Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PhaelixWW]

Oh, I see what the problem is. We're looking at two different things. You're citing non-fatal firearm crime, while I'm citing non-fatal firearm injuries. Two completely different subsets of the overall "firearm violence" category.

Wouldn't those be the same thing? Since any firearm shooting injury would technically be a crime?

But no, the difference is that your estimate only gets information from hospitals. By their nature, any gunshot would serious enough to necessitate hospitalization is much more likely to lead to death.

For comparison, look at the stats for 2001. Your study shows a non-fatal injury rate of 22.11. The US DoJ study shows a non-fatal injury rate of 269.1. The study also shows that the majority of people don't get treatment at a hospital.

I know which one I think is more comprehensive.

[Svifnymr]

Wouldn't those be the same thing? Since any firearm shooting injury would technically be a crime?

Doesn't have to be, though any gunshot would be reported, a mishap would not technically be a crime. The CDC data is also only emergency room.

[TZucchini]

Wouldn't those be the same thing?

I could be wrong here, but I'm fairly certain they aren't the same thing. Non-fatal firearm crime deals with crimes where firearms were used as an accessory. Rape, robbery, assault. Discharge of the firearm isn't a necessity.

Non-fatal firearm injuries deals with injuries sustained from firearms, under any intent (accidental discharge, criminal).

I know which one I think is more comprehensive.

I'm not so sure that you do.

[PhaelixWW]

Not all comparisons are valid. The consequences of breaking the rules are much different.

See, you're trying to change the terms of the comparison. I'm relating the two things by their culpability. The culpability of the rule/law breaking is not affected by the severity of the consequence of the breakage.

If someone steals my car and goes on a joyride, then they're to blame. But if someone steals my car and goes out and runs 5 people over, then it's my responsibility for legally owning the car that was stolen to commit the crime. No, that's not how it works, sorry.

So when you compare someone breaking the rules in baseball, to someone breaking the rules with gun use, it's entirely acceptable for someone to say "hey, that's disingenuous, and entirely stupid".

The only way you seem to have to devalue the comparison is to change or ignore the terms of the comparison, so no, it's not my argument that's disingenuous.

In the original comparison, the choice of "car" for the comparative item was almost arbitrary and doesn't make a functional difference to the point. I could just as easily have said, "So if people are legally allowed to own kitchen knives, then they're choosing to let their desire to do so supersede other people's right to not get stabbed to death." Pretty much everyone here sees that argument as a fallacious one.

Particular aspects or not, when you end your comparison at the point where you believe it satisfies whatever bullshit point you're trying to make, it's easily recognizable as self serving nonsense.

Which is pretty much the way I feel about your original assertion. It doesn't follow any logical rule of reasoning, as I pointed out earlier.

It's a necessity of your argument to stop the comparison right when you need it to be stopped, instead of carrying it out to its full and natural conclusion.

And see, there's where you don't understand comparisons. If I were trying to equate two things, or compare their entirety, then stopping part-way would be an illogical, self-serving thing. But I was comparing a specific aspect, ie common legal ownership vs criminal responsibility. I wasn't trying to equate the two items, though you seem hellbent on trying to demand that I am or that I have to do so in order to compare them at all. The unstated differences between the two things doesn't affect the concept of legal ownership vs. criminal responsibility. So therefore the comparison stands.

Guns serve one purpose, to inflict harm on something. Vehicles have multiple uses. It's strange that people believe vehicles are only used for transport. Until people understand basic, common knowledge things, and recognize them, it's hard to see the point in discussing things in more detail.

It's strange that you can't see how you're oversimplifying gun ownership motivation. By that logic, a baseball bat has a sole purpose: to harm things. A knife has a sole purpose: to harm things. A dart has a sole purpose: to harm things. Heck, a scalpel, suture needle, and craniotomy saw all have only one purpose: to harm things, regardless of the fact that the intent behind their everyday use is to save people's lives.

Police carry firearms. Are they all intent on harming people, since that's the only purpose of a firearm?

No, it's a gross oversimplification, and one that you're clinging to in order to justify your argument. If you can't see this, then you're right, there's no point in discussing this in more detail.

You're welcome to snip all my instances of "I don't care" if you feel it does something to help your argument(it doesn't). I qualified all of them, so it's weird(this is a common theme with you) that you think it helps you. Oh, wait. It doesn't unless of course you snip them. I get it now.

You're arguing strenuously about how you don't care about the outcome, since it's inevitable. That smacks of hypocrisy.

- - - Updated - - -

Some americans try to argument that they need the weapons to defend themselves. But what they fail to see is that if no one can get a weapon, there wouldn't be anything to defend against.

There are already over 300 million firearms in the US. Banning new ones is not the same thing as saying that nobody (especially criminals) can't get one.

The only thing left to defend againt (a fist, a knife, etc.) is not really that big a deal. Just learn some Martiel Arts and problem is solved.

Tell that to the 100lb. woman facing down a 250lb. attacker. Real life is not like a video game.

- - - Updated - - -

The CDC data is also only emergency room.

Ah, you're right. It's not even the whole hospital, just the ER.

I could be wrong here, but I'm fairly certain they aren't the same thing.

Ah, fine. But my overall point remains the same. The CDC data set is very limited.

I'm not so sure that you do.

You're not sure that I actually think what I say that I think?

Pardon if I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

One set of data is limited to a specific treatment subset of injuries and is 8 times lower than another data set that includes all types of treatments, and only excludes victimizations of those under 12.

Yes, I think that the BJS number is more comprehensive than the CDC number.

[NYC17]

See, you're trying to change the terms of the comparison. I'm relating the two things by their culpability. The culpability of the rule/law breaking is not affected by the severity of the consequence of the breakage.

If someone steals my car and goes on a joyride, then they're to blame. But if someone steals my car and goes out and runs 5 people over, then it's my responsibility for legally owning the car that was stolen to commit the crime. No, that's not how it works, sorry.



The only way you seem to have to devalue the comparison is to change or ignore the terms of the comparison, so no, it's not my argument that's disingenuous.

In the original comparison, the choice of "car" for the comparative item was almost arbitrary and doesn't make a functional difference to the point. I could just as easily have said, "So if people are legally allowed to own kitchen knives, then they're choosing to let their desire to do so supersede other people's right to not get stabbed to death." Pretty much everyone here sees that argument as a fallacious one.



Which is pretty much the way I feel about your original assertion. It doesn't follow any logical rule of reasoning, as I pointed out earlier.



And see, there's where you don't understand comparisons. If I were trying to equate two things, or compare their entirety, then stopping part-way would be an illogical, self-serving thing. But I was comparing a specific aspect, ie common legal ownership vs criminal responsibility. I wasn't trying to equate the two items, though you seem hellbent on trying to demand that I am or that I have to do so in order to compare them at all. The unstated differences between the two things doesn't affect the concept of legal ownership vs. criminal responsibility. So therefore the comparison stands.



It's strange that you can't see how you're oversimplifying gun ownership motivation. By that logic, a baseball bat has a sole purpose: to harm things. A knife has a sole purpose: to harm things. A dart has a sole purpose: to harm things. Heck, a scalpel, suture needle, and craniotomy saw all have only one purpose: to harm things, regardless of the fact that the intent behind their everyday use is to save people's lives.

Police carry firearms. Are they all intent on harming people, since that's the only purpose of a firearm?

No, it's a gross oversimplification, and one that you're clinging to in order to justify your argument. If you can't see this, then you're right, there's no point in discussing this in more detail.



You're arguing strenuously about how you don't care about the outcome, since it's inevitable. That smacks of hypocrisy.

- - - Updated - - -


There are already over 300 million firearms in the US. Banning new ones is not the same thing as saying that nobody (especially criminals) can't get one.



Tell that to the 100lb. woman facing down a 250lb. attacker. Real life is not like a video game.

It doesn't matter how you're trying to relate them, the fact of the matter is you end the relation when you feel it suits your needs. It's disingenuous at best. I'm not changing the terms of your comparison, I'm flat out telling you that the terms you dictated are self serving nonsense, but it's a necessity of your argument.

You enjoy debating semantics to an excruciating degree. I;ve been down this road with you before in which you did that very thing under the assumption that you knew what someone else's intention was with a statement they made, when they explicitly stated to the contrary. So, I'm not exactly expecting much from you here.

As to your ridiculous "comparison" of my statement about purpose with baseball bats(you should really stop trying to compare things), those things have other purposes and functions, While they can be used for other, practical purposes. But since you're confusing, or purposely conflating, a person's purpose, intent, or function, with an object's purpose or function, again, it's not like I'm expecting much from you.

You analysis of hypocrisy is poor. My belief that private ownership of firearms will come to an end in the distant future does not dictate that I care about the outcome. it's an observation of where I see society headed in the future. Trying to tie that to some hidden agenda you believe I have is...wait for it...weird.

That's what this is all about though, your disbelief that someone could actually be indifferent to certain things and your overwhelming desire to justify your penchant for arguing things to the nth degree. I consider myself neutral on the overall subject of gun control. I have not reconciled, nor spent the time required in order to render judgement on the subject. It's something I may do in the future if I find myself interested enough in the subject. As of now, I don't.

[ugotownd]

What are vehicles made for, other than the transportation of material from point A to point B?

I have yet to think of anything. It certainly can't be for collection or shows since that's not really a purpose of them. I'm stuck and he of course doesn't have a reason either since he won't say just the diversion of we're all too stupid since we can't think of something.

[TZucchini]

The CDC data set is very limited.

How so? Pretty much every gunshot injury requires hospitalization. It's not something you just go to the doctor for. If anything, the number under represents reality.

It seems to me, if you wanted to accurately measure the rate of non-fatal gun shot injuries, you should sample a bunch of ER rooms around the country. Do you have a better method?

[NYC17]

I have yet to think of anything. It certainly can't be for collection or shows since that's not really a purpose of them. I'm stuck and he of course doesn't have a reason either since we won't say just the diversion of we're all too stupid since we can't think of something.

No, you're not stupid per se, just not interested enough, and I'm not interested enough to help you along. But, if you feel inadequate...

[Tinykong]

No, you're not stupid per se, just not interested enough, and I'm not interested enough to help you along. But, if you feel inadequate...

Apparently this is a "thing" now: suggesting something, and then refusing to provide any examples of it, saying everyone else is "unqualified" or "too stupid" to understand.

[NYC17]

Apparently this is a "thing" now: suggesting something, and then refusing to provide any examples of it, saying everyone else is "unqualified" or "too stupid" to understand.

Nope, just not interested in stating things that should be obvious and common knowledge. If people truly believe that vehicles only serve one purpose(transport) then what would be the point of providing them examples? They've already made up their minds. Changing a predetermined position is not something I'm interested in spending my time on.

[Kellhound]

How so? Pretty much every gunshot injury requires hospitalization. It's not something you just go to the doctor for. If anything, the number under represents reality.

It seems to me, if you wanted to accurately measure the rate of non-fatal gun shot injuries, you should sample a bunch of ER rooms around the country. Do you have a better method?

Because it depends on which ERs' data you use. The ER that serves South Chicago may have vastly different numbers than the one serving Park Ridge, even though they are only a few miles apart.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, just not interested in stating things that should be obvious and common knowledge. If people truly believe that vehicles only serve one purpose(transport) then what would be the point of providing them examples? They've already made up their minds. Changing a predetermined position is not something I'm interested in spending my time on.

And yet that is how you see firearms....

[TZucchini]

Because it depends on which ERs' data you use. The ER that serves South Chicago may have vastly different numbers than the one serving Park Ridge, even though they are only a few miles apart.

That's why they used 66 different, diversified ER's. It's literally the definition of the scientific method.

[NYC17]

Because it depends on which ERs' data you use. The ER that serves South Chicago may have vastly different numbers than the one serving Park Ridge, even though they are only a few miles apart.

- - - Updated - - -



And yet that is how you see firearms....

Yes, I reject the notion that a practical purpose for firearms is cutting down trees, as you previously stated. I'm comfortable with my position on that matter.

[Tinykong]

Nope, just not interested in stating things that should be obvious and common knowledge. If people truly believe that vehicles only serve one purpose(transport) then what would be the point of providing them examples? They've already made up their minds. Changing a predetermined position is not something I'm interested in spending my time on.

Seemingly, a cars only function is to transport. What other practical function is there? If you're going to say "I'm not interested" again, can we just assume you don't have an answer?

[NYC17]

Seemingly, a cars only function is to transport. What other practical function is there? If you're going to say "I'm not interested" again, can we just assume you don't have an answer?

The initial subject has been changed to cars, the original designation was vehicles. Once again Tiny, you're late to the discussion, and short on information. Why do you do this to yourself again and again?

[Tinykong]

The initial subject has been changed to cars, the original designation was vehicles. Once again Tiny, you're late to the discussion, and short on information. Why do you do this to yourself again and again?

I don't spend all day reading these forums?

Just answer the question, you don't need to deflect and get all snarky. What other function does a vehicle (since you seem to want to expand the scope) have other than transport?

[Kellhound]

Yes, I reject the notion that a practical purpose for firearms is cutting down trees, as you previously stated. I'm comfortable with my position on that matter.

And I am comfortable with mine. And I never said it was practical to cut down trees, just that it can be done (and can be fun). You say all guns do is destroy, we say all cars do is transport.

- - - Updated - - -

The initial subject has been changed to cars, the original designation was vehicles. Once again Tiny, you're late to the discussion, and short on information. Why do you do this to yourself again and again?

Ok, all vehicles do is transport.

- - - Updated - - -

That's why they used 66 different, diversified ER's. It's literally the definition of the scientific method.

And as I said, it is only as valid as the hospitals chosen, the scientific method can easily be manipulated by either party in a debate.

[rhandric]

The initial subject has been changed to cars, the original designation was vehicles. Once again Tiny, you're late to the discussion, and short on information. Why do you do this to yourself again and again?

Vehicles are forms of - wait for it - yup, transportation.

[Callace]

Defense. Is that too hard for you?

Not at all. Defense in this case cannot be excluded from shooting to kill. You can symbolize it anyway you'd like, but the results are the same.

I could decorate my lawn with rifles and call them "peace lilies", but that doesn't mean it will stop someone from using them to blow someone's brains out.

[Tinykong]

Vehicles are forms of - wait for it - yup, transportation.

Well, I'm not expecting anything more from him. We'll get one more "you're too stupid/unimportant/uninformed/strawman to bother, so I won't" post, and we can move on satisfied that indeed, vehicles are transportation.