willard 0 #126 March 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote(Yes , I know a gun saved this ladys life. Its not the first time a gun has save a life and its not the last. However I am arguing that there are more cases out there where guns have been used to take a life and less cases where guns have been used to save a life. Therefore more guns IN MY OPINION are not going to decrease crimes/murder) That is an argument that is difficult for either side to claim victory on due to the fact that while virtually all instances of guns being used to take a life or injure are reported and documented, the number of times guns are used to prevent injury or death are not always reported. In fact, the of times these instances are not reported is often argued about as is the influence of the threat of attacking an armed citizen on a criminal. Guns are like any other object in that merely by there existence there is an inherent threat of danger. People have been beat to death with Bibles...how ironic is that? Yet we don't see groups trying to ban Bibles (Ok, maybe a couple fringe groups). Alcohol and tobacco cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year and do little if anything to save lives. Should they be banned because of that? Somebody who is skilled with a hunting rifle can plant themselves in a clocktower and kill dozens of people. No one can do that amount of damage to others with alcohol or tobacco. Tobacco and alcohol use kill more people then guns, true. Those deaths however are against the user of that substance over a long period of time. You cant take a pack of cigarettes and murder someone, you can with a gun. Conversely, you can't take a pack of ciggs or a bottle of beer and save someones life. My point wasn't to compare numbers of deaths caused by each, merely to point out that while firearms are most defintely used to kill, they are also used to save. Whether they save more than kill is a much debated argument and very hard if not impossible to prove one way or the other. If the last two days have been typical, roughly 100 people have been killed by guns in the USA while you all have been debating this one "save". Why not inform us of how many times guns were used to stop an assault or murder during those same two days? Or does that go against your argument? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #127 March 10, 2007 QuoteYou laugh now, but remember the problems caused to Navin Johnson due to cans. (those same problems would also have disappeared had phone books been banned). But without a phone book he would have never become anybody important. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #128 March 10, 2007 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You stated that this incident shows that people would not do harm if they didn't have guns -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's not what I said. A qoute from you:QuoteUsually the argument is that if guns were around, people would use anything else for killing purposes. This situation shows that argument really isn't all that true. Again the attacker used a KNIFE not a gun. So that does show that those who wish to do harm will do it even if they don't have a gun. Quote Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The attacker used a knife. That eliminates your argument that without a gun people would not bother to kill. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also not what I said. Again a the same quote from you:QuoteUsually the argument is that if guns were around, people would use anything else for killing purposes. This situation shows that argument really isn't all that true. QuoteImpossible to have a debate/discussion/conversation with somebody who makes things up. Or with someone who refuses to admit they said something once they are called on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #129 March 10, 2007 QuoteFace it buddy, very few advocates of guns on these forums have been willing to recognize their negative effects. And the anti gunners are quick to ignore the good they can do. The difference is this...We aready have laws that are supposed to prevent bad people from doing bad things..The only thing gun laws do is prevent good people from having a gun...Thats it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #130 March 10, 2007 Quote Somebody who is skilled with a hunting rifle can plant themselves in a clocktower and kill dozens of people. No one can do that amount of damage to others with alcohol or tobacco. Whitman killed 13 people. How many people does a bus or a train with a drunk person operating it hold? Your argument doesn't hold water. QuoteTobacco and alcohol use kill more people then guns, true. Those deaths however are against the user of that substance over a long period of time. You cant take a pack of cigarettes and murder someone, you can with a gun. As you can with a knife or a club or a car or a can of gas or...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #131 March 10, 2007 QuoteIf the last two days have been typical, roughly 100 people have been killed by guns in the USA while you all have been debating this one "save". And by some calculations, somewhere between two and ten THOUSAND crimes have been averted by private gun owners in that same time.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #132 March 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf the last two days have been typical, roughly 100 people have been killed by guns in the USA while you all have been debating this one "save". And by some calculations, somewhere between two and ten THOUSAND crimes have been averted by private gun owners in that same time. You have somewhere between a 2 to 1 and a 10,000 to 1 chance of being right. A pretty narrow range. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #133 March 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf the last two days have been typical, roughly 100 people have been killed by guns in the USA while you all have been debating this one "save". And by some calculations, somewhere between two and ten THOUSAND crimes have been averted by private gun owners in that same time. You have somewhere between a 2 to 1 and a 10,000 to 1 chance of being right. A pretty narrow range. Depends on what stats you look at - the yearly defense numbers are estimated to be around 80k/year by some (IIRC, this is from FBI crime stats culled from police reports/surveys), and up to around 400k/year by others (criminologists such as Kleck). A fair number of those deaths mentioned by John were most likely (again according to stats) criminal-on-criminal violence... you'll pardon me if I don't shed any tears.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #134 March 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf the last two days have been typical, roughly 100 people have been killed by guns in the USA while you all have been debating this one "save". And by some calculations, somewhere between two and ten THOUSAND crimes have been averted by private gun owners in that same time. You can't compare unverified claims of unspecified crimes with reported actual homicides. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #135 March 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf the last two days have been typical, roughly 100 people have been killed by guns in the USA while you all have been debating this one "save". And by some calculations, somewhere between two and ten THOUSAND crimes have been averted by private gun owners in that same time. You can't compare unverified claims of unspecified crimes with reported actual homicides. The last time I looked, not having to use a firearm wasn't a crime. The differences in my numbers is due to the fact that a large number of those types of altercations are unreported. Also "if the last two days have been typical" doesn't equate to 'actual reported homicides'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #136 March 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf the last two days have been typical, roughly 100 people have been killed by guns in the USA while you all have been debating this one "save". And by some calculations, somewhere between two and ten THOUSAND crimes have been averted by private gun owners in that same time. You can't compare unverified claims of unspecified crimes with reported actual homicides. The last time I looked, not having to use a firearm wasn't a crime. The differences in my numbers is due to the fact that a large number of those types of altercations are unreported. Also "if the last two days have been typical" doesn't equate to 'actual reported homicides'. On a typical day in 2005 in the USA there were 31 gun homicides. Obviously it varies from day to day. These are real deaths of real people that you devalue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #137 March 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou can't compare unverified claims of unspecified crimes with reported actual homicides. The last time I looked, not having to use a firearm wasn't a crime. The differences in my numbers is due to the fact that a large number of those types of altercations are unreported. Also "if the last two days have been typical" doesn't equate to 'actual reported homicides'. On a typical day in 2005 in the USA there were 31 gun homicides. Obviously it varies from day to day. These are real deaths of real people that you devalue. I 'devalue' nothing... but nice try. If you have information to refute my claim, trot it out - otherwise, you are adding nothing to the conversation.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #138 March 10, 2007 These are real deaths of real people that you devalue. Quote ??? how did he DEVALUE anyone?! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #139 March 10, 2007 QuoteThese are real deaths of real people that you devalue. Quote ??? how did he DEVALUE anyone?! I didn't say anyone was devalued, I said their deaths were devalued. "These are real deaths of real people that you devalue" By trying to equate actual reported murder rates with a survey of dubious methodology about unspecified crimes of unknown severity that may possibly have been prevented by a gun, and which may just be figments of the respondent's imagination, IMO devalues the deaths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #140 March 10, 2007 Quote By trying to equate actual reported murder rates with a survey of dubious methodology about unspecified crimes of unknown severity that may possibly have been prevented by a gun, and which may just be figments of the respondent's imagination, IMO devalues the deaths. Dubious methodology might apply to the millions per year claim. But the lowball government estimate of 80,000 still means that your 31 people (mostly scumbags) is dwarfed all the same. Meanwhile a couple hundred people died in car accidents too. Those are real people too, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #141 March 11, 2007 QuoteBy trying to equate actual reported murder rates with a survey of dubious methodology about unspecified crimes of unknown severity that may possibly have been prevented by a gun, and which may just be figments of the respondent's imagination, IMO devalues the deaths. So which study are you claiming is based on dubious methodology? I seem to recall there are eleven other widely mentioned studies besides the Kleck Gertz study. They varied in their results from 700,000 DGUs per year and 3.6 million DGus per year. The single most reliable and respected study, with the most scientifically valid methodology is the Kleck-Gertz study from 1993. That study came up with 2.55 million DGUs per year, but reviewed their own findings to exclude soldiers, police, and questionable or unclear reports, and then found a more conservative number of 2.16 million DGUs per year. QuoteADVANTAGES OF KLECK-GERTZ STUDY 1. Over all other studies Asked the actually involved person questions rather than only asking "household" questions. Determined the number of DGUs per DGU claimant. Asked about DGUs of everyone, even those who didn't claim to own a gun. Excluded uses against animals or any person other than a criminal. Established sequence of DGU and injury in each case of DGU w/ injury. 2. Over the NCVS K-G was anonymous, although some respondents might not believe that this was so. K-G was not by or for a government agency, although some respondents might not believe that this was so. K-G actually asked about DGUs. NCVS doesn't even specifically ask about self defense until victimization is already established. K-G excluded DGUs that were performed as part of the respondents' jobs (e.g., police and security guard). ps - even the study finding the smallest number of DGUs (700,000)blows your statement out of the water.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #142 March 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteBy trying to equate actual reported murder rates with a survey of dubious methodology about unspecified crimes of unknown severity that may possibly have been prevented by a gun, and which may just be figments of the respondent's imagination, IMO devalues the deaths. So which study are you claiming is based on dubious methodology? I seem to recall there are eleven other widely mentioned studies besides the Kleck Gertz study. They varied in their results from 700,000 DGUs per year and 3.6 million DGus per year. The single most reliable and respected study, with the most scientifically valid methodology is the Kleck-Gertz study from 1993. That study came up with 2.55 million DGUs per year, but reviewed their own findings to exclude soldiers, police, and questionable or unclear reports, and then found a more conservative number of 2.16 million DGUs per year. QuoteADVANTAGES OF KLECK-GERTZ STUDY 1. Over all other studies Asked the actually involved person questions rather than only asking "household" questions. Determined the number of DGUs per DGU claimant. Asked about DGUs of everyone, even those who didn't claim to own a gun. Excluded uses against animals or any person other than a criminal. Established sequence of DGU and injury in each case of DGU w/ injury. 2. Over the NCVS K-G was anonymous, although some respondents might not believe that this was so. K-G was not by or for a government agency, although some respondents might not believe that this was so. K-G actually asked about DGUs. NCVS doesn't even specifically ask about self defense until victimization is already established. K-G excluded DGUs that were performed as part of the respondents' jobs (e.g., police and security guard). ps - even the study finding the smallest number of DGUs (700,000)blows your statement out of the water. You are comparing ACTUAL CRIMES with "maybe" crimes. You've done this before in the thread about British crime. And those "maybe" crimes could be kids stealing your garden gnome, (or even someone who just thinks kids are going to steal a garden gnome) while the actual crimes here are real homicides with real bullet holes in the bodies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #143 March 11, 2007 Do you have any idea which study he was claiming used dubious methodology? I don't. (and I've apologized for mixing up the Brit crime survey with their crime numbers. I did however look back and see that a similar difference apears betwee the US NCVS and the brit survey) And as much as you like calling John a dog, don't forget that I could make much nastier statements about things you've posted. Instead I choose to debate the topic, not the speaker, more often than not.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #144 March 11, 2007 Quote And those "maybe" crimes could be kids stealing your garden gnome, (or even someone who just thinks kids are going to steal a garden gnome) while the actual crimes here are real homicides with real bullet holes in the bodies. but thanks to the Constitution, we don't have to wait till our bodies are filled with lead to be able to get a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #145 March 11, 2007 QuoteDo you have any idea which study he was claiming used dubious methodology? I don't. (and I've apologized for mixing up the Brit crime survey with their crime numbers. I did however look back and see that a similar difference apears betwee the US NCVS and the brit survey) And as much as you like calling John a dog, don't forget that I could make much nastier statements about things you've posted. Instead I choose to debate the topic, not the speaker, more often than not. A bad case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #146 March 11, 2007 John, while some may be impressed by your choice of using Latin instead of just saying "false cause," I'm not. I'd much rather hear anything you have to say that concerns the thread at hand. You brought up my mistake about comparing crime committed to crimes reported in a survey. I was wrong there because I made statements implying they were the same, and drew incorrect conclusions. This situation is hardly the same. here we are making cost benefit analyses, or at least comparing costs and benefits if you think this isn't that sophisticated. If you want to disagree about the value of stated benefits compared to state costs, that is fine. If you want to include other costs or benefits, please add to the discussion. But honestly professor, don't just ignore the beneifts because you don't like how they are measured. That would be affirming a disjunct. ps - you could have used multicollinearity, or coincidental correlation if you wanted to sound fancy. Anyone impressed yet? You shouldn't be.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #147 March 11, 2007 Evidently some people feel if a statement is made in Latin then it must be true and unquestionable. I find it pretentious, but that's just me. Seems to me the only lives that have been devalued in this thread are those that are saved by firearms. Those lives are just as valuable and several times more numerous than the lives taken by the use of guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #148 March 11, 2007 And yet, no one also questions that he equates all gun deaths as crime, not a result of either an accident, or even self defense, or police shootings...."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #149 March 11, 2007 QuoteEvidently some people feel if a statement is made in Latin then it must be true and unquestionable. I find it pretentious, but that's just me. . It's the STANDARD NAME for that particular logical fallacy. No more pretentious than using ad hoc... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #150 March 11, 2007 QuoteJohn, while some may be impressed by your choice of using Latin instead of just saying "false cause," I'm not. I'd much rather hear anything you have to say that concerns the thread at hand. You brought up my mistake about comparing crime committed to crimes reported in a survey. I was wrong there because I made statements implying they were the same, and drew incorrect conclusions. This situation is hardly the same. here we are making cost benefit analyses, or at least comparing costs and benefits if you think this isn't that sophisticated. If you want to disagree about the value of stated benefits compared to state costs, that is fine. If you want to include other costs or benefits, please add to the discussion. But honestly professor, don't just ignore the beneifts because you don't like how they are measured. That would be affirming a disjunct. ps - you could have used multicollinearity, or coincidental correlation if you wanted to sound fancy. Anyone impressed yet? You shouldn't be. I believe the benefits are accurately reflected in the FBI data, not Lott's or Kleck's. You have NO IDEA what crimes are supposedly prevented, and they certainly aren't all homicides. Could just as well be garden gnome-stealing. The data for the downside IS accurately accounted, some 30 times a day at gravesides.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
penniless 0 #139 March 10, 2007 QuoteThese are real deaths of real people that you devalue. Quote ??? how did he DEVALUE anyone?! I didn't say anyone was devalued, I said their deaths were devalued. "These are real deaths of real people that you devalue" By trying to equate actual reported murder rates with a survey of dubious methodology about unspecified crimes of unknown severity that may possibly have been prevented by a gun, and which may just be figments of the respondent's imagination, IMO devalues the deaths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #140 March 10, 2007 Quote By trying to equate actual reported murder rates with a survey of dubious methodology about unspecified crimes of unknown severity that may possibly have been prevented by a gun, and which may just be figments of the respondent's imagination, IMO devalues the deaths. Dubious methodology might apply to the millions per year claim. But the lowball government estimate of 80,000 still means that your 31 people (mostly scumbags) is dwarfed all the same. Meanwhile a couple hundred people died in car accidents too. Those are real people too, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #141 March 11, 2007 QuoteBy trying to equate actual reported murder rates with a survey of dubious methodology about unspecified crimes of unknown severity that may possibly have been prevented by a gun, and which may just be figments of the respondent's imagination, IMO devalues the deaths. So which study are you claiming is based on dubious methodology? I seem to recall there are eleven other widely mentioned studies besides the Kleck Gertz study. They varied in their results from 700,000 DGUs per year and 3.6 million DGus per year. The single most reliable and respected study, with the most scientifically valid methodology is the Kleck-Gertz study from 1993. That study came up with 2.55 million DGUs per year, but reviewed their own findings to exclude soldiers, police, and questionable or unclear reports, and then found a more conservative number of 2.16 million DGUs per year. QuoteADVANTAGES OF KLECK-GERTZ STUDY 1. Over all other studies Asked the actually involved person questions rather than only asking "household" questions. Determined the number of DGUs per DGU claimant. Asked about DGUs of everyone, even those who didn't claim to own a gun. Excluded uses against animals or any person other than a criminal. Established sequence of DGU and injury in each case of DGU w/ injury. 2. Over the NCVS K-G was anonymous, although some respondents might not believe that this was so. K-G was not by or for a government agency, although some respondents might not believe that this was so. K-G actually asked about DGUs. NCVS doesn't even specifically ask about self defense until victimization is already established. K-G excluded DGUs that were performed as part of the respondents' jobs (e.g., police and security guard). ps - even the study finding the smallest number of DGUs (700,000)blows your statement out of the water.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #142 March 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteBy trying to equate actual reported murder rates with a survey of dubious methodology about unspecified crimes of unknown severity that may possibly have been prevented by a gun, and which may just be figments of the respondent's imagination, IMO devalues the deaths. So which study are you claiming is based on dubious methodology? I seem to recall there are eleven other widely mentioned studies besides the Kleck Gertz study. They varied in their results from 700,000 DGUs per year and 3.6 million DGus per year. The single most reliable and respected study, with the most scientifically valid methodology is the Kleck-Gertz study from 1993. That study came up with 2.55 million DGUs per year, but reviewed their own findings to exclude soldiers, police, and questionable or unclear reports, and then found a more conservative number of 2.16 million DGUs per year. QuoteADVANTAGES OF KLECK-GERTZ STUDY 1. Over all other studies Asked the actually involved person questions rather than only asking "household" questions. Determined the number of DGUs per DGU claimant. Asked about DGUs of everyone, even those who didn't claim to own a gun. Excluded uses against animals or any person other than a criminal. Established sequence of DGU and injury in each case of DGU w/ injury. 2. Over the NCVS K-G was anonymous, although some respondents might not believe that this was so. K-G was not by or for a government agency, although some respondents might not believe that this was so. K-G actually asked about DGUs. NCVS doesn't even specifically ask about self defense until victimization is already established. K-G excluded DGUs that were performed as part of the respondents' jobs (e.g., police and security guard). ps - even the study finding the smallest number of DGUs (700,000)blows your statement out of the water. You are comparing ACTUAL CRIMES with "maybe" crimes. You've done this before in the thread about British crime. And those "maybe" crimes could be kids stealing your garden gnome, (or even someone who just thinks kids are going to steal a garden gnome) while the actual crimes here are real homicides with real bullet holes in the bodies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #143 March 11, 2007 Do you have any idea which study he was claiming used dubious methodology? I don't. (and I've apologized for mixing up the Brit crime survey with their crime numbers. I did however look back and see that a similar difference apears betwee the US NCVS and the brit survey) And as much as you like calling John a dog, don't forget that I could make much nastier statements about things you've posted. Instead I choose to debate the topic, not the speaker, more often than not.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #144 March 11, 2007 Quote And those "maybe" crimes could be kids stealing your garden gnome, (or even someone who just thinks kids are going to steal a garden gnome) while the actual crimes here are real homicides with real bullet holes in the bodies. but thanks to the Constitution, we don't have to wait till our bodies are filled with lead to be able to get a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #145 March 11, 2007 QuoteDo you have any idea which study he was claiming used dubious methodology? I don't. (and I've apologized for mixing up the Brit crime survey with their crime numbers. I did however look back and see that a similar difference apears betwee the US NCVS and the brit survey) And as much as you like calling John a dog, don't forget that I could make much nastier statements about things you've posted. Instead I choose to debate the topic, not the speaker, more often than not. A bad case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #146 March 11, 2007 John, while some may be impressed by your choice of using Latin instead of just saying "false cause," I'm not. I'd much rather hear anything you have to say that concerns the thread at hand. You brought up my mistake about comparing crime committed to crimes reported in a survey. I was wrong there because I made statements implying they were the same, and drew incorrect conclusions. This situation is hardly the same. here we are making cost benefit analyses, or at least comparing costs and benefits if you think this isn't that sophisticated. If you want to disagree about the value of stated benefits compared to state costs, that is fine. If you want to include other costs or benefits, please add to the discussion. But honestly professor, don't just ignore the beneifts because you don't like how they are measured. That would be affirming a disjunct. ps - you could have used multicollinearity, or coincidental correlation if you wanted to sound fancy. Anyone impressed yet? You shouldn't be.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #147 March 11, 2007 Evidently some people feel if a statement is made in Latin then it must be true and unquestionable. I find it pretentious, but that's just me. Seems to me the only lives that have been devalued in this thread are those that are saved by firearms. Those lives are just as valuable and several times more numerous than the lives taken by the use of guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #148 March 11, 2007 And yet, no one also questions that he equates all gun deaths as crime, not a result of either an accident, or even self defense, or police shootings...."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #149 March 11, 2007 QuoteEvidently some people feel if a statement is made in Latin then it must be true and unquestionable. I find it pretentious, but that's just me. . It's the STANDARD NAME for that particular logical fallacy. No more pretentious than using ad hoc... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #150 March 11, 2007 QuoteJohn, while some may be impressed by your choice of using Latin instead of just saying "false cause," I'm not. I'd much rather hear anything you have to say that concerns the thread at hand. You brought up my mistake about comparing crime committed to crimes reported in a survey. I was wrong there because I made statements implying they were the same, and drew incorrect conclusions. This situation is hardly the same. here we are making cost benefit analyses, or at least comparing costs and benefits if you think this isn't that sophisticated. If you want to disagree about the value of stated benefits compared to state costs, that is fine. If you want to include other costs or benefits, please add to the discussion. But honestly professor, don't just ignore the beneifts because you don't like how they are measured. That would be affirming a disjunct. ps - you could have used multicollinearity, or coincidental correlation if you wanted to sound fancy. Anyone impressed yet? You shouldn't be. I believe the benefits are accurately reflected in the FBI data, not Lott's or Kleck's. You have NO IDEA what crimes are supposedly prevented, and they certainly aren't all homicides. Could just as well be garden gnome-stealing. The data for the downside IS accurately accounted, some 30 times a day at gravesides.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kelpdiver 2 #140 March 10, 2007 Quote By trying to equate actual reported murder rates with a survey of dubious methodology about unspecified crimes of unknown severity that may possibly have been prevented by a gun, and which may just be figments of the respondent's imagination, IMO devalues the deaths. Dubious methodology might apply to the millions per year claim. But the lowball government estimate of 80,000 still means that your 31 people (mostly scumbags) is dwarfed all the same. Meanwhile a couple hundred people died in car accidents too. Those are real people too, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #141 March 11, 2007 QuoteBy trying to equate actual reported murder rates with a survey of dubious methodology about unspecified crimes of unknown severity that may possibly have been prevented by a gun, and which may just be figments of the respondent's imagination, IMO devalues the deaths. So which study are you claiming is based on dubious methodology? I seem to recall there are eleven other widely mentioned studies besides the Kleck Gertz study. They varied in their results from 700,000 DGUs per year and 3.6 million DGus per year. The single most reliable and respected study, with the most scientifically valid methodology is the Kleck-Gertz study from 1993. That study came up with 2.55 million DGUs per year, but reviewed their own findings to exclude soldiers, police, and questionable or unclear reports, and then found a more conservative number of 2.16 million DGUs per year. QuoteADVANTAGES OF KLECK-GERTZ STUDY 1. Over all other studies Asked the actually involved person questions rather than only asking "household" questions. Determined the number of DGUs per DGU claimant. Asked about DGUs of everyone, even those who didn't claim to own a gun. Excluded uses against animals or any person other than a criminal. Established sequence of DGU and injury in each case of DGU w/ injury. 2. Over the NCVS K-G was anonymous, although some respondents might not believe that this was so. K-G was not by or for a government agency, although some respondents might not believe that this was so. K-G actually asked about DGUs. NCVS doesn't even specifically ask about self defense until victimization is already established. K-G excluded DGUs that were performed as part of the respondents' jobs (e.g., police and security guard). ps - even the study finding the smallest number of DGUs (700,000)blows your statement out of the water.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #142 March 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteBy trying to equate actual reported murder rates with a survey of dubious methodology about unspecified crimes of unknown severity that may possibly have been prevented by a gun, and which may just be figments of the respondent's imagination, IMO devalues the deaths. So which study are you claiming is based on dubious methodology? I seem to recall there are eleven other widely mentioned studies besides the Kleck Gertz study. They varied in their results from 700,000 DGUs per year and 3.6 million DGus per year. The single most reliable and respected study, with the most scientifically valid methodology is the Kleck-Gertz study from 1993. That study came up with 2.55 million DGUs per year, but reviewed their own findings to exclude soldiers, police, and questionable or unclear reports, and then found a more conservative number of 2.16 million DGUs per year. QuoteADVANTAGES OF KLECK-GERTZ STUDY 1. Over all other studies Asked the actually involved person questions rather than only asking "household" questions. Determined the number of DGUs per DGU claimant. Asked about DGUs of everyone, even those who didn't claim to own a gun. Excluded uses against animals or any person other than a criminal. Established sequence of DGU and injury in each case of DGU w/ injury. 2. Over the NCVS K-G was anonymous, although some respondents might not believe that this was so. K-G was not by or for a government agency, although some respondents might not believe that this was so. K-G actually asked about DGUs. NCVS doesn't even specifically ask about self defense until victimization is already established. K-G excluded DGUs that were performed as part of the respondents' jobs (e.g., police and security guard). ps - even the study finding the smallest number of DGUs (700,000)blows your statement out of the water. You are comparing ACTUAL CRIMES with "maybe" crimes. You've done this before in the thread about British crime. And those "maybe" crimes could be kids stealing your garden gnome, (or even someone who just thinks kids are going to steal a garden gnome) while the actual crimes here are real homicides with real bullet holes in the bodies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #143 March 11, 2007 Do you have any idea which study he was claiming used dubious methodology? I don't. (and I've apologized for mixing up the Brit crime survey with their crime numbers. I did however look back and see that a similar difference apears betwee the US NCVS and the brit survey) And as much as you like calling John a dog, don't forget that I could make much nastier statements about things you've posted. Instead I choose to debate the topic, not the speaker, more often than not.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #144 March 11, 2007 Quote And those "maybe" crimes could be kids stealing your garden gnome, (or even someone who just thinks kids are going to steal a garden gnome) while the actual crimes here are real homicides with real bullet holes in the bodies. but thanks to the Constitution, we don't have to wait till our bodies are filled with lead to be able to get a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #145 March 11, 2007 QuoteDo you have any idea which study he was claiming used dubious methodology? I don't. (and I've apologized for mixing up the Brit crime survey with their crime numbers. I did however look back and see that a similar difference apears betwee the US NCVS and the brit survey) And as much as you like calling John a dog, don't forget that I could make much nastier statements about things you've posted. Instead I choose to debate the topic, not the speaker, more often than not. A bad case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #146 March 11, 2007 John, while some may be impressed by your choice of using Latin instead of just saying "false cause," I'm not. I'd much rather hear anything you have to say that concerns the thread at hand. You brought up my mistake about comparing crime committed to crimes reported in a survey. I was wrong there because I made statements implying they were the same, and drew incorrect conclusions. This situation is hardly the same. here we are making cost benefit analyses, or at least comparing costs and benefits if you think this isn't that sophisticated. If you want to disagree about the value of stated benefits compared to state costs, that is fine. If you want to include other costs or benefits, please add to the discussion. But honestly professor, don't just ignore the beneifts because you don't like how they are measured. That would be affirming a disjunct. ps - you could have used multicollinearity, or coincidental correlation if you wanted to sound fancy. Anyone impressed yet? You shouldn't be.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #147 March 11, 2007 Evidently some people feel if a statement is made in Latin then it must be true and unquestionable. I find it pretentious, but that's just me. Seems to me the only lives that have been devalued in this thread are those that are saved by firearms. Those lives are just as valuable and several times more numerous than the lives taken by the use of guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #148 March 11, 2007 And yet, no one also questions that he equates all gun deaths as crime, not a result of either an accident, or even self defense, or police shootings...."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #149 March 11, 2007 QuoteEvidently some people feel if a statement is made in Latin then it must be true and unquestionable. I find it pretentious, but that's just me. . It's the STANDARD NAME for that particular logical fallacy. No more pretentious than using ad hoc... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #150 March 11, 2007 QuoteJohn, while some may be impressed by your choice of using Latin instead of just saying "false cause," I'm not. I'd much rather hear anything you have to say that concerns the thread at hand. You brought up my mistake about comparing crime committed to crimes reported in a survey. I was wrong there because I made statements implying they were the same, and drew incorrect conclusions. This situation is hardly the same. here we are making cost benefit analyses, or at least comparing costs and benefits if you think this isn't that sophisticated. If you want to disagree about the value of stated benefits compared to state costs, that is fine. If you want to include other costs or benefits, please add to the discussion. But honestly professor, don't just ignore the beneifts because you don't like how they are measured. That would be affirming a disjunct. ps - you could have used multicollinearity, or coincidental correlation if you wanted to sound fancy. Anyone impressed yet? You shouldn't be. I believe the benefits are accurately reflected in the FBI data, not Lott's or Kleck's. You have NO IDEA what crimes are supposedly prevented, and they certainly aren't all homicides. Could just as well be garden gnome-stealing. The data for the downside IS accurately accounted, some 30 times a day at gravesides.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
