Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

In addition to major depression and dysthymic disorder, insomnia commonly occurs with bipolar disorder during depressive and manic episodes.

I haven't found evidence of insomnia being classified as a mental disorder, but rather a symptom of many mental disorders.

You keep trying to discount mental illnesses by treating them as symptoms of other illnesses that we all would agree deserve to be firearm restricted. The problem is that they are all mental illnesses under the DSM. You can define them more specifically as "learning disorders" or "eating disorders" or whatever else you want, but they are all encompassed under the term "mental illness" which is any dysfunction that effects your thinking, mood or behavior.

I really think at this point you are just being intentionally obtuse because you don't want to admit the application is too broad, and that you were wrong in using the term "mental illness" when you just meant some mental illnesses.

I'd rather have my application be too broad (it's not), than too specific. I guess that's the difference between me and you.

Because you don't mind restricting rights to quell irrational fears. I do.

The context is firearm ownership and safety. People own firearms to make themselves more safe, when in reality, they're statistically less safe.

People who drive cars are more likely to die in a traffic accident. People who climb ladders are more likely to die from falling off them.

Context is everything.

[rhandric]

The context is firearm ownership and safety. People own firearms to make themselves more safe, when in reality, they're statistically less safe.

How about women? Doesn't owning a firearm make them more safe from the big bad bogymen?

Nope and Nope.

This is controlled data.

That's a mighty leap you're making. Not all firearms are owned for safety. Some are for sport, or for hunting, or for collecting.

[PhaelixWW]

and that's true.

What? The part you bolded isn't even a full statement.

More likely? More likely than what?

Are you more likely to be killed with your own gun... than to be killed by someone else's gun? ...than to be killed in any other manner? ...than to be protected by the use of your own gun?

If you can't even understand that a "more likely" needs a "than", then you've got bigger cognitive reasoning issues you need to work out.

[lockedout]

If you need citations, all you need to do is ask. It's not like it hasn't been linked before.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

I only looked at the first link which is above because I know all of these studies are extremely skewed in order to get the desired results. For instance this "study" uses these parameters "Homicide victims were mostly male, less than 35 years of age, and of racial or ethnic minority status" seems pretty legit right?

Are these the same fail studies rucken linked and I tore apart because they seem familiar the second one is so skewed let me show you.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_...ession-safety/

"These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes."
So only people who lived in philadelphia and were called by a telemarketer were used in this study I also remember it stating that they were unemployed and minorities.

[Tinykong]

What? The part you bolded isn't even a full statement.

More likely? More likely than what?

Are you more likely to be killed with your own gun... than to be killed by someone else's gun? ...than to be killed in any other manner? ...than to be protected by the use of your own gun?

If you can't even understand that a "more likely" needs a "than", then you've got bigger cognitive reasoning issues you need to work out.

You're more likely to kill a family member with a firearm than a potato. Firearms are therefore unsafe.

[TZucchini]

I can't stick around and debate you fine fellows for the rest of the day or respond to anything else atm. Twas a pleasure.

I'll try to get back to it after March Madness...Go UConn!

[lockedout]

I can't stick around and debate you fine fellows for the rest of the day or respond to anything else atm. Twas a pleasure.

I'll try to get back to it after March Madness...Go UConn!

Next time link a credible study.

[Rukentuts]

Are these the same fail studies rucken linked and I tore apart because they seem familiar the second one is so skewed let me show you.

You "tore them apart" because you, like Phaelix, don't understand the scientific method of control variables.

[Tinykong]

You "tore them apart" because you, like Phaelix, don't understand the scientific method of control variables.

Calling random Philadelphia residents on the phone and asking them if they have a gun? Seems reasonable.

[PhaelixWW]

You're creating potentially dangerous situations by carrying firearms. That's the point.

Only in the sense that you're also creating a potentially dangerous situation when you get behind the wheel of a car.

CCW holders have, on average, been shown to be more lawful than your average citizen and less likely to commit any kind of crime, so your implication is not really true.

Peer reviewed studies were debunked by someone posting on MMOC! No way...

Peer-reviewed studies are not even in the same ballpark as "scientifically proven fact". Otherwise, there would never be any contradictory studies out there. And even a study with passable methodology may be in error due to the nature of the reliability and accuracy of the data sets used as well as coming to an incorrect conclusions based on the faulty and/or biased input.

The term "GIGO" definitely can apply in some of these cases.

And there's a reason that studies use rather vague language rather than try to make a causal determination, let alone try to pass off their conclusions as "truth" or "fact".

Rather, your quote should read, "Peer reviewed studies were attempted to be used as proof by someone posting on MMOC! No way..."

If we're able to pick and choose what we universally consider a right, then they are by definition created by humans.

Who said pick? Who said choose?

Our morality defines us. We don't pick and choose our morality. Different cultures and areas may argue about what constitutes human morality, which may lead to different governments protecting different rights (assuming the government cares about protecting rights in the first place), but that doesn't mean that we "create" them.

[lockedout]

You "tore them apart" because you, like Phaelix, don't understand the scientific method of control variables.

They were torn apart because they had no scientific control and or were 20 years old. Link them again so we can show you how wrong they are.

- - - Updated - - -

Calling random Philadelphia residents on the phone and asking them if they have a gun? Seems reasonable.

Not even random they were unemployed a certain age and ethnic minority, basically the only way to get the desired result.

[Rukentuts]

They were torn apart because they had no scientific control

Yes, they did. It's why you whined and posted raw data thinking they mean something in terms of scientific conclusions. You have no idea what a scientific control is, and you think scientific conclusions can be drawn from raw data. It's deliberate propagation of ignorance. And what's confusing is that you two pat yourselves on the back and act all snide to others while doing it. All we can do is shake our heads in bewilderment.

Multiple, and by that I mean over five posted in this thread, scientifically concluded that guns are a factor in number of homicides. Your deliberate propagation of ignorance will never change that fact. It's why this thread has moved on.

[Mayhem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights#...s_legal_rights

Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital..._United_States

uuuhm well

edit: had to giggle at the part "not artifical, not man-made" ... "deriving from the edicts of a god" lolwut?

[lockedout]

Yes, they did. It's why you whined and posted raw data thinking they mean something in terms of scientific conclusions. You have no idea what a scientific control is, and you think scientific conclusions can be drawn from raw data. It's deliberate propagation of ignorance. And what's confusing is that you two pat yourselves on the back and act all snide to others while doing it. All we can do is shake our heads in bewilderment.

Multiple, and by that I mean over five posted in this thread, scientifically concluded that guns are a factor in number of homicides. Your deliberate propagation of ignorance will never change that fact. It's why this thread has moved on.

Just post them and I will again show you how bad those studies are unless you don't want to look foolish?
I shot down all five and will gladly do it again if you care to post them, start with the one that is 21 years old I liked that one.

[Rukentuts]

Just post them and I will again show you how bad those studies

We're well aware of your affinity for propagating deliberate ignorance by not acknowledging the scientific method at this point. Therefore if you'd like to indulge yourself further on this endeavor of misinformation, you'll have to engage in it by yourself.

[lockedout]

We're well aware of your affinity for propagating deliberate ignorance by not acknowledging the scientific method at this point. Therefore if you'd like to indulge yourself further on this endeavor of misinformation, you'll have to engage in it by yourself.

Just link or admit they are terrible studies.

[Rukentuts]

Just link or admit they are terrible studies.

They're only "terrible" to those without basic knowledge of scientific methodologies that we learned in ninth grade. Better counter that with some raw data and get a "conclusion" from it.

[Roxinius]

Just link or admit they are terrible studies.

im pretty sure by him not linking them its admitting defeat because he knows they've already been proven wrong

[Rukentuts]

im pretty sure by him not linking them its admitting defeat because he knows they've already been proven wrong

By what? That's the thing. Anti-gunners in this thread aren't just incapable of proving their points, they're seemingly incapable of disproving anyone else with a method that doesn't rely on ignorance that could be clarified by a public high school curriculum. Pre-9/11 and I have seen this again and again.

[Tinykong]

Multiple, and by that I mean over five posted in this thread, scientifically concluded that guns are a factor in number of homicides. Your deliberate propagation of ignorance will never change that fact. It's why this thread has moved on.

This thread moves on because the majority of posters on these forums just hat tip when they run out of excuses or get tired of hand waving.

- - - Updated - - -

By what? That's the thing. Anti-gunners in this thread aren't just incapable of proving their points, they're seemingly incapable of disproving anyone else with a method that doesn't rely on ignorance that could be clarified by a public high school curriculum. Pre-9/11 and I have seen this again and again.

You're asking for something that simply doesn't exist. You want a study that proves guns are harmless? No one here is arguing that.

We're arguing that the right to own is more important than the risk of injury/death, and that prevention/education/meaningful legislation is better than prohibition.