Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

By applying it improperly.

If you have applied the scientific method improperly, then you haven't applied the scientific method.

- - - Updated - - -

By cherry picking the data one uses. Garbage in = garbage out.

Cherry picking data isn't scientific. Random sampling is.

[Kellhound]

Now you're just refusing to back up a claim. I don't know a use for a vehicle outside of transportation. I legitimately don't. This isn't a matter of me being obtuse and stubborn, I do not know what you are talking about.

I'm sure he is thinking something like a bulldozer.

[Grizzly Willy]

If we're talking about vehicle, then are we speaking of things like tanks, mine clearer's, street cleaner's, etc.? At that point, wouldn't shotgun tasers, bean bag launchers, paintball guns, and, to a lesser extent, weapons with scopes, also serve purposes outside of destroying or otherwise damaging another object?

I'm sure he is thinking something like a bulldozer.

Sure, but the purpose in that is still the same: the transportation of material from one point to another.

[rhandric]

Or, you'll get me posting what I find to be absolute hilarity in a discussion in which such critical thinkers can not think of one vehicle, or purpose of a vehicle that is for other than transport. See what happens when you predict things?

You change your angle?

[NYC17]

You could just , you know, post one other practical purpose. You arguing imaginary stuff is really tiresome.

You're confusing imaginary with your lack of knowledge. Given your history, I don't actually care whether you become aware of the answer or not. You play the same record over and over. You engage people you consider "braggarts" and know-nothings in discussion when they did not engage you in one, you follow it up by demanding things of them while lacking the the ability to command an actual and honest discussion, then you decide things are tiresome when the person you dislike decides not to play your uninteresting game.

You aren't on equal footing. I at least respect the ability of the people I have engaged in discussion on this thread. You've decided to latch yourself on to those who are capable of making actual points(even though those points have nothing to do with my gun control neutrality), with your eyeroll faces and your flippant comments in which you try and make a point without actually saying anything of note. You don't qualify. You're entertainment.

- - - Updated - - -

You change your angle?

Do tell, what's changed?

[Svifnymr]

People don't buy "a lot of things" for self defense. They buy a gun because it's the most effective.

Certainly, though plenty of folks have knives also, but people don't buy every type of gun for self defense. There are a variety of guns, race guns, plinkers, varminters (certainly designed to kill groundhogs, but not a self-defense arm by any means). The fact that "self defense" is one of the reasons for purchasing some types of guns does not mean all guns are designed for it, as it were.

This may have evolved along a different thread than what your initial contribution was into a more general topic, so I'm just commenting on the general topic.

[Kellhound]

If you have applied the scientific method improperly, then you haven't applied the scientific method.

- - - Updated - - -



Cherry picking data isn't scientific. Random sampling is.

And how do you determine what the sample is? What effect did the potential closing of a nearby ER that was not sampled have on one that was? There are too many variables not accounted for.

[Tinykong]

You're confusing imaginary with your lack of knowledge. Given your history, I don't actually care whether you become aware of the answer or not. You play the same record over and over. You engage people you consider "braggarts" and know-nothings in discussion when they did not engage you in one, you follow it up by demanding things of them while lacking the the ability to command an actual and honest discussion, then you decide things are tiresome when the person you dislike decides not to play your uninteresting game.

You aren't on equal footing. I at least respect the ability of the people I have engaged in discussion on this thread. You've decided to latch yourself on to those who are capable of making actual points(even though those points have nothing to do with my gun control neutrality), with your eyeroll faces and your flippant comments in which you try and make a point without actually saying anything of note. You don't qualify. You're entertainment.

More distractions instead of an actual substantive reply, I'm shocked...

I'm not the only person asking you to spell out what other purposes there are. You could just simply say "these are the practical purposes _____," instead you engage in these personal attacks / snarky nonsense. Seems like that's your thing.

[schwank05]

I am for a general ban, like basically Joe Blow cannot walk into Franks gun shop and buy an Assault Rifle. But if you are a law abiding citizen with a clean record, you could go through the proper channels and have to get a special permit to own one. I am all for that.

[TZucchini]

And how do you determine what the sample is? What effect did the potential closing of a nearby ER that was not sampled have on one that was? There are too many variables not accounted for.

If you're curious about their methodology, then criticize it directly. Hypothetical questions aren't particularly useful. And if you're going to reject the scientific method, then you have to reject all of it, including the studies it produces that actually support your argument.

I don't know why it's so hard to believe that non-fatal injuries with firearms have increased in the past decade. You can admit it. The world won't explode.

- - - Updated - - -

The NCVS does a survey of 40,000 people. It actually asks where the care was provided. ER is only one of the options. I'd say that's more comprehensive. The fact that the numbers are 8x higher on the DoJ report should be a simple indication that it's more comprehensive.

Edit: To be fair, the fact that the NCVS victimization rates exclude those under 12 will inflate the numbers very slightly, but since less than 10% of the population is in that age range, (and assuming that there are no victims in that age range), the shrunken population pool only accounts for an 11% increase in the numbers, not a 700% increase.

Again. They are measuring two completely different things.

A crime committed with a firearm vs. non-fatal injury resulting from a firearm discharge.

[PhaelixWW]

What your downward trend poll doesn't answer is WHY there is supposedly less support. The poll told you what you want to hear, and you trumpeted it as significant. It's cute.

The poll told me what the poll told me. Multiple polls said the same thing. I posted it because I figured it was relevant information.

Why there's less support isn't necessarily as important as the simple fact that there is less support. But the downward trend mirrors the downward trend in gun crime.



A spike after the events of Newtown, but a sharp return to the downward trend afterward. And no successive spike after the D.C. navy yard shootings. Mostly because there was no evil, black gun to blame for the event, so the focus stays on the proper target: problems with mental illness.

Edit: Time for work. No responses from me for a while.

[Tinykong]

Again. They are measuring two completely different things.

A crime committed with a firearm vs. non-fatal injury resulting from a firearm discharge.

Non-fatal injury resulting from firearm discharge really has nothing to do with crime or gun violence rates. Not all discharge related injuries are criminal.

[Tasttey]

I am for a general ban, like basically Joe Blow cannot walk into Franks gun shop and buy an Assault Rifle. But if you are a law abiding citizen with a clean record, you could go through the proper channels and have to get a special permit to own one. I am all for that.

Two points:

1. Assault Rifles are defined as rifles with the capacity to fire more than one round with a single pull of a trigger. These are either full auto or select fire rifles and have been largely unavailable to the general populous since the ban on their manufacture in the 1930's. Beyond that the import of said assault rifles has been banned since the 1980's and existing ones within the country were grandfathered, however the cost of such a weapon is outside the realm of what most people would spend on one. Even further, the purchase of said assault rifle is subject to an ATFE background check and additional taxing with a generally accepted wait time of approximately 6 months. The term you were looking to use is "assault weapon" which is an ambiguous term used by politicians and gun control groups to describe a rifle that looks scary.

2. To purchase a weapon at "Frank's Gun Shop" one has to submit to an NICS background check prior to receipt of said weapon and depending on the state/locality additional registration and permitting may be required.

What you seem to be proposing is not a general ban, but an increase in background checks, training and vetting of an individual prior to the purchase of a firearm.

[TZucchini]

Non-fatal injury resulting from firearm discharge really has nothing to do with crime or gun violence rates. Not all discharge related injuries are criminal.

What would expect the non criminal discharge injuries vs criminal discharge injuries to look like? Percentagewise.

[Kellhound]

If you're curious about their methodology, then criticize it directly. Hypothetical questions aren't particularly useful. And if you're going to reject the scientific method, then you have to reject all of it, including the studies it produces that actually support your argument.

I don't know why it's so hard to believe that non-fatal injuries with firearms have increased in the past decade. You can admit it. The world won't explode.

- - - Updated - - -



Again. They are measuring two completely different things.

A crime committed with a firearm vs. non-fatal injury resulting from a firearm discharge.

I can support the scientific method without accepting everything that has been done under its banner. I can pose hypotheticals because I have not seen where the variables are accounted for. I also know the CDC has some odd ways of doing things, like counting 18 year olds as children.

[Tinykong]

What would expect the non criminal discharge injuries vs criminal discharge injuries to look like? Percentagewise.

I don't know, but if you're going to say "this is how many people are injured by firearms every year, and it's an increasing trend, therefore gun violence is on the rise" you need to exclude non-crime related injuries before making that assertion. I'm sure the data exists somewhere.

[TZucchini]

I don't know, but if you're going to say "this is how many people are injured by firearms every year, and it's an increasing trend, therefore gun violence is on the rise" you need to exclude non-crime related injuries before making that assertion. I'm sure the data exists somewhere.

Right. The data certainly exists, and I'm not exactly itching to find it. I think we can assume that since the total number (noncriminal + criminal) has increased, each category separately has also increased.

Assumptions aside, I'm perfectly fine with the statement "non-fatal firearm injuries have increased in the past decade." Regardless of intent, the outcome is negative. An increase in negligent and accidental discharges is also a bad thing, and yet another reason why we should reduce and restrict ownership, imo.

[Callace]

It's hard to legislate responsibility. But people shouldn't have to die for other people's lack thereof either.

[Kellhound]

Right. The data certainly exists, and I'm not exactly itching to find it. I think we can assume that since the total number (noncriminal + criminal) has increased, each category separately has also increased.

Assumptions aside, I'm perfectly fine with the statement "non-fatal firearm injuries have increased in the past decade." Regardless of intent, the outcome is negative. An increase in negligent and accidental discharges is also a bad thing, and yet another reason why we should reduce and restrict ownership, imo.

Seems more like a reason to bring back teaching proper safe gun handling in schools.

[rhandric]

It's hard to legislate responsibility. But people shouldn't have to die for other people's lack thereof either.

Agreed. But unless/until everyone is protected by a personal forcefield, or we have precogs to prevent crime, or the minority of the population (you know, the criminals) decides that crime is wrong, it's still better for (law-abiding, and hopefully responsible) citizens to have the right to bear arms. And once we get to such a utopia where violence is unheard of, there's no reason to restrict the right to bear arms...so, in actuality, whether or not there is crime, there is no reason to restrict the right of the law-abiding populace to bear arms.