Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Or if you become a felon. Or, in my state at least, have a spouse or family member who claims you are abusive.

...Which state was that again, foggy memory.

[lockedout]

Nobody is going to take away your guns. Unless you kill someone maybe.

Or if you live in NY or CA other then that you're good...for now.

- - - Updated - - -

"uhhhh they called people on the phone...studies worthless," or "I don't understand the methodology, studies worthless."

If it's such a solid way to collect 100% accurate data why not elect the president that way? It would have to be correct I mean it's scientific and all. Just call people up on the phone and ask them who they want to vote for.

I also never said I don't understand the methodology. I said it's biased and skewed in order to show the desired results.

[Tinykong]

...Which state was that again, foggy memory.

Maryland.

If there are claims of domestic abuse, you can be ordered to turn over all firearms, and if a temporary peace/protective order is issued, you will be required to turn them and all other weapons over.

[PhaelixWW]

I've already answered this question. What part of my answer was unsatisfactory?

Wow, okay. So deliberately ignoring the more specific question. I even italicized and bolded the parts that were important.

I wasn't asking for what kinds of effects it might have, I was asking for how much (quantitative) effect you (your personal opinion, a solid guess, not some vague "we don't know", but just a fricking guess) think they will have on gun crime, specifically.

[TZucchini]

If it's such a solid way to collect 100% accurate data why not elect the president that way? It would have to be correct I mean it's scientific and all. Just call people up on the phone and ask them who they want to vote for.

Actually telephone surveys have been shown to be a completely valid method for extrapolating data. They've even conducted studies on the matter, specific to firearms, and found that telephone surveys are reliable. Science!

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, okay. So deliberately ignoring the more specific question. I even italicized and bolded the parts that were important.

I wasn't asking for what kinds of effects it might have, I was asking for how much (quantitative) effect you (your personal opinion, a solid guess, not some vague "we don't know", but just a fricking guess) think they will have on gun crime, specifically.

I have absolutely no idea how much gun crime will be impacted by these laws. That's my answer. I support them because they promote safety, responsibility, and liability in firearm ownership.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Or if you live in NY or CA other then that you're good...for now.

@_@ You and your fearmongering.

[lockedout]

Actually telephone surveys have been shown to be a completely valid method for extrapolating data. They've even conducted studies on the matter, specific to firearms, and found that telephone surveys are reliable. Science!

You linked the abstract again it's worthless. Link the study as we can't see it without a subscription. Or are you worried about the methodology they used? I mean if you are purposely linking an abstract instead of the actual study because of the methodology used then what does that say about the study itself and you're position?

Also once again if you bothered to read what you linked you would see that the study is from April 1990 and March 1991. Also worth mentioning The survey was conducted among a random sample of Ingham County, MI, residents who had purchased a hunting license between April 1990 and March 1991. The proportion of respondents who reported that at least one gun was kept in their household was 87.3 percent among handgun registration households and 89.7 percent among hunting license households.

What does this show exactly. They called people with registered firearms and hunting licenses and asked do you keep a gun in your home. Some may have kept it in their garage truck etc. Despite some limitations, the data indicate that a question on gun presence in a household can be used in a in a telephone survey.

Do you see the variables they had to put in place? Only used a small town and only called people with a hunting license and or registered firearm. What questions were asked? Oh we can't see those because you only linked the abstract on purpose. When will you wake up and use some common sense?

- - - Updated - - -

@_@ You and your fearmongering.

If you are afraid of you're guns being taken away from you by lawmakers that are afraid of the sight of a gun and have no idea how one works, then yes it's fear mongering.

[TZucchini]

You linked the abstract again it's worthless. Link the study as we can't see it without a subscription. Or are you worried about the methodology they used? I mean if you are purposely linking an abstract instead of the actual study because of the methodology used then what does that say about the study itself and you're position?

If you can't be bothered to find the FULL TEXT, which is linked on the fucking abstract page, then I have absolutely no confidence in your ability to break down the study.

Nothing you've said invalidates the study in any way. They conducted a scientific study, controlled for the appropriate variables, and came to a conclusion that displeases you. Science!

[lockedout]

That's my answer. I support them because they promote safety, responsibility, and liability in firearm ownership.

Which is a good thing except you missed one word "legal" as in " they promote safety, responsibility, and liability in "legal" firearm ownership.
The problem is criminals that will shoot you don't take these classes and don't care about safety. It seems your beef is with legal owners of firearms and not criminals.

- - - Updated - - -

If you can't be bothered to find the FULL TEXT, which is linked on the fucking abstract page, then I have absolutely no confidence in your ability to break down the study.

Nothing you've said invalidates the study in any way. They conducted a scientific study, controlled for the appropriate variables, and came to a conclusion that displeases you. Science!

The study which is 25 years old called people who had hunting licenses and registered firearms and asked do you have a firearm in your house. I'm failing to see the "science" here.

- - - Updated - - -

If you can't be bothered to find the FULL TEXT, which is linked on the fucking abstract page, then I have absolutely no confidence in your ability to break down the study.

When I click on it I am told I need a subscription to view it. I love the personal attacks though keep them coming.

[TZucchini]

The study which is 25 years old called people who had hunting licenses and registered firearms and asked do you have a firearm in your house. I'm failing to see the "science" here.

Ahhhh. There's the handwaving of scientific studies we've come to expect from the gunners.

When I click on it I am told I need a subscription to view it. I love the personal attacks though keep them coming.

I linked you the abstract. I linked you the full PDF. Here. Yet another link, on the abstract page, to the full study.

[lockedout]

Ahhhh. There's the handwaving of scientific studies we've come to expect from the gunners.



I linked you the abstract. I linked you the full PDF. Here. Yet another link, on the abstract page, to the full study.

Calling out data that is a quarter of a century old is handwaiving. Also calling people you already know own a registered firearm and asking them if they own a firearm is far from scientific but carry on I am amused.

[Tinykong]

"Because legal firearm owners admit they have firearms in their home during telephone surveys, all telephone surveys about gun ownership are valid."

[PhaelixWW]

"Because legal firearm owners admit they have firearms in their home during telephone surveys, all telephone surveys about gun ownership are valid."

I know, right?

All ambiguities, conditions, and uncertainty go out the window when the conclusions of those studies get used as if they were "proof".

Conclusion of that study:

Within the context of the limitations discussed previously, it appears that the household gun question is relatively valid in the telephone survey mode among registered handgun owners and hunting licensees.

What gun control proponents hear:

Within the context of the limitations discussed previously, it appears that the household gun question is relatively valid in the telephone survey mode among registered handgun owners and hunting licensees.

[TZucchini]

"Because legal firearm owners admit they have firearms in their home during telephone surveys, all telephone surveys about gun ownership are valid."

I know, right?

All ambiguities, conditions, and uncertainty go out the window when the conclusions of those studies get used as if they were "proof".

You guys seem to have a hard time understanding scientific studies, evidence, and their application to statements made in this thread. Here, let me help:

When someone says:

If it's such a solid way to collect 100% accurate data why not elect the president that way? It would have to be correct I mean it's scientific and all. Just call people up on the phone and ask them who they want to vote for.

...that's a direct statement questioning the validity of telephone surveys in conjunction with firearm related issues.

I then responded by citing evidence, scientific evidence for that matter, showing the validity of telephone surveys. I was greeted with handwaving and excuses.

What would be nice, is if someone could provide some evidence that perhaps these studies aren't particularly valid. Then we could have an actual discussion rather than a pissing contest. Alas. Maybe I'm asking too much.

[PhaelixWW]

I then responded by citing evidence, scientific evidence for that matter, showing the validity of telephone surveys.

I admit to being somewhat flabbergasted that, after quoting what I said, you did exactly what I said. You tried to strip away all the qualifiers the author of the study intentionally used in his conclusion, and attempted to broaden the conclusion outside of the scope of the finding.

Hint: that's not scientific.

Do you even see the qualifiers when you read those conclusions?

Within the context of the limitations discussed previously, it appears that the household gun question is relatively valid in the telephone survey mode among registered handgun owners and hunting licensees.

The author specifically lists limitations. He also uses the qualifiers "appears" and "relatively". And then he states that this applies to a specific subset of telephone surveys. Do you think those words were made a part of the conclusion by chance?

And then, magically, once you get ahold of it, the conclusion turns into: "The household gun question is valid in the telephone survey mode."

That's a huge difference. And if you're so interested in having a real discussion, then you need to understand and acknowledge that difference.

[TZucchini]

I admit to being somewhat flabbergasted that, after quoting what I said, you did exactly what I said. You tried to strip away all the qualifiers the author of the study intentionally used in his conclusion, and attempted to broaden the conclusion outside of the scope of the finding.

You don't seem to understand what I'm actually saying. The study isn't the end-all-be-all of telephone survey validity. I've never said that. Not once. It's evidence toward a conclusion. It supports the idea that telephone surveys are valid. And I've presented it in exactly that way.

And then, magically, once you get ahold of it, the conclusion turns into: "The household gun question is valid in the telephone survey mode."

Except I didn't say that. I said:

Actually telephone surveys have been shown to be a completely valid method for extrapolating data. They've even conducted studies on the matter, specific to firearms, and found that telephone surveys are reliable.

Which is completely accurate. Telephone surveys have been shown to be a completely valid method for extrapolating data. Even in regards to firearm ownership. And there's much, much more evidence. All one needs to do is look at major polling organizations, like Pew, Gallup, and Rasmussen. They all use telephone surveys, conducted in the proper scientific setting.

You guys should really stop trying to pigeon-hole me into positions I haven't taken, and start presenting evidence to support your positions.

[therayeffect]

You don't seem to understand what I'm actually saying. The study isn't the end-all-be-all of telephone survey validity. I've never said that. Not once. It's evidence toward a conclusion. It supports the idea that telephone surveys are valid. And I've presented it in exactly that way.

Except I didn't say that. I said:

Which is completely accurate. Telephone surveys have been shown to be a completely valid method for extrapolating data. Even in regards to firearm ownership. And there's much, much more evidence. All one needs to do is look at major polling organizations, like Pew, Gallup, and Rasmussen. They all use telephone surveys, conducted in the proper scientific setting.

You guys should really stop trying to pigeon-hole me into positions I haven't taken, and start presenting evidence to support your positions.

No you don't understand. Those polls done by those kinds of groups back when Obama got reelected were completely off. They aren't scientific and don't show accurate data ever. 5 is indeed greater than 15.

[TZucchini]

No you don't understand. Those polls done by those kinds of groups back when Obama got reelected were completely off. They aren't scientific and don't show accurate data ever. 5 is indeed greater than 15.

The polls showed Obama winning. If I recall correctly, Obama won.

[therayeffect]

The polls showed Obama winning. If I recall correctly, Obama won.

You didn't seriously miss the sarcasm did you? I don't know how much thicker I could lay it on. I figured you'd at least have gotten it when I said 5 is indeed greater than 15. Polls indeed can be manipulated but that's the nice thing about the scientific method, fact checkers have fact checkers. Thinking for yourself is great but distrusting everything is just representative of paranoia.

[TZucchini]

You didn't seriously miss the sarcasm did you? I don't know how much thicker I could lay it on. I figured you'd at least have gotten it when I said 5 is indeed greater than 15.

Pretty difficult to determine sarcasm through text. Especially in this thread full of people that handwave science.