No, I'm not and you are reflexively jumping in without reading everything.
-
> In the majority of cases in wich a law favorable to gun ownership
> (such as concealed carry laws) has been enacted in the U.S., there has
> been a decrease in gu-related crimes in the affected area. In almost
> every case where a law that places restrictions on firearms ownership
> has been enacted, the opposite result has taken place.
I think you are inaccurately generalizing the results of problematic
studies.
-
>>The Canadian rate is half the US rate.
>
> Irrelevant.
It is quite relevant as the rate is how one could compare samples of
different sizes.
>>>and less now than
>>>at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken.
>>I doubt you could support that statement. You should stick with facts
>>that are supportable.
> OK,
> Source: National Safety Council's 1992 edition of "Accidental Facts"
The data necessary to support Mr. Morton's claim would be a list of
every year, not every ten years.
-
> This is another point the anti-gunners overlook when making flawed
> statistical comparisons bewteen the U.S. and other countries: the U.S.
> leads in nearly all causes of deaths.
This is completely wrong. There are all sorts of categories in which
the US does not lead. It's infant death rate is far lower than most
countries. Death rates from quite a number of causes is much higher in
Russia than the US.
-
> If you still wish to use flawed comparisons between different
> countries as a basis for such conclusions,
The flawed comparisons such as the one you make above?
> then perhaps you would be
> interested in finding out exactly what chemical substance in olives
> causes violent crime to be at its highest levels in countries with a
> high per capita consumption of olive oil.
Kevin, once again you are jumping in without reading for comprehension.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
> In article <3C9B8EE7...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
>>Chris Morton wrote:
>>>In article <3C9B7442...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
-
>>That isn't what you wrote. "Guns accidentally kill very few people, and
>>less now than at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken."
>
> And that is correct.
The statement? No, it isnt'.
>>There's two parts to your claim. The only comparison you make in terms
>>of accidental gun deaths is to previous years.
>>1300 people a year in the US is not "very few people". Japan's 1 or 2 a
>>year is "very few people".
>
> That's merely your interpretation.
No, it's the data that I produced.
> I could just as easily say that 6,000,000 is a lot whereas 1300 is very few.
But you didn't. You made a generalized and unsupported assertion.
> It's pretty obvious to me that you ONLY care about deaths in which firearms were
> involved. Something else that killed 10,000 people probably wouldn't arouse
> your attention.
Utterly irrelevant to your claim. Your attempts to shift the burden are
painfully obvious. It suggests that you cannot produce support for your
own claims.
>>>Do only accidental deaths due to firearms matter?
>>In terms of your claim, yes.
> "Very few" is a relative term.
Not necessarily and your claim was not made relative to anything.
Since you made the comment to a Canadian, the relevant comparison is to
Canadian data. And you lose on that one.
> Why is YOUR definition the right one,
See above.
> especially
> given the FAR greater death rate due to other causes.
That's irrelevant to your claim.
> If you only care about
> gun related deaths, it's apparent that guns are your concern, not deaths.
> That's an irrational stance.
My stance is perfectly rational. Your weak attempt to put words into my
mouth is simply poor debating skill.
-
>>It is completely irrelevant. You made a false assertion and now you are
>>moving the goalposts all over the place as you try and cover your tracks.
>>
>
> No, you're now trying to figure out a way to avoid looking at far greater causes
> of accidental death.
No, I'm trying to get you to support your claim. You are frantically
avoiding it and trying to shift the burden.
-
>>The issue is your inaccurate and unsupported claim.
> The issue is your fixation on guns rather than deaths.
See above.
-
>>You are attempting to do just that by moving the goalpost and bringing
>>in irrelevant comparisons.
> You are attempting not to be pinned down regarding your REAL concerns. It isn't
> working.
>
> If automobile accidents and malpractice kill more than guns, but you fixate
> solely on guns, it's not really the deaths that matter to you, but the guns.
You aren't very skilled at creating strawman arguments, you are just too
obvious.
-
>>Why can't you read for comprehension?
> Why can't you be more candid regarding your motivations?
My motivations are irrelevant to your claim. It's your claim to support.
So far all I am seeing is bluster.
>>IOW, you'll never do it. I am near certain that no legitimate statistics
>> on that issue exist beyond the past 20 or 30 years.
> Your near certainly wrong.
So prove it.
> But you seem committed to argue by assertion.
No, that's your style.
> Your
> arguments have been refuted at every turn and by several people.
When you wrote this post, the only other person who responded to me in
this thread was Mr. Ball and he agrees with me.
-
>>I'm doing nothing of the sort. Quit whacking strawmen arguments.
> It increased, it decreased, or it stayed the same.
> Choose one.
It's irrelevant to your claim. Try supporting it instead of creating
strawman arguments.
-
>>Not at all. I'm describing what I see in your posts. You produce some
>>BS unsupported statement and then spend the rest of the time trying to
>>shift the burden onto the other person.
> You're projecting. You clearly know nothing about gun laws in the United
> States, in Chicago in particular.
Clearly? So now you think you can read minds?
-
> Prove how smart you are and tell everybody how much easier it is to LEGALLY own
> a handgun in Chicago than in Canada.
That would be your burden.
-
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
> In article <3C9B8B8E...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
>>Chris Morton wrote:
>>>Handguns ownership is FAR less restricted in Canada than in the City of Chicago.
>>That is simple, unsupported and ignorant bullshit. I doubt that you have
> Really?
Yes, really.
> Tell everyone what's required to buy a handgun in Canada and in Chicago.
That would be your job. It's your original claim, it's your job to
support it, not mine.
And quit moving the goalpost.
-
> I have very much more than an "idea", since I know a number of Canadian
> shooters.
That's nice. But it doesn't support your claim.
-
>>But, I could be wrong, so why don't you actually produce some real data
>>or information to support your claims. Here's a chance for you to do it
>>for the first time.
> Not only COULD you be wrong, you are 100% wrong.
I've seen nothing from you to suggest otherwise.
> But please, do tell everyone what it takes to own a new handgun in Chicago.
That's your job and quit moving the goalpost.
>>Now, don't try and point it at me and say that I have to provide
>>something to counter your (currently unsupported) claim or else your
>>claim is true. The absence of evidence is not evidence, as you seem to
>>think.
> You've made a claim regarding gunlaws in Chicago.
You seem confused, the claim was yours. And it's yours to back up.
-
> Hint: I'm FROM Chicago.
That's nice but your former relationship to the city limits of Chicago
is not support for your claim. It doesn't even suggest expert status.
>>Your "claims" were, and are, unsupported and inaccurate generalizations.
> You don't appear to have sufficient information on the subject to say.
I have all the information I need, I have your statements. They were not
and have not been supported and, as such, are inaccurate.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
-
> If it's for 1998, then the rates are much
> closer to being equal.
It was for earlier in the 90s. The most currently available year that I
saw put it at 47 in Canada and still roughly half by the methods that
you use (which is what most people use as a rule of thumb).
-
Jonathan Ball
> Kevin Brandon wrote:
[...]
> > This is another point the anti-gunners overlook when making flawed
> > statistical comparisons bewteen the U.S. and other countries: the U.S.
> > leads in nearly all causes of deaths.
>
>
> This is completely wrong. There are all sorts of categories in which
> the US does not lead. It's infant death rate is far lower than most
> countries. Death rates from quite a number of causes is much higher in
> Russia than the US.
I don't know about it being *completely* wrong, though. This page,
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html, indicates that the
U.S. has a significantly higher non-gun homicide rate than virtually
all of western Europe, in addition to being higher than some other
notable countries. In fact, the U.S. non-gun homicide rate is higher
than the *total* homicide rate for most countries in western Europe,
to whose gun laws the U.S. is usually unfavorably compared. Note
that, although the years are pretty widely discrepant, the U.S.
non-gun homicide rate approaches Canada's total homicide rate. I
suspect that the U.S. non-gun homicide rate for 1992 (the year for
Canada's statistics) was significantly higher than what it was in
1999.
The point is, anti-gun extremists want to blame a supposedly "loose"
gun culture in the U.S. for a more general problem of societal
violence, because to the extemists, violence *means* gun violence.
But for whatever reasons, the U.S. is a more violent place in general
than the other OECD countries to which we are compared, and guns have
nothing to with that worse general tendency.
Michael Ejercito
> In article <3C9B8B8E...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
> >
> >Chris Morton wrote:
> >
> >-
> >
> >
> >
> >>Handguns ownership is FAR less restricted in Canada than in the City of Chicago.
> >
> >
> >That is simple, unsupported and ignorant bullshit. I doubt that you have
>
> Really?
>
> Tell everyone what's required to buy a handgun in Canada and in Chicago.
>
Michael
apostate
> >[..]
> >>
> >> I really like the idea of the punks knowing that, say, 3% of the
> >population
> >> is packing, but not having any idea who. "What's behind Door Number
> >Three?
> >> An easy robbery, or a bullet in the chest?"
> >>
> >> The record of CCW shows that it works. It works very, very well.
> >
> >pictures, depending on one's predisposition. I know that guns accidently
> >kill a lot of people, yet it makes sense that a populus packin' concealed
>
now than
> at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken.
I'd say you're full of shit. Guns may have some of the positive effects Ward
described in certain situations, but shove the bullshit denials of the other
side of that coin. btw that statistic doesn't include gun owners who are
injured or killed deliberately by criminals who turn their own guns on them,
a number which is also larger than the number of people who injure or kill
would-be criminals.
Ward M. Clark
news:u9o2i95...@news.supernews.com...
I'm certain you're wrong on that last assertion. I'll have to look and see
if I can find statistics, but there's two problems right off the bat with
that statement:
1) You're only counting criminals killed or injured. Best data available
indicates that in a high percentage of cases of crimes deterred, the
would-be victim never fires the gun.
2) There's between 1 and 3 million defensive uses of firearms, all told, in
an average year. There's nowhere near that number killed or injured by
criminals who have taken someone's gun from them. Annual firearms deaths
and injuries from ***all causes*** only run around 90,000 a year.
See:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/firearms/point-blank-summary.html
Ward M. Clark
You're more conversant in statistics than I am, I'll grant. But am I
correct in assuming that the points you make are relatively minor
disagreements in interpretation?
There's other data available, but as Apostate pointed out, we're really
wandering off topic for this board. Good discussion, though.
Kevin Brandon
> Kevin Brandon wrote:
>
> > IgnoranceistheFirstStep <blee...@fan.club> wrote in message news:<3C9B4C1F...@fan.club>...
> >
> >>Chris Morton wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <u9lj4u6...@news.supernews.com>, "apostate" says...
> >>>
> >> -
> >>
> >>>>This seems like a topic where statistics could paint very different
> >>>>pictures, depending on one's predisposition. I know that guns accidently
> >>>>kill a lot of people, yet it makes sense that a populus packin' concealed
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>>That's incorrect too. Guns accidentally kill very few people,
> >>>
> >>
> >>It is?
> >>
> >>Over the past fifteen years there has been a yearly average of 1300
> >>people in the US killed by accidental gun deaths and you call that "very
> >>few people?
> >>
> >
> > Out of a population of 270 million plus? Yes.
>
>
> His comment was not qualified by such a comparison. And since he was
> talking to a Canadian, 1300 is hardly "very few".
Your statement said "a yearly average of 1300 people in the U.S.
killed by accidenatl gun deaths". Other than the fact that it was a
redundant statement, you are now stumbling all over your own claims.
>
>
>
> >>Compare that to Canada with an average of 67 accidental deaths a year in
> >>the same period.
> >>
> >
> > You're comparing apples and oranges.
>
>
> No, I'm not and you are reflexively jumping in without reading everything.
I've read every post in this threa., You are making claims you can't
support. Mr. Morton didn't provide the facts to support his claims,
but I have provided the facts necessary to disprove yours.
>
> -
>
>
> > In the majority of cases in wich a law favorable to gun ownership
> > (such as concealed carry laws) has been enacted in the U.S., there has
> > been a decrease in gu-related crimes in the affected area. In almost
> > every case where a law that places restrictions on firearms ownership
> > has been enacted, the opposite result has taken place.
>
>
> I think you are inaccurately generalizing the results of problematic
> studies.
No, making an accurate summation. You wre the one who wanted to
compare different countries based on only a single issue without
considering all the differences that could influence the results.
>
> -
>
>
> >>The Canadian rate is half the US rate.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
>
> It is quite relevant as the rate is how one could compare samples of
> different sizes.
It's totally irrelevant and your methodology is extremely flawed.
You cannot make such comparisons and arrive at any meaningful
conclusion without considering all possible variables that might
influence the respective rates.
>
>
>
> >>>and less now than
> >>>at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken.
> >>I doubt you could support that statement. You should stick with facts
> >>that are supportable.
>
> > OK,
> > Source: National Safety Council's 1992 edition of "Accidental Facts"
>
>
> The data necessary to support Mr. Morton's claim would be a list of
> every year, not every ten years.
You're grasping desperately. Your claims have been disproven, accept
it. Are you now claiming that the rates could reasonably show drastic
decreases in the years between those ending in zero so that one of
those years would show a statistically significant lower rate than the
final year? That's ridiculous and the odds against it are staggering.
Did you see the percentage difference in the final year and the other
years? Your claim is bogus and would be even more so if the actual
number of firearms owned were included in the percentages.
>
> -
>
>
>
> > This is another point the anti-gunners overlook when making flawed
> > statistical comparisons bewteen the U.S. and other countries: the U.S.
> > leads in nearly all causes of deaths.
>
>
> This is completely wrong. There are all sorts of categories in which
> the US does not lead. It's infant death rate is far lower than most
> countries. Death rates from quite a number of causes is much higher in
> Russia than the US.
You are correct, I should have said "accidental deaths".
>
>
> -
>
>
> > If you still wish to use flawed comparisons between different
> > countries as a basis for such conclusions,
>
>
> The flawed comparisons such as the one you make above?
There was nothing flawed about it. You don't understand anything
about this issue or how to make accurate statistical comparisons. I
dropped the issue about Bob's metaphysical beliefs in spite of your
weak argument simply because it didn't seem to be worthwhile. I
believed you were stubbornly refusing to admit your error then,
although there was a chance I was wrong. This time there is no doubt,
you don't understand statistics, give it up.
>
> > then perhaps you would be
> > interested in finding out exactly what chemical substance in olives
> > causes violent crime to be at its highest levels in countries with a
> > high per capita consumption of olive oil.
>
>
> Kevin, once again you are jumping in without reading for comprehension.
That's completely false. I read every word. You have claimed that
comparing accidental deaths in Canada to accidental deaths in the U.S.
(with the same cause) is an accurate comparison. It's not and never
could be. The variables when limited strictly to "accidental" causes
are still too numerous to list. You have also claimed than a study of
every ten years that shows a steady decrease in accidental firearms
deaths is not evidence that the final year is lower than any other
year. That was an absurd statement on an even greater level than the
first claim. The comprehension problem is yours, you can't comprehend
statistics.
Kevin
apostate
> In article <3C9B7278...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
> >
> >Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> >Very much so but Chris brought up accidental deaths and was a bit lazy
> >with his claims.
>
> My claims were true, and you've not presented any evidence to the
contrary.
>
> And if I'm not mistaken, YOU brought up ACCIDENTAL deaths.
No, that was me, I said that guns cause a lot of accidental deaths,
referring to 1300/yr figure on the link you provided (or someone did).
You said very few were killed accidentally, essentially that 1300 dead was
not a lot to pay for freedom from gun control. I suppose if it were someone
close to you you might think different.
> Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
210lb.
> rapists.
Anti-gun control, the theory of mutually assured destruction.
Kevin Brandon
> Chris Morton <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<a7g0b...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > In article <3C9B7442...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
> > >
> > >Chris Morton wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <3C9B4C1F...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
> > >>
> > >>>Chris Morton wrote:
> > >-
> > >
> > >>>>That's incorrect too. Guns accidentally kill very few people,
> > >>>It is?
> > >>
> > >> Yes, it is.
> > >
> > >
> > >I'm sorry but 1300 people a year for a decade is hardly "very few people".
> >
> > It is compared to other causes of death.
> >
> > Do only accidental deaths due to firearms matter?
>
> No. But you didn't make a comparison initially.
For the record, he didn't. However, in the first post I replied to,
Ignoranceisthefirststep added "in the U.S." and then tried to compare
it to the rate in Canada without considerng any possible variables. By
adding "in the U.S." the only meaningful comparison would be to the
total U.S. population.
Kevin
Kevin Brandon
I hope you don't believe that my disagreement with
"ignoranceisthefirststep" mans I agreed with you. I disagreed with him
specifically because he added the words "in the U.S." to your claim.
He then opened the door for my comparison. Compared to the total U.S.
population, accidental gun deaths are a very low number. He has not,
however, said that any type of death is unimportant to him and you are
merely upset because you produced a poor argument.
Kevin
Kevin Brandon
> Chris Morton wrote:
>
> > In article <3C9B7442...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
> -
> >>I'm sorry but 1300 people a year for a decade is hardly "very few people".
> > It is compared to other causes of death.
>
>
> That isn't what you wrote. "Guns accidentally kill very few people, and
> less now than at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken."
>
> There's two parts to your claim. The only comparison you make in terms
> of accidental gun deaths is to previous years.
>
> 1300 people a year in the US is not "very few people".
Take note, this is precisely the claim I responded to. You added the
words "in the U.S." making the comparison to the total U.S. population
valid. A total of 1300 people "in the U.S." is "very few people".
That's less than one person for every three counties (or parishes or
boroughs) in the U.S.
Japan's 1 or 2 a
> year is "very few people".
Yes it is. But the rates in Japan are not comparable to the rates in
the U.S.
>
>
> > Do only accidental deaths due to firearms matter?
>
>
> In terms of your claim, yes.
>
>
>
> >>>How many people were killed on average per year in auto accidents, or by medical
> >>>malpractice?
> >>That's irrelevant. You did not make a comparison in your original claim.
> > It's absolutely relevant... unless you only care about accidents in which
> > firearms were involved.
>
>
> It is completely irrelevant. You made a false assertion and now you are
> moving the goalposts all over the place as you try and cover your tracks.
You are correct. However you seem to think I did the same. I didn't,
I responded to the claim including the words you added.
>
> The issue is your inaccurate and unsupported claim.
>
>
> >>You are also making a tu quoque argument. Deaths in auto accidents or through
> >>malpractice do not justify accidental gun deaths.
> > How is an ACCIDENT "justified"?
>
>
> You are attempting to do just that by moving the goalpost and bringing
> in irrelevant comparisons.
>
>
> > Either you care about accidental deaths or only accidental GUN RELATED deaths.
> > Which is it?
>
>
> The issue is accidental gun deaths. That's an impressively lousy
> statement - three fallacies in one sentence; a false bifurcation, a
> strawman, and a goalpost move.
>
>
>
> >>>Comparing absolute numbers between vastly disparate populations is meaningless.
> >>Why don't you read what I wrote. The term "rate" means that I was not
> >>comparing absolute numbers.
> > You switched from one to the other. You first discussed numbers, then switched
> > to rates. Which one are you going to stick with?
>
>
> I noted the absolute number and, because it is improper to make such a
> comparison, I correctly and appropriately noted the rate comparison.
True, but it's still a flawed comparison. You have no idea whjat
other contributing factors might be involved that are different in the
two countries. As I said, it's a comparison of apples and oranges.
> You, for whatever reason, ignored my comments about rate and made an
> inappropriate counter-argument.
>
> Why can't you read for comprehension?
>
> -
>
>
>
> >>>Actually, I CAN support it. It's publicly available information.
> >>So where is it? If you can, then cough it up. To support it you have to
> >>point to a table that shows comparable stats for every year over the
> >>past 100 years.
> >
> > I'll see what I can do. I don't have it handy here. I've seen it posted
> > previously.
>
>
> IOW, you'll never do it. I am near certain that no legitimate statistics
> on that issue exist beyond the past 20 or 30 years.
Your "near certain" proclomation is unsubstantiated. I provided a
verifiable reference going back to 1910. You dismissed it without a
valid reason.
Kevin
apostate
I've seen more than one authority on law enforcement say it.
but there's two problems right off the bat with
> that statement:
>
> 1) You're only counting criminals killed or injured. Best data available
> indicates that in a high percentage of cases of crimes deterred, the
> would-be victim never fires the gun.
I don't doubt that, the average person wouldn't fire a gun at someone
easily. I already granted there is undoubtedly an advantage to carrying guns
in certain situations, but let's not pretend that this idea doesn't come
with a downside. Think of all the possible scenarios you create once you arm
everyone. People aren't always calm, cool, sane, and sensible, not even
gunowners.
>
> 2) There's between 1 and 3 million defensive uses of firearms, all told,
in
> an average year. There's nowhere near that number killed or injured by
> criminals who have taken someone's gun from them. Annual firearms deaths
> and injuries from ***all causes*** only run around 90,000 a year.
>
> See:
> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/firearms/point-blank-summary.html
I see your point of view as a pulp western mentality, shootouts and all. The
more guns there are in public, the more ways there are for things to go
haywire. Have it your way, but accept the consequences.
Jonathan Ball
> "Ward M. Clark" <wardm...@NSattbi.com> wrote
>
>>>I'd say you're full of shit. Guns may have some of the positive effects
>>>Ward
>>>described in certain situations, but shove the bullshit denials of the
>>>other
>>>side of that coin. btw that statistic doesn't include gun owners who are
>>>injured or killed deliberately by criminals who turn their own guns on
>>>them,
>>>a number which is also larger than the number of people who injure or
>>>kill
>>>would-be criminals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I'm certain you're wrong on that last assertion. I'll have to look and
>>see if I can find statistics,
>>
>
> I've seen more than one authority on law enforcement say it.
I'll bet you haven't. It's one of those anti-gun
platitudes that are repeated as the received wisdom.
It's another instance of the Scheisskopf effect:
"everyone" says something...because "everyone" is
saying it.
And it isn't even the type of thing that's typically
said by "authorities" on law enforcement (do you mean
"police"?) It's the sort of thing that is said by gun
control advocacy groups, like Handgun Control Inc.
>
>> but there's two problems right off the bat with
>>that statement:
>>
>>1) You're only counting criminals killed or injured. Best data available
>>indicates that in a high percentage of cases of crimes deterred, the
>>would-be victim never fires the gun.
>>
>
> I don't doubt that, the average person wouldn't fire a gun at someone
> easily.
The "average" person brandishing a gun at a would-be
assailant probably rarely has to fire the gun: the
would-be assailant typically bolts.
> I already granted there is undoubtedly an advantage to carrying guns
> in certain situations, but let's not pretend that this idea doesn't come
> with a downside. Think of all the possible scenarios you create once you arm
> everyone. People aren't always calm, cool, sane, and sensible, not even
> gunowners.
Granted. But just like the criminals who have to take
an armed citizenry into account, so do the armed citizens.
>
>
>>2) There's between 1 and 3 million defensive uses of firearms, all told,
>>in an average year. There's nowhere near that number killed or injured by
>>criminals who have taken someone's gun from them. Annual firearms deaths
>>and injuries from ***all causes*** only run around 90,000 a year.
>>
>>See:
>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/firearms/point-blank-summary.html
>>
>
>
> I see your point of view as a pulp western mentality, shootouts and all.
That's absurdly perjorative; a cartoon image that you
willingly embrace for some reason.
I think it's in part because Canadians have been
conditioned for generations to think more collectively.
Canadians expect the state to take care of them to a
much greater degree than U.S. citizens. Americans
aren't so complacent.
> The
> more guns there are in public, the more ways there are for things to go
> haywire.
But more ways doesn't necessarily translate into higher
probability.
apostate
> In article <3C9B8EE7...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
> >
> >Chris Morton wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3C9B7442...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
> >-
> >>>I'm sorry but 1300 people a year for a decade is hardly "very few
people".
> >> It is compared to other causes of death.
> >
> >
> >That isn't what you wrote. "Guns accidentally kill very few people, and
> >less now than at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not
mistaken."
>
> And that is correct.
>
> >There's two parts to your claim. The only comparison you make in terms
> >of accidental gun deaths is to previous years.
> >
> >1300 people a year in the US is not "very few people". Japan's 1 or 2 a
> >year is "very few people".
>
> That's merely your interpretation.
> I could just as easily say that 6,000,000 is a lot whereas 1300 is very
few.
How many deaths WOULD be a lot to you? What is your comfort level of death
to protect your freedom to do as you wish with your gun?
> It's pretty obvious to me that you ONLY care about deaths in which
firearms were
> involved. Something else that killed 10,000 people probably wouldn't
arouse
> your attention.
That's an illogical conclusion. His concern for 1300 deaths does not
indicate he does NOT care about other tragedies, quite the contrary, if
anything.
> >> Do only accidental deaths due to firearms matter?
> >
> >
> >In terms of your claim, yes.
>
> "Very few" is a relative term. Why is YOUR definition the right one,
especially
> given the FAR greater death rate due to other causes. If you only care
about
> gun related deaths, it's apparent that guns are your concern, not deaths.
> That's an irrational stance.
What is a rational number of innocent people to accept killed accidentally?
> >>>>How many people were killed on average per year in auto accidents, or
by medical
> >>>>malpractice?
> >>>That's irrelevant. You did not make a comparison in your original claim
.
> >> It's absolutely relevant... unless you only care about accidents in
which
> >> firearms were involved.
> >
> >
> >It is completely irrelevant. You made a false assertion and now you are
> >moving the goalposts all over the place as you try and cover your tracks.
>
> No, you're now trying to figure out a way to avoid looking at far greater
causes
> of accidental death.
You think 1300 deaths is a reasonable price to pay for the right to have
easy access to guns, I don't.
> Either you care about deaths or just gun related deaths. Apparently it's
the
> latter.
Why? We are TALKING about gun deaths, NOT other kinds.
> >The issue is your inaccurate and unsupported claim.
>
> The issue is your fixation on guns rather than deaths.
We're talking about death from guns.
> Other types of accidental deaths don't appear to matter to you at all.
That's a projection by you. He made no reference to other types of deaths.
> >>>You are also making a tu quoque argument. Deaths in auto accidents or
through
> >>>malpractice do not justify accidental gun deaths.
> >> How is an ACCIDENT "justified"?
> >
> >
> >You are attempting to do just that by moving the goalpost and bringing
> >in irrelevant comparisons.
>
> You are attempting not to be pinned down regarding your REAL concerns. It
isn't
> working.
Focusing on his imaginary REAL concerns is an obvious a diversion by you
> If automobile accidents and malpractice kill more than guns, but you
fixate
> solely on guns, it's not really the deaths that matter to you, but the
guns.
He's not fixated, you're just cornered because you made a dumb statement.
> If that's the case, just admit it and move on.
That's what you need to do.
> >>Either you care about accidental deaths or only accidental GUN RELATED
deaths.
> >> Which is it?
> >
> >
> >The issue is accidental gun deaths. That's an impressively lousy
> >statement - three fallacies in one sentence; a false bifurcation, a
> >strawman, and a goalpost move.
>
> ONLY accidental gun deaths? Are other accidental deaths unimportant?
> Especially when gun related accidental deaths are low and DECLINING?
1300.yr is LOW? Have you known any of them? What do you gain for all these
deaths?
> >Why can't you read for comprehension?
>
> Why can't you be more candid regarding your motivations?
Imputing motives is no way to win an argument.
> >>>>Actually, I CAN support it. It's publicly available information.
> >>>So where is it? If you can, then cough it up. To support it you have to
> >>>point to a table that shows comparable stats for every year over the
> >>>past 100 years.
> >>
> >> I'll see what I can do. I don't have it handy here. I've seen it
posted
> >> previously.
> >
> >
> >IOW, you'll never do it. I am near certain that no legitimate statistics
> > on that issue exist beyond the past 20 or 30 years.
>
> Your near certainly wrong. But you seem committed to argue by assertion.
Your
> arguments have been refuted at every turn and by several people. It seems
to
> bother you.
You're squirming like a worm on a hook. Admit that a lot of people are
accidentally killed by firearms, and commit to do something about it, if
you're an ethical gun proponent. Don't try to make it seem like nothing by
comparing it to the population of the country.
>
> >>>>What's your evidence that there's an INCREASE?
> >>>WTF are you talking about? Where did I claim there is an increase?
> >> So then you're stipulating that it's stayed the same or declined?
> >
> >
> >I'm doing nothing of the sort. Quit whacking strawmen arguments.
>
> It increased, it decreased, or it stayed the same.
>
> Choose one.
STRAWMAN
The issue is your characterization of 1300 dead per year as "very few".
> >>>You seem to have problems producing a coherent argument.
> >>
> >> You seem highly defensive.
> >
> >
> >Not at all. I'm describing what I see in your posts. You produce some
> >BS unsupported statement and then spend the rest of the time trying to
> >shift the burden onto the other person.
>
> You're projecting. You clearly know nothing about gun laws in the United
> States, in Chicago in particular.
>
> >Like I said, you are just a usenet wannabe. Go back to your regular hole.
>
> Obviously you know you're in trouble and have resorted to name calling in
lieu
> of an argument.
>
> Prove how smart you are and tell everybody how much easier it is to
LEGALLY own
> a handgun in Chicago than in Canada.
Isn't that YOUR dichotomy?
apostate
> In article <u9le112...@news.supernews.com>, "apostate" says...
> >
> >"Kevin Brandon" <brand...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> "apostate" <n...@email.com> wrote
> >> > "Chris Morton" <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote
> >> >
> >> > > Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight
> >with
> >> > 210lb.
> >> > > rapists.
> >> >
> >pulling
> >> > a handgun?
> >>
> >> Are you saying it hasn't happened or that they shouldn't have the
> >option?
> >
> >Law enforcement experts will tell you guns in the hands of joe citizen
for
> >protection are more likely to be used on the citizen than the attacker.
>
> WHICH "law enforcement experts"?
Every one I've ever heard speak on the issue.
This Time Magazine article casts doubt on the statistics used to promote gun
carrying
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980706/box2.html
Check this one too.
http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html
> If they tell you that, they're lying, since there isn't any such evidence.
You don't know that, quit make unsupportable assertions.
>
> >OTOH, if the danger in the environment warrants it, (in Vancouver, Canada
it
> >doesn't) I would carry a weapon myself. My question remains, that would
be
> >pretty sexy story for the press but I haven't heard it. Women who are
>
> They've been intentionally suppressed. Media typically oppose firearms
> ownership and concealed carry.
Maybe they reflect public sentiment.
> >victimized are usually surprised and overpowered before they can "draw".
>
> Cite an example of this happening. I've been asking people to do so for
more
> than ten years. Nobody's EVER been able to do so. If you can, you'll be
the
> first.
What a bozo. Do you realize that you're claiming that NOBODY in ten years
has been overpowered and had their gun used against them. Don't you see how
unlikely that is?
>
> >Once that happens, all of a sudden the weapon is a big detriment. It
sounds
> >all Western "right-to-bear-arms" cool but the reality is more complex.
>
> The reality is that a certain sub-culture demands victimization.
Psycho-babble to support your lust for unfettered gun-ownership, regardless
how many innocent people are killed.
> Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
210lb.
> rapists.
Society would be better off if 110lb women carried pepper spray and
siren-alarms, and became educated how to deter attackers, not carry guns in
the bags that attackers grab first.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
-
> You're more conversant in statistics than I am, I'll grant. But am I
> correct in assuming that the points you make are relatively minor
> disagreements in interpretation?
That's one way of phrasing it. The study is interesting and provocative
and they do provide strong support for their basic hypothesis. I just
don't think they can accurately make the strong causal conclusions they
state.
-
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
-
> Every one I've ever heard speak on the issue.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm
-
Mary Rosh
>
> Me, too. I don't think there was any great tightening
> of gun control laws during that period. Also, as John
> Lott (a classmate of mine at UCLA) has pointed out, it
> was during this period that "shall issue" concealed
> weapons laws were being passed in a number of states.
> That would likely have caused an increase in handgun
> ownership, so ceteris paribus, I would have expected to
> see an increase in accidental death rates, not a decrease.
>
>
Lott found no change in accidental gun deaths or gun suicides after
the passage of right-to-carry laws. He has another paper on
accidental gun deaths where he points out that the vast majority of
accidental gun shots are fired by adults with long violent criminal
record who are very likely to be drug addicts or alcoholics
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=228534). You
simply just don't see much of a relationship between gun ownership by
law-abiding citizens and accidental gun deaths.
Ward M. Clark
<snip>
Jonathan already addressed most of your points pretty much as I would have.
I'll kick in on this last, though:
> > See:
> > http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/firearms/point-blank-summary.html
>
>
> I see your point of view as a pulp western mentality, shootouts and all.
That's your prerogative, but you're wrong. My point of view, like my point
of views on a range of other issues, is based a lot of reading and thinking.
Even though I'd been a hunter and recreational shooter most of my life, I
wasn't sure CCW liberalization was a good idea at first. Once several
states passed CCW laws, and the results of those laws began to come out, I
decided that it was probably on the balance A Good Thing. Now that
***most*** states have these laws, I'm more convinced than ever.
The
> more guns there are in public, the more ways there are for things to go
> haywire.
Dare I say it? "Ipse dixit." The record of ***legal*** gun ownership and
carry is pretty damn good. Florida, for example, was the first state to
liberalize concealed carry, in 1988. Since then, only about 1/10th of 1% of
all permits issued have been revoked ***for any reason.*** The states that
have passed CC bills since then - 33 of them to date - are seeing similar
results. Whatever problems there are with guns - use in crimes, accidents,
and so on - it's not at the hands of carry permit holders. As Jonathan
pointed out, many of the "accidents" can be attributed to ***illegal*** gun
owners, or to illegal gun use.
As for police authorities: The Fraternal Order of Police supports CCW laws.
So does the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. These two organizations
probably represent a majority of the nation's rank and file cops. Groups
like the Violence Policy Center and the Brady folks routinely trot out
big-city police chiefs to stump for gun control, but the rank and file cops
don't seem to agree.
Have it your way, but accept the consequences.
>
I expect to - we're expecting to get a CCW bill passed here in Colorado this
year.
Ward M. Clark
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point, then, eh?
Jonathan Ball
His point, that he isn't making very well, is
nonetheless a good one. There are all kinds of legal
activities that carry with them lethal risk. People
have things and do things that might kill them. You
don't, as yet, have a rational basis for concluding
that one thing, firearms, ought to be banned because
they cause (in the U.S.) 1300 accidental deaths per
year, while motor vehicles ought not be banned, even
though they cause in excess of 40,000 accidental deaths
per year.
Yes. Compared to other causes of accidental death.
Quit fucking around. You, and everyone else, is
implicitly making a comparison. Just stop fucking
around and pretending you aren't. Get the comparisons
out in the open.
> Have you known any of them? What do you gain for all these
> deaths?
Don't be an ignorant asshole. No one suggests that
anyone else "gains" from the deaths. You're sounding
like Fuckwit.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
(http://www.cdc.gov/safeusa/move/motorcyc.htm),
motorcycle fatalities are around 2000 per year, and web
references I found indicate the number is rising.
I own a motorcycle, and I don't want buttinski
self-styled do-gooders working to ban motorcycles
because the 2000+ accidental deaths are "too" many.
I don't even have to tell you what I "gain" from having
a motorcycle; it's none of your business. I consider
it a gain, and my evaluation of the risk of a
motorcycle is also none of your business.
The same holds true for someone's ownership of a gun.
>
>
>>>Why can't you read for comprehension?
>>>
>>Why can't you be more candid regarding your motivations?
>>
>
> Imputing motives is no way to win an argument.
Heed your own advice.
>
>
>>>>>>Actually, I CAN support it. It's publicly available information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>So where is it? If you can, then cough it up. To support it you have to
>>>>>point to a table that shows comparable stats for every year over the
>>>>>past 100 years.
>>>>>
>>>>I'll see what I can do. I don't have it handy here. I've seen it
>>>>
> posted
>
>>>>previously.
>>>>
>>>
>>>IOW, you'll never do it. I am near certain that no legitimate statistics
>>> on that issue exist beyond the past 20 or 30 years.
>>>
>>Your near certainly wrong. But you seem committed to argue by assertion.
>>Your
>>arguments have been refuted at every turn and by several people. It seems
>>to bother you.
>>
>
> You're squirming like a worm on a hook. Admit that a lot
What do you mean by "a lot"?
> of people are
> accidentally killed by firearms, and commit to do something about it, if
> you're an ethical gun proponent. Don't try to make it seem like nothing by
> comparing it to the population of the country.
>
>
>>>>>>What's your evidence that there's an INCREASE?
>>>>>>
>>>>>WTF are you talking about? Where did I claim there is an increase?
>>>>>
>>>>So then you're stipulating that it's stayed the same or declined?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm doing nothing of the sort. Quit whacking strawmen arguments.
>>>
>>It increased, it decreased, or it stayed the same.
>>
>>Choose one.
>>
>
> STRAWMAN
>
> The issue is your characterization of 1300 dead per year as "very few".
And a related issue is your characterization of it as
"a lot". Both of you are making implied comparisons.
Get the comparisons out in the open, and quit playing
coy about it.
apostate
I dare say, I could ask any police captain in Canada and they would agree
with me. They don't want armed citizens walking around. The USA however is a
different place, more violent crime, and perhaps the equation is different.
> >> but there's two problems right off the bat with
> >>that statement:
> >>
> >>1) You're only counting criminals killed or injured. Best data
available
> >>indicates that in a high percentage of cases of crimes deterred, the
> >>would-be victim never fires the gun.
> >>
> >
> > I don't doubt that, the average person wouldn't fire a gun at someone
> > easily.
>
> The "average" person brandishing a gun at a would-be
> assailant probably rarely has to fire the gun: the
> would-be assailant typically bolts.
>
>
> > I already granted there is undoubtedly an advantage to carrying guns
> > in certain situations, but let's not pretend that this idea doesn't come
> > with a downside. Think of all the possible scenarios you create once you
arm
> > everyone. People aren't always calm, cool, sane, and sensible, not even
> > gunowners.
>
> Granted. But just like the criminals who have to take
> an armed citizenry into account, so do the armed citizens.
I am thinking of immature, possibly drunk people in situations where maybe
they perceive their "manhood" is questioned, or they want to impress their
buddies or a girl. Or how about someone who perceives a threat that doesn't
exist. I'm not thinking of normal, rational people and situations, I'm
afraid of worst-case scenarios.
Here in Vancouver young people are driving fast cars into trees on an almost
daily basis, it's Murphy's law.
> >>2) There's between 1 and 3 million defensive uses of firearms, all told,
> >>in an average year. There's nowhere near that number killed or injured
by
> >>criminals who have taken someone's gun from them. Annual firearms
deaths
> >>and injuries from ***all causes*** only run around 90,000 a year.
> >>
> >>See:
> >>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/firearms/point-blank-summary.html
> >>
> >
> >
> > I see your point of view as a pulp western mentality, shootouts and all.
>
> That's absurdly perjorative; a cartoon image that you
> willingly embrace for some reason.
It doesn't seem that far-fetched to me. Americans, as people have said, are
obviously more comfortable with guns.
> I think it's in part because Canadians have been
> conditioned for generations to think more collectively.
I don't think it's that, Canadians are cautious, and highly suspicious of
guns.
> Canadians expect the state to take care of them to a
> much greater degree than U.S. citizens. Americans
> aren't so complacent.
There's a whole higher level of threat in the US, crooks are more willing to
use arms, so I can see why honest citizens would want to raise their defense
level also. I don't say it's necessarily a bad idea, but I wouldn't want to
see it around here.
> > The
> > more guns there are in public, the more ways there are for things to go
> > haywire.
>
> But more ways doesn't necessarily translate into higher
> probability.
I think in general it does. There's a higher probability of a victim
repelling an attacker (the excellent result) but also a higher probability
of several other possible scenarios involving the gun which are not so
excellent. It only makes sense, a gun that isn't there can never be used for
a bad purpose.
apostate
>
> Jonathan already addressed most of your points pretty much as I would
have.
> I'll kick in on this last, though:
>
> > > See:
> > > http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/firearms/point-blank-summary.html
> >
> >
> > I see your point of view as a pulp western mentality, shootouts and all.
>
> That's your prerogative, but you're wrong. My point of view, like my
point
> of views on a range of other issues, is based a lot of reading and
thinking.
> Even though I'd been a hunter and recreational shooter most of my life, I
> wasn't sure CCW liberalization was a good idea at first. Once several
> states passed CCW laws, and the results of those laws began to come out, I
> decided that it was probably on the balance A Good Thing. Now that
> ***most*** states have these laws, I'm more convinced than ever.
I couldn't be more happy for law-abiding citizens when punks are getting
their comuppance, but my reservations remain.
>
> The
> > more guns there are in public, the more ways there are for things to go
> > haywire.
>
> Dare I say it? "Ipse dixit."
I think my statement is self-evident. Place guns into a situation and many
possible outcomes are added to the mix. Whether or not those new outcomes
are, on balance, positive or negative is subject to statistical analysis.
The record of ***legal*** gun ownership and
> carry is pretty damn good. Florida, for example, was the first state to
> liberalize concealed carry, in 1988. Since then, only about 1/10th of 1%
of
> all permits issued have been revoked ***for any reason.*** The states
that
> have passed CC bills since then - 33 of them to date - are seeing similar
> results. Whatever problems there are with guns - use in crimes,
accidents,
> and so on - it's not at the hands of carry permit holders. As Jonathan
> pointed out, many of the "accidents" can be attributed to ***illegal***
gun
> owners, or to illegal gun use.
The gun accidents I see reported are usually due to minors gaining access to
legal guns, to play with or show off to friends. The more guns there are,
the more possibilities there are of them going off in the wrong place.
> As for police authorities: The Fraternal Order of Police supports CCW
laws.
> So does the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. These two organizations
> probably represent a majority of the nation's rank and file cops. Groups
> like the Violence Policy Center and the Brady folks routinely trot out
> big-city police chiefs to stump for gun control, but the rank and file
cops
> don't seem to agree.
It's very different in Canada, by my perception.
> Have it your way, but accept the consequences.
> >
>
> I expect to - we're expecting to get a CCW bill passed here in Colorado
this
> year.
I hope it works well for you. I still perceive a lot of the driving force is
the American love affair with handguns, not the concern for the level of
safety of the population. Look at the original poster here, he dismisses
1300 accidental deaths a year as insignificant.
Brian O'Connor
<blee...@fan.club> wrote:
Just a few of points - many from my imperfect memory -
I'm thinking this is a really good debate.
1) This Violence Policy Center site might need to rewrite
it's Chapter 1: Selling a Lie.
They seem to hang much on the work of Michael Bellesiles. I
believe that his study has come under fire (pun intended ;-)
because he may have falsified data. In fact, if memory serves,
Emory University is presently conducting an investigation of
him to determine if the errors in his work are more than just
innocent (I heard this a week or two ago on NPR). There is a
certain irony here ... (VPC's chapter being entitled "Selling
a Lie ...").
2) "One of the more interesting experiences occurred when I
asked Susan Glick, of the Violence Policy Center, to participate.
Glick, whom I called during June 1996, was one of the last people
that I approached. She was unwilling to talk at Cato because she
didn't want to 'help give any publicty to the paper.' Glick
said that her appearance might help bring media attention to the
paper that it wouldn't otherwise have gotten. When I pointed out
that C-SPAN was likely to cover the event, she said she didn't
care because 'we can get good media whenever we want.' When
I asked her if I could send her a copy of the paper because I
would appreciate any comments that she might have, she said
'forget it, there is no way I am going to look at it. Don't
send it.'" (John Lott, _More_Guns,_Less_Crime_, Chapter 7,
page 122). It gets worse ... Lott claims that Glick had
represented his study to Barry Sarafin as being "flawed"
even though she had not read the study when she made the
comment.
Chapter 7 of Lott's book specifically addresses many criticisms
that had been leveled against his studies, and makes for really
interesting reading. The Violence Policy Center and HCI both
figure prominently.
3) It might be instructive to look at what has happened in
Australia over the past several years. The advantage of the
Australian data is that you have essentially one population
existing on "both sides" of a law that was passed restricting
gun ownership. This means that the data "after" the law is
more directly comparable to the data "before" the law was
passed. I believe that in the years after the passage of
very restrictive gun laws, the incidence of violent crime
increased significantly. I don't know if the effects will
remain in the long-term.
4) One of Lott's conclusions is that criminals are basically
self-interested, self-serving people who measure cost/benefit.
All other things being equal, in places with "shall issue" CCW
laws, Lott claims (compoundly) *that* the frequency of
violent crime declines, *because* the potential criminal can
never be too sure who is and who is not packing. This assumes
that the criminal is rational (i.e. not on drugs). I find the
logic very reasonable; I don't know if it is correct.
5) I'm not a statistician, but I have a passing familiarity with
statistics. To me, Lott seems, in More Guns Less Crime, to
make an honest attempt to explain what he did and why he did it
(Appendix 1). So he provides the knowledgeable skeptic the
opportunity to criticize not just *what* he says, but *why* he
believes it to be so and *how* he went about arriving at his
conclusion. I like that a ... well ... Lott. ;-)
Brian
Ward M. Clark
And those analyses have shown positive results.
>
> The record of ***legal*** gun ownership and
> > carry is pretty damn good. Florida, for example, was the first state to
> > liberalize concealed carry, in 1988. Since then, only about 1/10th of
1%
> of
> > all permits issued have been revoked ***for any reason.*** The states
> that
> > have passed CC bills since then - 33 of them to date - are seeing
similar
> > results. Whatever problems there are with guns - use in crimes,
> accidents,
> > and so on - it's not at the hands of carry permit holders. As Jonathan
> > pointed out, many of the "accidents" can be attributed to ***illegal***
> gun
> > owners, or to illegal gun use.
>
> The gun accidents I see reported are usually due to minors gaining access
to
> legal guns, to play with or show off to friends. The more guns there are,
> the more possibilities there are of them going off in the wrong place.
You could say that about cars, butcher knives, heavy things on high shelves,
or, as Jonathan pointed out, motorcycles.
>
> > As for police authorities: The Fraternal Order of Police supports CCW
> laws.
> > So does the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. These two
organizations
> > probably represent a majority of the nation's rank and file cops.
Groups
> > like the Violence Policy Center and the Brady folks routinely trot out
> > big-city police chiefs to stump for gun control, but the rank and file
> cops
> > don't seem to agree.
>
> It's very different in Canada, by my perception.
But that's Canada. The two countries are vastly different in many ways.
>
> > Have it your way, but accept the consequences.
> > >
> >
> > I expect to - we're expecting to get a CCW bill passed here in Colorado
> this
> > year.
>
> I hope it works well for you. I still perceive a lot of the driving force
is
> the American love affair with handguns, not the concern for the level of
> safety of the population. Look at the original poster here, he dismisses
> 1300 accidental deaths a year as insignificant.
>
He's right. Taken as a percentage of accidental deaths as a whole, and
taken as a percentage of the number of guns in the hands of private owners -
something like 200 million - it is insignificant. 1300 accidental deaths a
year as a result of 200 million guns in the hands or 50-60 million legal gun
owners isn't a significant public risk. Either way you run the comparison,
the only way it becomes significant is if you have an emotional bias to the
fact that there's a gun involved, and not a car, motorcycle, bathtub, or a
heavy TV on a rickety stand.
A couple of years ago here in the Denver area, a 2-year old was killed by
precisely that - he pulled a big TV over. It was on a cheap, rickety TV
stand. Should the government now step in and regulate TV stands? The paper
reported a number of toddlers killed in this manner every year - I don't
recall the number. Should we be concerned that this is a significant public
issue? Of course not. It's a risk, but it's not a sufficient risk to
involve intervention by government.
If someone kills someone accidentally by any means, due to negligence or
careless stupidity, there are penalties involved. That's sufficient in this
case, when we're talking about incidents involving a tiny, tiny percentage
of the total body of ownership.
Jonathan Ball
> jonb...@altavista.com (Jonathan Ball) wrote in message news:<e435dead.02032...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Chris Morton <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<a7g0b...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>>In article <3C9B7442...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
>>>
>>>>Chris Morton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <3C9B4C1F...@fan.club>, IgnoranceistheFirstStep says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Chris Morton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>That's incorrect too. Guns accidentally kill very few people,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm sorry but 1300 people a year for a decade is hardly "very few people".
>>>>
>>>It is compared to other causes of death.
>>>
>>>Do only accidental deaths due to firearms matter?
>>>
>>No. But you didn't make a comparison initially.
>>
>
> For the record, he didn't. However, in the first post I replied to,
> Ignoranceisthefirststep added "in the U.S." and then tried to compare
> it to the rate in Canada without considerng any possible variables.
When you're talking rates, it is implied that it's
either per X population (usually given per 100,000), or
that you're multiplying one population or dividing
another to get roughly equal numbers. That's why I
said, a couple of posts back, that the population of
Canada is roughly 1/10 that of the U.S.
If you take some phenomenon occurring in Canada at
known numbers, and multiply the numbers times 10, you
would expect to be roughly in the ballpark of the
figures for the U.S. Why? Because the U.S. and Canada
are neighbors, and share roughly similar demographics;
certainly more similar than either one of the two and,
say, Japan.
If the rates are very different, then you need to try
to determine why. The demographics aren't identical,
so that would be one place to start looking. But the
legal systems are very different, too, so that would be
another.
> By adding "in the U.S." the only meaningful comparison would be
> to the total U.S. population.
No, there was an implied rate per X population.
Jonathan Ball
> "Chris Morton" <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote
>
>>In article <u9le112...@news.supernews.com>, "apostate" says...
>>
>>>"Kevin Brandon" <brand...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>"apostate" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>"Chris Morton" <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight
>>>>>>
>>>with
>>>
>>>>> 210lb.
>>>>>
>>>>>>rapists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>When's the last time you heard of a woman driving off an attacker by
>>>>>
>>>pulling
>>>
>>>>>a handgun?
>>>>>
>>>> Are you saying it hasn't happened or that they shouldn't have the
>>>>
>>>option?
>>>
>>>Law enforcement experts will tell you guns in the hands of joe citizen
>>>
> for
>
>>>protection are more likely to be used on the citizen than the attacker.
>>>
>>WHICH "law enforcement experts"?
>>
>
> Every one I've ever heard speak on the issue.
>
> This Time Magazine article casts doubt on the statistics used to promote gun
> carrying
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980706/box2.html
> Check this one too.
That article didn't cast any "doubt" at all! It cited
some anonymous studies that offered no justification
for some of the bizarre statistical choices they made,
e.g., dropping counties with less than 100,000
population. And it reports the results: "Researchers
from Carnegie Mellon University took Lott's figures and
analyzed crime rates only in counties with populations
above 100,000. Using this yardstick, right-to-carry
laws reduced aggravated assaults 67% in Maine--but
increased murders 105% in West Virginia." That's
typical "Time" sound-bite reporting: point out two
silly-sounding results, then move on.
Why do you not pay any attention to a key thing they do
report: that one of the biggest statistical
beneficiary groups of the deterrent effect stemming
from more liberalized concealed-carry laws is urban
blacks, EVEN THOUGH the biggest increase in
concealed-carry issuances is NOT in urban areas?
Aren't you interested in something like that? They get
a lot of the benefit, with little of any attendant risk.
> http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html
Uh...I thought Lott got the better of Weil,
particularly by twice asking him for specific
objections Weil had to methodology, and Weil went mute
or changed the subject.
>
>
>>If they tell you that, they're lying, since there isn't any such evidence.
>>
>
> You don't know that, quit make unsupportable assertions.
>
>
>>>OTOH, if the danger in the environment warrants it, (in Vancouver, Canada
>>>it doesn't) I would carry a weapon myself. My question remains, that would
>>>be pretty sexy story for the press but I haven't heard it. Women who are
>>>
>>They've been intentionally suppressed. Media typically oppose firearms
>>ownership and concealed carry.
>>
>
> Maybe they reflect public sentiment.
More likely they reflect a chattering classes bias.
>
>
>>>victimized are usually surprised and overpowered before they can "draw".
>>>
>>Cite an example of this happening. I've been asking people to do so for
>>more
>>than ten years. Nobody's EVER been able to do so. If you can, you'll be
>>the first.
>>
>
> What a bozo. Do you realize that you're claiming that NOBODY in ten years
> has been overpowered and had their gun used against them.
No, that's not what he's claiming at all. Don't be a bozo.
He's claiming that no one has offered a concrete
example of it happening. I think that's a bad
approach, because it probably has happened, and by
framing the issue that way, he opens the door for
someone to offer one example and then exult, "See?
See? It has happened!", and falsely conclude from it
that it's the typical outcome.
What he ought to do is stick with pointing out that
*you* have not offered any evidence to support your
claim (which you have made) that defensive gun use is
more likely to lead to the gun being used on the
potential crime victim than to result in a successful
prevention of a crime. You've repeated that as the
"received wisdom", and you don't have a shred of
evidence to support it.
> Don't you see how unlikely that is?
>
>
>>>Once that happens, all of a sudden the weapon is a big detriment. It
>>>sounds
>>>all Western "right-to-bear-arms" cool but the reality is more complex.
>>>
>>The reality is that a certain sub-culture demands victimization.
>>
>
> Psycho-babble to support your lust
Pejorative politico-babble to support your lack of
thoughtful analysis, and your lockstep obedience to a
collectivist/authoritarian state.
> for unfettered gun-ownership, regardless
> how many innocent people are killed.
No, it isn't "regardless" of how many people are
killed. He has pointed to the number of people
accidentally killed and, first implicitly and then
explicitly, compared it to other accidental deaths, and
concluded that the numbers are low. If the numbers
were much higher, he might conclude something different
about the costs and benefits.
>
>
>>Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
>>210lb. rapists.
>>
>
> Society would be better off if 110lb women carried pepper spray and
> siren-alarms, and became educated how to deter attackers, not carry guns in
> the bags that attackers grab first.
Society would be better off if shrill hysterics on this
issue like you would not let your emotions get the
better of you.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote
>>>>I'm certain you're wrong on that last assertion. I'll have to look and
>>>>see if I can find statistics,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I've seen more than one authority on law enforcement say it.
>>>
>>I'll bet you haven't. It's one of those anti-gun
>>platitudes that are repeated as the received wisdom.
>>It's another instance of the Scheisskopf effect:
>>"everyone" says something...because "everyone" is
>>saying it.
>>
>>And it isn't even the type of thing that's typically
>>said by "authorities" on law enforcement (do you mean
>>"police"?) It's the sort of thing that is said by gun
>>control advocacy groups, like Handgun Control Inc.
>>
>
> I dare say, I could ask any police captain in Canada and they would agree
> with me.
I not only dare say, I will say: you haven't asked one
yet. And if you did, you'd have to establish that he
had actually done some research and knew what he was
talking about. Since being a police captain does not
automatic qualify him as an expert on gun use
statistics, you'd have to determine the qualifications
of each and every one.
I don't know about Canadian statistics, but the claim
by pro-gun groups in the U.S. that there are a
*minimum* of 2,000,000 successful, legal defensive uses
of guns per year to prevent a crime from occurring
doesn't even get seriously challenged by the gun
control groups any more.
And you're speculating wildly and with no meaningful
basis for the speculation.
>
> Here in Vancouver young people are driving fast cars into trees on an almost
> daily basis, it's Murphy's law.
Do you propose the abolition of privately owned cars?
To turn your absurd earlier question around: what do
private car owners "gain" from all those vehicular deaths?
It was a stupid question when you posed it, and you
ought to see the stupidity of it when it's turned
around and aimed at you. No one "gains" from
accidental deaths, and no one claims to gain from them.
People believe they gain from having the having legal
access to the things that are involved in the deaths.
They have a well-founded belief that the accidents
won't happen to them; it's well-founded because,
probabilistically speaking, the accidents *won't*
happen to them.
>
>
>
>>>>2) There's between 1 and 3 million defensive uses of firearms, all told,
>>>>in an average year. There's nowhere near that number killed or injured
>>>>by criminals who have taken someone's gun from them. Annual firearms
>>>>deaths and injuries from ***all causes*** only run around 90,000 a year.
>>>>
>>>>See:
>>>>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/firearms/point-blank-summary.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I see your point of view as a pulp western mentality, shootouts and all.
>>>
>>That's absurdly perjorative; a cartoon image that you
>>willingly embrace for some reason.
>>
>
> It doesn't seem that far-fetched to me. Americans, as people have said, are
> obviously more comfortable with guns.
That's nice. It doesn't address your cartoonish and
offensively insulting retort to what Ward said.
>
>
>>I think it's in part because Canadians have been
>>conditioned for generations to think more collectively.
>>
>
> I don't think it's that, Canadians are cautious, and highly suspicious of
> guns.
As IITFS wrote, it would appear, once you adjust for
the much lower rate of gun ownership in Canada, that
Canadians are much *less* cautious than Americans.
>
>
>> Canadians expect the state to take care of them to a
>>much greater degree than U.S. citizens. Americans
>>aren't so complacent.
>>
>
> There's a whole higher level of threat in the US, crooks are more willing to
> use arms,
There are far more crooks as a percentage of the
population.
> so I can see why honest citizens would want to raise their defense
> level also. I don't say it's necessarily a bad idea, but I wouldn't want to
> see it around here.
Then you necessarily think it *is* a bad idea, at least
for "around there" (beginning to sound like Sue Bigot
and gestation/farrowing crates in "her" area.)
>
>
>>>The
>>>more guns there are in public, the more ways there are for things to go
>>>haywire.
>>>
>>But more ways doesn't necessarily translate into higher
>>probability.
>>
>
> I think in general it does.
And your supposition is based on nothing.
> There's a higher probability of a victim
> repelling an attacker (the excellent result) but also a higher probability
> of several other possible scenarios involving the gun which are not so
> excellent. It only makes sense, a gun that isn't there can never be used for
> a bad purpose.
If the deterrent effect of the *general* fact of
concealed weapons is high enough, then the reduction in
probability of a crime happening in the first place
might be sufficiently high to swamp any increase in
probability of the gun being used against its owner.
You're also not taking something else into account,
something very important. If there really is a
documentable reduction in crime attributable to more
liberal concealed-carry laws, then I as someone not
carrying a gun am better off as a result (if I live in
such an area), and I don't run *any* risk of having my
non-existent gun used against me. This is identical to
phenomenon of people refusing innoculation against
certain diseases when almost everyone else is
innoculated: I can "free ride" on the fact that their
having been immunized reduces my risk of contracting
the disease, thereby conferring a costless
"immunization" on me.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
-
> Chapter 7 of Lott's book specifically addresses many criticisms
> that had been leveled against his studies, and makes for really
> interesting reading.
It does although if I was a journal reviewer, his comments are not
particularly compelling.
-
> 4) One of Lott's conclusions is that criminals are basically
> self-interested, self-serving people who measure cost/benefit.
> All other things being equal, in places with "shall issue" CCW
> laws, Lott claims (compoundly) *that* the frequency of
> violent crime declines, *because* the potential criminal can
> never be too sure who is and who is not packing. This assumes
> that the criminal is rational (i.e. not on drugs). I find the
> logic very reasonable; I don't know if it is correct.
Since a lot of crime is motivated by drugs, the cost/benefit calculation
is not an assumption that is supported by Lott. His work contains a lot
of assumptions about individual and social perceptions and those
assumptions are untested and problematic.
> 5) I'm not a statistician, but I have a passing familiarity with
> statistics. To me, Lott seems, in More Guns Less Crime, to
> make an honest attempt to explain what he did and why he did it
> (Appendix 1). So he provides the knowledgeable skeptic the
> opportunity to criticize not just *what* he says, but *why* he
> believes it to be so and *how* he went about arriving at his
> conclusion. I like that a ... well ... Lott. ;-)
My final two comments on this issue -
First, his basic thesis 'more guns, less crime' is a linear, monotonic
statement. Life is neither linear nor monotonic. People supporting his
work seem to forget that his work contains control variables. He seems
to forget it as well. His thesis is supported through data fitting very
specific circumstances and situations. He (and his supporters) then turn
around and generalize it far beyond and outside of the situational
boundaries within the study.
Second, he and his supporters should heed Merton's rule - purposive
social actions created unanticipated consequences.
Snuffles
Lost the thread What was the"basic Hypothesis" about this point?
"Ward M. Clark" <wardm...@NSattbi.com> wrote in message
news:gq2n8.110723$uA5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Ward M. Clark
news:97an8.6678$km3.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> Lost the thread What was the"basic Hypothesis" about this point?
>
The viability of John Lott's conclusions regarding the decreases in crime
rates associated with easing of restrictions on concealed weapons permit
issue laws.
<snip>
Snuffles
Tell me what you are talking about!
Not enough information!
"Ward M. Clark" <wardm...@NSattbi.com> wrote in message
news:sdan8.99058$ZR2....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Ward M. Clark
> Please tell me more -
> Tell me what you are talking about!
>
> Not enough information!
You know, in the time it would take for me to explain the whole thread, you
could just read it...
In a nutshell, it was asserted that a gun is more likely to be taken from a
would-be victim and used against them, than to actually be of use in
preventing an attack. Several of us disagreed with that assertion.
apostate
Depends on who you listen to. This site has a different view.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm.
I'm not talking about banning guns, I'm talking about controlling them. Just
like society needs to control vicious dogs they need to control guns, more
so, since a Rottweiller can't be concealed under your coat.
.
>
> >
> > > As for police authorities: The Fraternal Order of Police supports CCW
> > laws.
> > > So does the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. These two
> organizations
> > > probably represent a majority of the nation's rank and file cops.
> Groups
> > > like the Violence Policy Center and the Brady folks routinely trot out
> > > big-city police chiefs to stump for gun control, but the rank and file
> > cops
> > > don't seem to agree.
> >
> > It's very different in Canada, by my perception.
>
> But that's Canada. The two countries are vastly different in many ways.
We have a different history, ours never had the sidearm glamorized as your
Colt 45 was.
> > > Have it your way, but accept the consequences.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I expect to - we're expecting to get a CCW bill passed here in
Colorado
> > this
> > > year.
> >
> > I hope it works well for you. I still perceive a lot of the driving
force
> is
> > the American love affair with handguns, not the concern for the level of
> > safety of the population. Look at the original poster here, he dismisses
> > 1300 accidental deaths a year as insignificant.
> >
>
> He's right. Taken as a percentage of accidental deaths as a whole, and
> taken as a percentage of the number of guns in the hands of private
owners -
> something like 200 million - it is insignificant. 1300 accidental deaths
a
> year as a result of 200 million guns in the hands or 50-60 million legal
gun
> owners isn't a significant public risk. Either way you run the
comparison,
> the only way it becomes significant is if you have an emotional bias to
the
> fact that there's a gun involved, and not a car, motorcycle, bathtub, or a
> heavy TV on a rickety stand.
Why do gun lovers accuse people who think handguns need regulation of being
emotional?
> A couple of years ago here in the Denver area, a 2-year old was killed by
> precisely that - he pulled a big TV over. It was on a cheap, rickety TV
> stand. Should the government now step in and regulate TV stands?
I think they probably already do. It makes sense that they should be strong
enough to hold a typical TV set.
> The paper
> reported a number of toddlers killed in this manner every year - I don't
> recall the number. Should we be concerned that this is a significant
public
> issue? Of course not. It's a risk, but it's not a sufficient risk to
> involve intervention by government.
You're trying to pretend that handguns are just another household item that
might slip and injure you, they are much more. The very earnest argument you
make to portray them as nothing but household items is belied by your
statement (which I have not seen supported) that something like 2,000,000
crimes are averted a year by CW.
>
> If someone kills someone accidentally by any means, due to negligence or
> careless stupidity, there are penalties involved. That's sufficient in
this
> case, when we're talking about incidents involving a tiny, tiny percentage
> of the total body of ownership.
I believe your desired outcome is admirable, it's the undesired ones I am
concerned about.
Ward M. Clark
<snip>> > > I think my statement is self-evident. Place guns into a
situation and
> many
> > > possible outcomes are added to the mix. Whether or not those new
> outcomes
> > > are, on balance, positive or negative is subject to statistical
> analysis.
> >
> > And those analyses have shown positive results.
>
> Depends on who you listen to. This site has a different view.
> http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm.
Quoting the VPC on gun issues, is exactly like quoting PeTA on animal
agriculture.
Like how, exactly? Guns are already controlled.
> .
> >
> > >
> > > > As for police authorities: The Fraternal Order of Police supports
CCW
> > > laws.
> > > > So does the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. These two
> > organizations
> > > > probably represent a majority of the nation's rank and file cops.
> > Groups
> > > > like the Violence Policy Center and the Brady folks routinely trot
out
> > > > big-city police chiefs to stump for gun control, but the rank and
file
> > > cops
> > > > don't seem to agree.
> > >
> > > It's very different in Canada, by my perception.
> >
> > But that's Canada. The two countries are vastly different in many ways.
>
> We have a different history, ours never had the sidearm glamorized as your
> Colt 45 was.
That's as may be, but it's got nothing to do with the subject at hand -
whether or not a concealed handgun is a greater threat to the carrier than
to a potential robber/rapist/whatever.
Well, perhaps because most of the arguments made for regulating handguns are
emotional arguments?
>
> > A couple of years ago here in the Denver area, a 2-year old was killed
by
> > precisely that - he pulled a big TV over. It was on a cheap, rickety TV
> > stand. Should the government now step in and regulate TV stands?
>
> I think they probably already do. It makes sense that they should be
strong
> enough to hold a typical TV set.
They aren't, to my knowledge, nor should they be.
>
> > The paper
> > reported a number of toddlers killed in this manner every year - I don't
> > recall the number. Should we be concerned that this is a significant
> public
> > issue? Of course not. It's a risk, but it's not a sufficient risk to
> > involve intervention by government.
>
> You're trying to pretend that handguns are just another household item
that
> might slip and injure you, they are much more.
I've done no such thing. In any case, no they aren't just a household item,
they're a weapon - but they aren't mysterious objects capable of great evil,
either. They are inanimate objects, and considerably less risky to own and
operate than a car or motorcycle. Much less so than skis - we've people
killed skiing here every year, and nobody is advocating ski control.
The very earnest argument you
> make to portray them as nothing but household items
That's not an accurate portrayal of my stand. You're setting up a straw
man.
is belied by your
> statement (which I have not seen supported) that something like 2,000,000
> crimes are averted a year by CW.
It would be "belied" perhaps, if I'd made the statement you've attributed to
me.
>
> >
> > If someone kills someone accidentally by any means, due to negligence or
> > careless stupidity, there are penalties involved. That's sufficient in
> this
> > case, when we're talking about incidents involving a tiny, tiny
percentage
> > of the total body of ownership.
>
> I believe your desired outcome is admirable, it's the undesired ones I am
> concerned about.
The history of CCW shows that positive outcome outweighs the negative. Bear
in mind that criminals, being criminals, will obtain and carry handguns
***no matter what the law says.*** People who will go to the effort to
obtain a permit aren't going to be the ones causing problems - and the
record clearly shows, they have not.
And, as Jonathan points out, the 98% of the population reaps the benefit -
at no personal effort or risk - of having the 2% out there that are causing
the criminals to tread a little more lightly.
Jonathan Ball
> "Ward M. Clark" <wardm...@NSattbi.com> wrote
>>>I hope it works well for you. I still perceive a lot of the driving
>>>force is
>>>the American love affair with handguns, not the concern for the level of
>>>safety of the population. Look at the original poster here, he dismisses
>>>1300 accidental deaths a year as insignificant.
>>>
>>>
>>He's right. Taken as a percentage of accidental deaths as a whole, and
>>taken as a percentage of the number of guns in the hands of private
>>owners -
>>something like 200 million - it is insignificant. 1300 accidental deaths
>>a
>>year as a result of 200 million guns in the hands or 50-60 million legal
>>gun owners isn't a significant public risk. Either way you run the
>>comparison,
>>the only way it becomes significant is if you have an emotional bias to
>>the
>>fact that there's a gun involved, and not a car, motorcycle, bathtub, or a
>>heavy TV on a rickety stand.
>>
>
> Why do gun lovers accuse people who think handguns need regulation of being
> emotional?
Because a lot of you are. There's a real hysteria in
your reaction. It's why you angrily use expressions
like "love affair", and "I see your point of view as a
pulp western mentality, shootouts and all."
Why do you have such an openly emotional take on all of
this, then ask a goofy question like that?
>
>
>>A couple of years ago here in the Denver area, a 2-year old was killed by
>>precisely that - he pulled a big TV over. It was on a cheap, rickety TV
>>stand. Should the government now step in and regulate TV stands?
>>
>
> I think they probably already do. It makes sense that they should be strong
> enough to hold a typical TV set.
Do they invade and inspect people's homes to make sure
they don't have the TV sets on card tables or the
ubiquitous TV eating trays? Should they?
>
>
>> The paper
>>reported a number of toddlers killed in this manner every year - I don't
>>recall the number. Should we be concerned that this is a significant
>>public
>>issue? Of course not. It's a risk, but it's not a sufficient risk to
>>involve intervention by government.
>>
>
> You're trying to pretend that handguns are just another household item that
> might slip and injure you, they are much more.
In terms of your risk of accidental death from a
firearm (not just handguns), they *are* just another
household item. The risk is small, if one believes the
reported accidents are indicative of the underlying
long-term risk.
> The very earnest argument you
> make to portray them as nothing but household items is belied by your
> statement (which I have not seen supported) that something like 2,000,000
> crimes are averted a year by CW.
Now you are moving the goalposts, although it's in a
direction where they ought to have been all along. The
prior discussion, in talking about the risk of
firearms, was focused exclusively on *accidental* death.
apostate
> > You think 1300 deaths is a reasonable price to pay for the right to have
> > easy access to guns, I don't.
>
> His point, that he isn't making very well, is
> nonetheless a good one. There are all kinds of legal
> activities that carry with them lethal risk. People
> have things and do things that might kill them. You
> don't, as yet, have a rational basis for concluding
> that one thing, firearms, ought to be banned because
> they cause (in the U.S.) 1300 accidental deaths per
> year, while motor vehicles ought not be banned, even
> though they cause in excess of 40,000 accidental deaths
> per year.
I never suggested that guns, or cars be banned. I am suggesting that they
need to be regulated. Cars belong on properly designed roads, licenced and
insured, well maintained, driven according to the law, with extreme care by
well trained people.Guns need at least as much respect, and generally belong
in locked cabinets, not on the hip of every yahoo in every bar.
[..]
> > 1300.yr is LOW?
>
> Yes. Compared to other causes of accidental death.
>
> Quit fucking around. You, and everyone else, is
> implicitly making a comparison. Just stop fucking
> around and pretending you aren't. Get the comparisons
> out in the open.
>
> > Have you known any of them? What do you gain for all these
> > deaths?
>
> Don't be an ignorant asshole. No one suggests that
> anyone else "gains" from the deaths. You're sounding
> like Fuckwit.
Presumably, stringent controls on guns would reduce the number of accidental
deaths. By eshewing controls, you have the freedom to carry and handle your
gun as you see fit. That's a benefit with a cost isn't it?
>
> According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
> (http://www.cdc.gov/safeusa/move/motorcyc.htm),
> motorcycle fatalities are around 2000 per year, and web
> references I found indicate the number is rising.
>
> I own a motorcycle, and I don't want buttinski
> self-styled do-gooders working to ban motorcycles
> because the 2000+ accidental deaths are "too" many.
Strawman, I'm not suggesting a ban. Motorcycles and their operation are
regulated.
> I don't even have to tell you what I "gain" from having
> a motorcycle; it's none of your business. I consider
> it a gain, and my evaluation of the risk of a
> motorcycle is also none of your business.
>
> The same holds true for someone's ownership of a gun.
We aren't talking about "owning" guns, we're talking about "packing" guns.
Different thing.
> >>>Why can't you read for comprehension?
> >>>
> >>Why can't you be more candid regarding your motivations?
> >>
> >
> > Imputing motives is no way to win an argument.
>
> Heed your own advice.
My motive is to question questionable ideas, and gun totin' seems a highly
questionable way to go to me. You focus on the one beneficial outcome,
deterrence, I see all the undesirable outcomes also.
[..]
>
> What do you mean by "a lot"?
1300 in the US
>
> > of people are
> > accidentally killed by firearms, and commit to do something about it, if
> > you're an ethical gun proponent. Don't try to make it seem like nothing
by
> > comparing it to the population of the country.
> >
> >
> >>>>>>What's your evidence that there's an INCREASE?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>WTF are you talking about? Where did I claim there is an increase?
> >>>>>
> >>>>So then you're stipulating that it's stayed the same or declined?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>I'm doing nothing of the sort. Quit whacking strawmen arguments.
> >>>
> >>It increased, it decreased, or it stayed the same.
> >>
> >>Choose one.
> >>
> >
> > STRAWMAN
> >
> > The issue is your characterization of 1300 dead per year as "very few".
>
> And a related issue is your characterization of it as
> "a lot". Both of you are making implied comparisons.
> Get the comparisons out in the open, and quit playing
> coy about it.
I think 1300 deaths is a lot in this context. Motor vehicles kill a lot
more, but they are HIGHLY used in person/hours compared to guns.
apostate
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote
> >
Gun ownership isn't the issue. The issue is the idea that carrying concealed
weapons leads to greater security. One problem as I see it, is that guns is
a hot-button issue, and many people don't see gun regulation in a good light
under any circumstances, making abjective views likely pretty scarce.. I am
not entirely opposed to the idea, in fact I like the deterrence part, just
not the unknown, unintended effects. States are legalizing it, but is it
political payoffs or sane policy?
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
-
> In a nutshell, it was asserted that a gun is more likely to be taken from a
> would-be victim and used against them, than to actually be of use in
> preventing an attack. Several of us disagreed with that assertion.
For the record, I do not agree with the contention that a gun is more
likely to be taken from a victim than be used in preventing an attack. I
have not seen any data that supports that specific contention.
Mary Rosh
I agree that this is important, but the "unintended effects" should
include things like the behavior of permit holders: do they behave
improperly, do they cause accidents, do they harm others? The
evidence is that the type of person who is willing to apply to carry a
gun tends to be extremely law-abiding. These people lose their
permits at only a tiny fraction of a percent for any reason, and the
reasons are usually fairly trivial. As noted above, there are no more
accidents either.
Ward M. Clark
Unless I'm mistaken, it was only apostate that made that assertion, and I'm
guessing it was based on Kellerman's widely debunked 43:1 "study."
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in[..]
>
>>>You think 1300 deaths is a reasonable price to pay for the right to have
>>>easy access to guns, I don't.
>>>
>>His point, that he isn't making very well, is
>>nonetheless a good one. There are all kinds of legal
>>activities that carry with them lethal risk. People
>>have things and do things that might kill them. You
>>don't, as yet, have a rational basis for concluding
>>that one thing, firearms, ought to be banned because
>>they cause (in the U.S.) 1300 accidental deaths per
>>year, while motor vehicles ought not be banned, even
>>though they cause in excess of 40,000 accidental deaths
>>per year.
>>
>
> I never suggested that guns, or cars be banned.
Sorry; I'm not sure I believe you about the guns. In
fact, I'm almost certain I don't believe you, as you
have posted links to VPC several times now, and they
advocate an across the board ban on handguns:
Handgun Ban Backgrounder
America's gun problem is a handgun problem. Handguns
exact an inordinate toll on American lives. The vast
majority of gun death and injury-in homicides,
suicides, and unintentional shootings-is carried out
with easily concealable pistols and revolvers. The
public health model as well as the traditional
approaches employed in protecting consumer health
and safety lead to one inevitable conclusion:
handguns should be banned.
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm
And you reveal your real and nasty view of people who
advocate handgun ownership and the right to carry them
with your "yahoo" comment below.
> I am suggesting that they need to be regulated.
In the case of handguns, you believe they should be
banned. Get it out in the open, and stop fucking around.
> Cars belong on properly designed roads, licenced and
> insured, well maintained, driven according to the law, with extreme care by
> well trained people.Guns need at least as much respect, and generally belong
> in locked cabinets, not on the hip of every yahoo in every bar.
How is a gun in a locked cabinet of any defensive use?
>
> [..]
>
>>>1300.yr is LOW?
>>>
>>Yes. Compared to other causes of accidental death.
>>
>>Quit fucking around. You, and everyone else, is
>>implicitly making a comparison. Just stop fucking
>>around and pretending you aren't. Get the comparisons
>>out in the open.
>>
>>
>>>Have you known any of them? What do you gain for all these
>>>deaths?
>>>
>>Don't be an ignorant asshole. No one suggests that
>>anyone else "gains" from the deaths. You're sounding
>>like Fuckwit.
>>
>
> Presumably, stringent controls on guns would reduce the number of accidental
> deaths.
The number of accidental deaths is already extremely
low, compared to other forms of accidental death.
Without any knowledge of the nature of the accidents -
hunting? loose handling? clowning around? - you can't
say how "stringent controls" are going to reduce
accidental deaths.
But I don't think that you, or anyone else using this
"accidental deaths" smokescreen, is really as
interested in it as you pretend. That's just your
emotional wedge. "How can *anyone* not be concerned
with kids accidentally killing themselves with guns?"
you hysterically wail, chuckling cynically under your
breath.
What you *really* want is an absolute ban on handguns,
and such "stringent" controls on long guns that
practically no one will have them. But you're too
dishonest to say it.
> By eshewing controls, you have the freedom to carry and handle your
> gun as you see fit. That's a benefit with a cost isn't it?
It doesn't help your cynical question. The gain is
from the benefit, not the cost.
>
>
>>According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
>>(http://www.cdc.gov/safeusa/move/motorcyc.htm),
>>motorcycle fatalities are around 2000 per year, and web
>>references I found indicate the number is rising.
>>
>
>>I own a motorcycle, and I don't want buttinski
>>self-styled do-gooders working to ban motorcycles
>>because the 2000+ accidental deaths are "too" many.
>>
>
> Strawman, I'm not suggesting a ban.
I don't believe you in the case of handguns; possibly
not at all.
> Motorcycles and their operation are regulated.
And there *still* are over 2000 accidental fatalities
per year resulting from them, nearly three times the
current number of accidental gun deaths.
>
>
>>I don't even have to tell you what I "gain" from having
>>a motorcycle; it's none of your business. I consider
>>it a gain, and my evaluation of the risk of a
>>motorcycle is also none of your business.
>>
>>The same holds true for someone's ownership of a gun.
>>
>
> We aren't talking about "owning" guns, we're talking about "packing" guns.
No, we weren't talking about packing guns, Mr. Goalpost
Mover, because you haven't even attempted to show that
the 800+ - NOT 1300 - accidental gun deaths in the U.S.
result from anyone carrying guns. You are talking
about gun *ownership*, period. The 800+ (1998)
accidental gun deaths in the U.S. are primarily the
result of private gun ownership, not from carrying
concealed weapons.
>
> Different thing.
>
>
>>>>>Why can't you read for comprehension?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Why can't you be more candid regarding your motivations?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Imputing motives is no way to win an argument.
>>>
>>Heed your own advice.
>>
>
> My motive is to question questionable ideas, and gun totin' seems a highly
> questionable way to go to me.
Using carefully chosen inflammatory and pejorative
language like "gun totin'" seems to be something worse
than a questionable rhetorical choice. It stinks.
> You focus on the one beneficial outcome,
> deterrence, I see all the undesirable outcomes also.
You overstate the undesirable outcomes, understate the
beneficial one, and do it all out of both ignorance and
cynicism.
>
> [..]
>
>>What do you mean by "a lot"?
>>
>
> 1300 in the US
Not 1300; 800+, as of 1998.
And you didn't answer the question. You gave an
example. An example isn't a definition. What do you
mean by "a lot"?
You're coming to resemble Fuckwit more and more.
>>>>>>>>What's your evidence that there's an INCREASE?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>WTF are you talking about? Where did I claim there is an increase?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>So then you're stipulating that it's stayed the same or declined?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>I'm doing nothing of the sort. Quit whacking strawmen arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>It increased, it decreased, or it stayed the same.
>>>>
>>>>Choose one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>STRAWMAN
>>>
>>>The issue is your characterization of 1300 dead per year as "very few".
>>>
>>And a related issue is your characterization of it as
>>"a lot". Both of you are making implied comparisons.
>>Get the comparisons out in the open, and quit playing
>>coy about it.
>>
>
> I think 1300 deaths is a lot in this context.
You haven't really defined a context. But I think I
can intuit one from what you've written. The context
is, you consider 1300, which is an overstatement of the
true number by over 50%, to be "a lot" when it results
from something that you plainly and religiously believe
people "ought" not to own privately.
> Motor vehicles kill a lot
> more, but they are HIGHLY used in person/hours compared to guns.
What makes hands-on "use hours" the relevant criterion?
Jonathan Ball
> "Mary Rosh" <mary...@aol.com> wrote
>
>>Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote
>>
>>>Me, too. I don't think there was any great tightening
>>>of gun control laws during that period. Also, as John
>>>Lott (a classmate of mine at UCLA) has pointed out, it
>>>was during this period that "shall issue" concealed
>>>weapons laws were being passed in a number of states.
>>>That would likely have caused an increase in handgun
>>>ownership, so ceteris paribus, I would have expected to
>>>see an increase in accidental death rates, not a decrease.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Lott found no change in accidental gun deaths or gun suicides after
>>the passage of right-to-carry laws. He has another paper on
>>accidental gun deaths where he points out that the vast majority of
>>accidental gun shots are fired by adults with long violent criminal
>>record who are very likely to be drug addicts or alcoholics
>>(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=228534). You
>>simply just don't see much of a relationship between gun ownership by
>>law-abiding citizens and accidental gun deaths.
>>
>
> Gun ownership isn't the issue.
Gun ownership is the issue. You haven't even pretended
to have shown that the 800+ - NOT 1300 - accidental gun
deaths in the U.S. result from CCW.
> The issue is the idea that carrying concealed
> weapons leads to greater security. One problem as I see it, is that guns is
> a hot-button issue, and many people don't see gun regulation in a good light
> under any circumstances, making abjective views likely pretty scarce.. I am
> not entirely opposed to the idea, in fact I like the deterrence part, just
> not the unknown, unintended effects. States are legalizing it, but is it
> political payoffs or sane policy?
"Political payoff" is when a policy you don't like is
passed and implemented; "sane policy" is when it's one
you like.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Yesterday's Howard Stern Show was priceless!
>
>Threatening to behead the lobster was hilarious, nevermind the roach, mealworms
>and cod!
>
>He proved beyond at doubt that PETA chicks [nevermind the rest] are stupid and
>you can trick them into stuff!
Anybody know when this show's going to be on E!?
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Justin Volpe has a gun.
Check out:
Christopher Morton
wrote:
> I hope you don't believe that my disagreement with
>"ignoranceisthefirststep" mans I agreed with you. I disagreed with him
>specifically because he added the words "in the U.S." to your claim.
>He then opened the door for my comparison. Compared to the total U.S.
>population, accidental gun deaths are a very low number. He has not,
>however, said that any type of death is unimportant to him and you are
>merely upset because you produced a poor argument.
His argument fits a common pattern of behavior.
He doesn't care about deaths, just guns. That's typical of anti-gun
people.
Show him something that's involved in three times as many accidental
deaths and he won't display the least bit of concern.
This is about irrational fear, not public policy.
Christopher Morton
>How many deaths WOULD be a lot to you? What is your comfort level of death
>to protect your freedom to do as you wish with your gun?
How many deaths due to the inability to defend oneself would be a lot
to you. More lives are saved than are lost.
Are you willing to supposedly save 800-1300 lives by taking more lost
due to inability to defend from unlawful attack?
>> It's pretty obvious to me that you ONLY care about deaths in which
>firearms were
>> involved. Something else that killed 10,000 people probably wouldn't
>arouse
>> your attention.
>
>That's an illogical conclusion. His concern for 1300 deaths does not
>indicate he does NOT care about other tragedies, quite the contrary, if
>anything.
No, that's a conclusion based on twenty some odd years of talking to
gun control advocates.
>> >> Do only accidental deaths due to firearms matter?
>> >
>> >
>> >In terms of your claim, yes.
>>
>> "Very few" is a relative term. Why is YOUR definition the right one,
>especially
>> given the FAR greater death rate due to other causes. If you only care
>about
>> gun related deaths, it's apparent that guns are your concern, not deaths.
>> That's an irrational stance.
>
>What is a rational number of innocent people to accept killed accidentally?
What's a rational number of innocent people to accept killed because
they were defenseless?
>> No, you're now trying to figure out a way to avoid looking at far greater
>causes
>> of accidental death.
>
>You think 1300 deaths is a reasonable price to pay for the right to have
>easy access to guns, I don't.
So, what's the ceiling of traffic deaths which you're willing to pay
in order to have freedom of travel?
We know it's more than 1300, don't we?
>> Either you care about deaths or just gun related deaths. Apparently it's
>the
>> latter.
>
>Why? We are TALKING about gun deaths, NOT other kinds.
We're talking about your motivations. Clearly it's guns, not
accidental deaths. Otherwise, you'd propose the same draconian
limitations on the ownership of automobiles... and mop buckets.
>> >The issue is your inaccurate and unsupported claim.
>>
>> The issue is your fixation on guns rather than deaths.
>
>We're talking about death from guns.
We're talking about TRUE motivations. Yours aren't deaths, just guns.
>> Other types of accidental deaths don't appear to matter to you at all.
>
>That's a projection by you. He made no reference to other types of deaths.
Nor will he. It's guns, not deaths that matter.
>> You are attempting not to be pinned down regarding your REAL concerns. It
>isn't
>> working.
>
>Focusing on his imaginary REAL concerns is an obvious a diversion by you
Evasion by him and you only prove what I'm saying. You don't care
about deaths, only guns.
>> If automobile accidents and malpractice kill more than guns, but you
>fixate
>> solely on guns, it's not really the deaths that matter to you, but the
>guns.
>
>He's not fixated, you're just cornered because you made a dumb statement.
Not only is he fixated, he showed it from the first post.
My post was about the Howard Stern show and PETA. He fixated on my
.sig file to the exclusion of everything else.
You care about guns, not deaths... or much of anything else for that
matter.
>> If that's the case, just admit it and move on.
>
>That's what you need to do.
Sorry, I was talking about Howard Stern coercing PETA bimbos into
displays of lesbianism. It's you two who're fixated on guns.
>> ONLY accidental gun deaths? Are other accidental deaths unimportant?
>> Especially when gun related accidental deaths are low and DECLINING?
>
>1300.yr is LOW? Have you known any of them? What do you gain for all these
>deaths?
Compared to automobile deaths it's VERY low, especially out of over
250,000,000 people.
What do you gain from the number of people killed on the highways?
>> >Why can't you read for comprehension?
>>
>> Why can't you be more candid regarding your motivations?
>
>Imputing motives is no way to win an argument.
Actually it is. And I've won.
>> Your near certainly wrong. But you seem committed to argue by assertion.
>Your
>> arguments have been refuted at every turn and by several people. It seems
>to
>> bother you.
>
>You're squirming like a worm on a hook. Admit that a lot of people are
Gee that's funny, I'm not the one who's been refuted by several people
and has asked for assistance in backing up a claim. Neither of you
has made the slightest attempt to back anything up, nor will you. You
just make flat assertions out of total ignorance. But that IS the
standard pattern for gun control advocates.
>accidentally killed by firearms, and commit to do something about it, if
>you're an ethical gun proponent. Don't try to make it seem like nothing by
>comparing it to the population of the country.
The numbers are FALLING. What do you want me to do about it? What
have YOU done about automobile accident statistics?
>> >I'm doing nothing of the sort. Quit whacking strawmen arguments.
>>
>> It increased, it decreased, or it stayed the same.
>>
>> Choose one.
>
>STRAWMAN
It increased, it decreased or it stayed the same.
Choose one.
>The issue is your characterization of 1300 dead per year as "very few".
Which in fact it is.
Funny how you can't cite what's a "lot".
Is it *1*?
If so, what are you doing about automobile fatalities which are not
only > 1, but greater than those for firearms?
NOTHING, because you don't CARE. You only care about guns.
>> Prove how smart you are and tell everybody how much easier it is to
>LEGALLY own
>> a handgun in Chicago than in Canada.
>
>Isn't that YOUR dichotomy?
I said it's easier in Canada than in Chicago.
He says it's not.
Let him prove his assertion.
He can't of course.
Christopher Morton
>I never suggested that guns, or cars be banned. I am suggesting that they
>need to be regulated. Cars belong on properly designed roads, licenced and
>insured, well maintained, driven according to the law, with extreme care by
>well trained people.Guns need at least as much respect, and generally belong
>in locked cabinets, not on the hip of every yahoo in every bar.
So then you don't believe in self-defense?
Do people have a duty to be the victims of violent crime rather than
defend themselves with firearms?
>> Don't be an ignorant asshole. No one suggests that
>> anyone else "gains" from the deaths. You're sounding
>> like Fuckwit.
>
>Presumably, stringent controls on guns would reduce the number of accidental
>deaths. By eshewing controls, you have the freedom to carry and handle your
>gun as you see fit. That's a benefit with a cost isn't it?
Presumably, stringent controls on cars would do the same thing.
Why aren't you proposing those?
>Strawman, I'm not suggesting a ban. Motorcycles and their operation are
>regulated.
In order to equalize regulation of motorcycles and guns in Chicago,
gun laws would have to be RELAXED.
Is that what you had in mind?
>> The same holds true for someone's ownership of a gun.
>
>We aren't talking about "owning" guns, we're talking about "packing" guns.
>
>Different thing.
So then you want similar restrictions on DRIVING automobiles, right?
>> Heed your own advice.
>
>My motive is to question questionable ideas, and gun totin' seems a highly
>questionable way to go to me. You focus on the one beneficial outcome,
>deterrence, I see all the undesirable outcomes also.
Just not based on any quantifiable basis you can elucidate... or are
willing to elucidate.
>> What do you mean by "a lot"?
>
>1300 in the US
Is that the definition of "a lot"?
Then why aren't you MORE concerned about vehicular deaths?
Because they don't involve GUNS.
>> And a related issue is your characterization of it as
>> "a lot". Both of you are making implied comparisons.
>> Get the comparisons out in the open, and quit playing
>> coy about it.
>
>I think 1300 deaths is a lot in this context. Motor vehicles kill a lot
>more, but they are HIGHLY used in person/hours compared to guns.
ARE they? Says who?
My car spends most of its time sitting parked somewhere.
People who carry concealed have their guns with them constantly.
But once again you change the subject.
That's typical of gun control advocates, a never ending round robin of
failed arguments.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>> It's absolutely relevant... unless you only care about accidents in which
>> firearms were involved.
>
>It *might* have been relevant, if you had introduced a comparison in
>the first place. But you didn't. You wrote "Guns accidentally kill
>very few people." If you had written "Guns accidentally kill very few
>people compared to [fill in other accidental death cause]", then you
>might be able to do something with it.
I've been having this same argument with anti-gunners for more than
twenty years.
It's completely predictable, like the life-cycle of a fruitfly.
My intent was to show REAL motivation in contrast to implied
motivation.
It goes the same way, virtually EVERY time.
And of course, recall that this thread had absolutely NOTHING to do
with gun control, but rather the Howard Stern Show and PETA.
>> >You are also making a tu quoque argument. Deaths in auto accidents or through
>> >malpractice do not justify accidental gun deaths.
>>
>> How is an ACCIDENT "justified"?
>
>Stop bullshitting. That's not what he meant, and you know it.
He said it, let him justify it.
If I have to justify ACCIDENTS, so does he.
>But why do you "justify" minimizing the importance of accidental gun
>deaths because the numbers appear, to you, to be insignificant, either
>in absolute terms or compared to other forms of accidental death? You
>*are* justifying it in that way.
Because that's the cost of living in a [relatively] free society.
Other societies don't operate that way, but I've never considered
North Korea a good example of how a society should be structured,
especially having seen it for a while.
>> I'll see what I can do. I don't have it handy here. I've seen it posted
>> previously.
>
>My bet is that you've *never* seen a an accidental gun death rate,
>either explicit or implicit, for a 100 year interval.
I've seen references to rates going back into the early years of the
previous century. Unlike him, I've made an effort to back up what
I've said.
>> So then you're stipulating that it's stayed the same or declined?
>
>He's stipulating nothing. WTF is the matter with you? You implied in
>your question that he said or implied there was an increase. He
>didn't. He also didn't say that there was a decrease, or that the
>rate held steady. He simply didn't say. But you implied that he did.
It has to do ONE of them. If he challenges what I say, he has to have
an alternative.
If say, "one is less than three" and you say, "no it's not", then
it's either got to then be more than or equal to. Those are your
choices, PERIOD.
What he wants is to deny what I say without providing an alternative.
That's dishonest.
Christopher Morton
>Gun ownership isn't the issue. The issue is the idea that carrying concealed
>weapons leads to greater security. One problem as I see it, is that guns is
>a hot-button issue, and many people don't see gun regulation in a good light
>under any circumstances, making abjective views likely pretty scarce.. I am
>not entirely opposed to the idea, in fact I like the deterrence part, just
>not the unknown, unintended effects. States are legalizing it, but is it
>political payoffs or sane policy?
What's the "unknown, unintended effect" of forcing people to be
victims?
Christopher Morton
>You said very few were killed accidentally, essentially that 1300 dead was
>not a lot to pay for freedom from gun control. I suppose if it were someone
>close to you you might think different.
I've known people killed and seriously injured in automobile
accidents. Should that influence me to desire a ban on privately
owned vehicles?
People whose musical and theatrical performances have entertained me
have died from AIDS contracted through homosexual contact. Should
that influence me to desire the passage of anti-sodomy legislation?
>> Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
>210lb.
>> rapists.
>
>Anti-gun control, the theory of mutually assured destruction.
Care to quantify that?
If a man tries to rape a woman, and she shoots him in the head and
kills him, is he somehow going to explode, killing her in turn?
If you have an alternative to self-defense, please tell everyone what
it is. Submission?
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>IgnoranceistheFirstStep <blee...@fan.club> wrote in message news:<3C9B4C1F...@fan.club>...
>> Chris Morton wrote:
>>
>> > In article <u9lj4u6...@news.supernews.com>, "apostate" says...
>> -
>> >>This seems like a topic where statistics could paint very different
>> >>pictures, depending on one's predisposition. I know that guns accidently
>> >>kill a lot of people, yet it makes sense that a populus packin' concealed
>>
>> > That's incorrect too. Guns accidentally kill very few people,
>>
>>
>> It is?
>>
>> Over the past fifteen years there has been a yearly average of 1300
>> people in the US killed by accidental gun deaths and you call that "very
>> few people?
>
> Out of a population of 270 million plus? Yes.
>
>
>
> 12,178 people killed in the 1990s and you call that "very
>> few people"?
> That is the population of my home town.
>>
>> Compare that to Canada with an average of 67 accidental deaths a year in
>> the same period.
>
> You're comparing apples and oranges. How can you make such a
>comparison without allowing for all differences in demographics. Have
>you compared population density, economic disparity, racial
>inequality, educational differences, employment statistics...? The
>list is almost endless and deems any comparison between any two
>countries practically worthless. The only true comparison would be to
>compare a specific region prior to the passage of a law concerning
>firearms ownership to the same region after such a law is enacted.
> In the majority of cases in wich a law favorable to gun ownership
>(such as concealed carry laws) has been enacted in the U.S., there has
>been a decrease in gu-related crimes in the affected area. In almost
>every case where a law that places restrictions on firearms ownership
>has been enacted, the opposite result has taken place. The only
>notable exception is the decrease in the crime rate following the
>passage of the Brady Law. However, the Bradu Law was passed following
>a decade long decrease in violent crime and the rate of this decrease
>actually slowed after the law went into effect.
>>
>> The Canadian rate is half the US rate.
>
> Irrelevant.
>>
>>
>> > and less now than
>> > at any time in the past hundred years, if I'm not mistaken.
>>
>>
>> I doubt you could support that statement. You should stick with facts
>> that are supportable.
>
> OK,
>
>Source: National Safety Council's 1992 edition of "Accidental Facts"
>
>
>Year Accidental As percentage of
>______________Firearms Deaths______________________ population_____
>1910 1,900 .0021
>1920 2,700 .0026
>1930 3,200 .0026
>1940 2,375 .0018
>1950 2,174 .0014
>1960 2,334 .0013
>1970 2,406 .0012
>1980 1,955 .0009
>1990 1,400 .0006
>______________________________________________________________________
Thanks for the information.
Christopher Morton
<blee...@fan.club> wrote:
>The data necessary to support Mr. Morton's claim would be a list of
>every year, not every ten years.
Sounds to me like you're just being a poor loser.
Christopher Morton
>side of that coin. btw that statistic doesn't include gun owners who are
>injured or killed deliberately by criminals who turn their own guns on them,
Can you cite an instance where that's happened?
I've been asking for more than ten years. Nobody's EVER provided one.
You won't either.
>a number which is also larger than the number of people who injure or kill
>would-be criminals.
And yet another strawman argument.
Is it your contention that I have only defended myself with a gun if
I've injured or killed someone?
If so, is it true that I've only defended myself with the martial arts
if I've beaten or choked someone to death?
Christopher Morton
>> I'm certain you're wrong on that last assertion. I'll have to look and
>see
>> if I can find statistics,
>
>I've seen more than one authority on law enforcement say it.
I've seen Daryl Gates say there's no "blue wall of silence" in law
enforcement.
A misstatement or lie by a cop is still a misstatement or lie.
>> 1) You're only counting criminals killed or injured. Best data available
>> indicates that in a high percentage of cases of crimes deterred, the
>> would-be victim never fires the gun.
>
>I don't doubt that, the average person wouldn't fire a gun at someone
>easily. I already granted there is undoubtedly an advantage to carrying guns
The average person doesn't NEED to fire a gun at a criminal. They
usually run, because facing an armed opponent is too much like WORK to
the average criminal.
This urge to equate petty criminals with Rambo baffles me. By and
large, they are both stupid AND cowardly. Show them a gun and they
RUN.
>in certain situations, but let's not pretend that this idea doesn't come
>with a downside. Think of all the possible scenarios you create once you arm
>everyone. People aren't always calm, cool, sane, and sensible, not even
>gunowners.
Neither are cops. Do you want them disarmed?
>I see your point of view as a pulp western mentality, shootouts and all. The
I see your point of view as enforced victimization, robberies, rapes,
murders and all.
>more guns there are in public, the more ways there are for things to go
>haywire. Have it your way, but accept the consequences.
I'd rather accept those consequences than those of being FORCED to be
a helpless victim.
My way relies upon the better nature of the average person.
Your way relies upon the better nature of robbers, rapists and
murderers.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
-
> I've been having this same argument with anti-gunners for more than
> twenty years.
And yet you keep making the same ignorant mistakes...
It seems that your learning skills are limited.
-
> It goes the same way, virtually EVERY time.
Perhaps because you create the same strawman arguments and irrelevant ad
hominems?
-
> It has to do ONE of them. If he challenges what I say, he has to have
> an alternative.
No, I don't, at least not until you actually produce data to support the
claim.
You haven't and nobody else has either.
> If say, "one is less than three"
But you didn't. You produced no numbers whatsoever.
It's your claim - support it.
-
Christopher Morton
<wardm...@NSattbi.com> wrote:
> Have it your way, but accept the consequences.
>>
>
>I expect to - we're expecting to get a CCW bill passed here in Colorado this
>year.
The Ohio House passed a veto proof bill last week.
Christopher Morton
>I couldn't be more happy for law-abiding citizens when punks are getting
>their comuppance, but my reservations remain.
Do you have any reservations regarding forcing people to be unarmed
victims?
>> Dare I say it? "Ipse dixit."
>
>I think my statement is self-evident. Place guns into a situation and many
>possible outcomes are added to the mix. Whether or not those new outcomes
The most important being that the victim now has the ability to resist
BEING a victim.
How is that worse than ENSURING that he or she is a victim?
>I hope it works well for you. I still perceive a lot of the driving force is
>the American love affair with handguns, not the concern for the level of
>safety of the population. Look at the original poster here, he dismisses
>1300 accidental deaths a year as insignificant.
In more than 250,000,000 people, it is.
But once again, you don't seem to care about other causes of death
that have higher body counts. You just seem to care about guns.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:18:30 -0500, IgnoranceistheFirstStep
> <blee...@fan.club> wrote:
>>The data necessary to support Mr. Morton's claim would be a list of
>>every year, not every ten years.
> Sounds to me like you're just being a poor loser.
Sounds to me that you are pulling a McNamara.
Why don't you produce support for your claim?
"Guns accidentally kill very few people, and less now than at any time
in the past hundred years"
Where is the reliable and valid data for each year of the past 100 years?
Christopher Morton
>Depends on who you listen to. This site has a different view.
>http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm.
The problem is that VPC is a propaganda organization with a history of
mendacity.
I would no more trust VPC's statements on gun control than I'd trust
the Institute for Historical Review's on the Holocaust.
>I'm not talking about banning guns, I'm talking about controlling them. Just
That's what they said in Chicago. Tell me what it would take for me
to move back to Chicago with my handguns.
>like society needs to control vicious dogs they need to control guns, more
>so, since a Rottweiller can't be concealed under your coat.
I find your inability to distinguish between animals and inanimate
objects highly illustrative.
>> But that's Canada. The two countries are vastly different in many ways.
>
>We have a different history, ours never had the sidearm glamorized as your
>Colt 45 was.
Nor did you SEIZE your freedom. You had it handed to you... long
after ours.
>Why do gun lovers accuse people who think handguns need regulation of being
>emotional?
Why do gun haters accuse people who aren't afraid of guns of being
"gun lovers"?
>> A couple of years ago here in the Denver area, a 2-year old was killed by
>> precisely that - he pulled a big TV over. It was on a cheap, rickety TV
>> stand. Should the government now step in and regulate TV stands?
>
>I think they probably already do. It makes sense that they should be strong
>enough to hold a typical TV set.
I can set my TV on anything I want. There's no license, no
inspection, no nothing.
>> The paper
>> reported a number of toddlers killed in this manner every year - I don't
>> recall the number. Should we be concerned that this is a significant
>public
>> issue? Of course not. It's a risk, but it's not a sufficient risk to
>> involve intervention by government.
>
>You're trying to pretend that handguns are just another household item that
>might slip and injure you, they are much more. The very earnest argument you
Sounds like emotionalism to me.
>I believe your desired outcome is admirable, it's the undesired ones I am
>concerned about.
What is the desireable outcome of forcing people to submit to violent
crime without resistance?
Christopher Morton
<blee...@fan.club> wrote:
>apostate wrote:
>
>-
>
>
>
>> Every one I've ever heard speak on the issue.
>
>
>http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm
That's like citing the Institute for Historical Review as a source on
the Holocaust.
Christopher Morton
>> WHICH "law enforcement experts"?
>
>Every one I've ever heard speak on the issue.
Name them and whom they represent.
>This Time Magazine article casts doubt on the statistics used to promote gun
>carrying
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980706/box2.html
>Check this one too.
>http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html
>
>> If they tell you that, they're lying, since there isn't any such evidence.
>
>You don't know that, quit make unsupportable assertions.
I in fact DO know that. Every such claim I've EVER seen has been
completely debunked.
>> They've been intentionally suppressed. Media typically oppose firearms
>> ownership and concealed carry.
>
>Maybe they reflect public sentiment.
Maybe they MANUFACTURE public sentiment.
Media portrayals of gun control issues have been overwhelmingly biased
and dishonest. During the debate on the so-called "assault weapon"
bill in the US, a local Cleveland TV station (WUAB, I think) showed
video of police firing MACHINEGUNS as the bill was discussed. This
was an EXPLICIT tactic of Josh Sugarman, who INTENTIONALLY worked to
confuse semi-automatic weapons and MACHINEGUNS in the public mind.
He's even on record as having said so.
>> >victimized are usually surprised and overpowered before they can "draw".
>>
>> Cite an example of this happening. I've been asking people to do so for
>more
>> than ten years. Nobody's EVER been able to do so. If you can, you'll be
>the
>> first.
>
>What a bozo. Do you realize that you're claiming that NOBODY in ten years
>has been overpowered and had their gun used against them. Don't you see how
>unlikely that is?
If it's unlikely then you ought to be able to supply ONE example.
Of course even if you DO, that'll be ONE example in over TEN years.
>> The reality is that a certain sub-culture demands victimization.
>
>Psycho-babble to support your lust for unfettered gun-ownership, regardless
>how many innocent people are killed.
The reality is that a certain sub-culture demands victimization.
They'd rather trust to the better nature of the rapist than that of
the potential rape victim.
>> Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
>210lb.
>> rapists.
>
>Society would be better off if 110lb women carried pepper spray and
>siren-alarms, and became educated how to deter attackers, not carry guns in
>the bags that attackers grab first.
If pepper spray was a serious defense, police would carry it INSTEAD
of guns. Of course that leaves aside places like Chicago where
chemical sprays are ILLEGAL.
A gun shouldn't be in a purse... unless your hand's on it IN the
purse. A much better strategy is a revolver with a concealed hammer,
in a pocket.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
-
> That's like citing the Institute for Historical Review as a source on
> the Holocaust.
That's a genetic fallacy.
Christopher Morton
<blee...@fan.club> wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>
>-
>
>
>> I've been having this same argument with anti-gunners for more than
>> twenty years.
>
>
>And yet you keep making the same ignorant mistakes...
Actually, I keep getting them to tie themselves in knots. It's never
failed once in twenty years.
>It seems that your learning skills are limited.
You don't seem qualified to judge.
>> It goes the same way, virtually EVERY time.
>
>
>Perhaps because you create the same strawman arguments and irrelevant ad
>hominems?
Perhaps anti-gunners ALWAYS paint themselves into the same rhetorical
questions.
>> It has to do ONE of them. If he challenges what I say, he has to have
>> an alternative.
>
>
>No, I don't, at least not until you actually produce data to support the
>claim.
Then you're NOT challenging my claim. It has to be one of the three.
Choose one.
>> If say, "one is less than three"
>
>
>But you didn't. You produced no numbers whatsoever.
Logic clearly escapes you.
Of course numbers HAVE been produced now, and you STILL lose. Deal
with it.
>It's your claim - support it.
Done.
You lose.