kallend 2,147
kbordson 8
QuoteCan you find any peer-reviewed articles presenting data showing a correlation between gun purchase/carrying/ownership and a reduction in gun fatalities?
They are few and far between, but they are out there. Look up Lott and Mustard
QuoteCan you explain why the gun lobby worked so hard to prevent the CDCP from continuing its analysis of gun violence?
because they're lobbyist.
rhaig 0
QuoteIt goes to fairly fundamental principles of avoiding a fight de-escalate the situation where-ever possible, a gun doesn't tend to do that.
the gun doesn't do shit. The person carrying the gun may choose to use the gun to protect their wallet and watch. That's a poor decision.
if a mugger tells me to give him my wallet and watch and cell phone or whatever, then I give it to him. Even if I'm carrying my gun. It's stuff. It can be replaced.
Carrying the weapon doesn't increase your chances of getting shot, using it poorly or when you don't have to may increase your chances of getting shot.
--
Rob
Rob
rhaig 0
Quote[Good. You may recall that "popular medical opinion" was that bacteria couldn't produce peptic ulcers until a lone Dr in Oz (Barry Marshall) showed that they could and did, and "popular medical opinion" was that HRT was a good thing for older women until someone showed that it wasn't.
Medicine, as science, is not a majority rules situation.
... and anthropomorphic climate change is held as true by "popular scientific opinion".
--
Rob
Rob
wolfriverjoe 1,523
QuoteQuoteQuote>How about being listed on their web site as part of their "core team"?
What does that mean?
If you follow the link, you will see that it is an "Anti-Violence" group with a pretty strong bias against guns.
The home page has a graph showing the difference in assaults on police in carry permit "may issue" vs "shall issue" states.
Guess which one is higher?
I fail to see the correlation, especially when the permit holders (everywhere) have been shown to have a significantly lower rate of arrest or conviction (for all offenses) than the population as a whole.
Seem to me that EVERY person in this thread who criticizes the article has (a) a strong pro-gun bias, and (b) with the exception of Dr. Bordson, no expertise in statistical analysis.
(A) The people with the strong pro-gun bias are the only ones who take the time and effort to argue these things. Do you spend much time arguing things you don't care about?
(B) I don't have any more expertise in statistics than I do in research.
I am not arguing against the statistics they are using. (hell, I only understood about half of it anyway).
I am arguing against the basic premise of the study. That whether or not a shooting victim has a gun has any correlation to how dangerous it is to carry a gun. Especially when you look at the numbers on shooting victims (2/3 have criminal records, 1/4 are involved in criminal activity at the time.)
They didn't take into account how many people are armed and not shot, yet claim it is dangerous to carry a gun.
I am also questioning their bias against guns overall.
They (as I mentioned in a previous post that is quoted above) try to compare carry permit types (shall vs may issue) with police assault rates.
Without any mention of how many assaults are commited by permit holders, what does it have to do with the assault rate?
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
jcd11235 0
QuoteMenacing behavior.
Could you be any more vague? What makes behavior menacing without making it assault? Incidentally, if the "menacing" behavior doesn't qualify as assault, pulling and brandishing a firearm will in most US jurisdictions.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Quote
What makes behavior menacing...
v. men·aced, men·ac·ing, men·ac·es
v.tr.
1. To utter threats against.
2. To constitute a threat to; endanger.
Clearly, it's a judgment call on the part of the individual.
We are all engines of karma
jcd11235 0
QuoteQuote
What makes behavior menacing...
v. men·aced, men·ac·ing, men·ac·es
v.tr.
1. To utter threats against.
2. To constitute a threat to; endanger.
Clearly, it's a judgment call on the part of the individual.
Using that definition, menacing behavior would constitute assault, not merely intent to assault.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Let's make a distinction between assault and battery. Uttering verbal threats is defined as assault in New York state. Physically striking someone is battery.
We are all engines of karma
rhaig 0
the legal definition of assault varies based on state law. Typically it's that there was a threat that was believable that it would be followed through. So yes, menacing behavior, when believable that the threats would be acted upon, would be assault. since assault is typically based on intent, I don't understand the use of the phrase "intent to assault". Isn't it a little like "PIN number" (man, that's annoying)
--
Rob
Rob
jcd11235 0
QuoteLet's make a distinction between assault and battery. Uttering verbal threats is defined as assault in New York state. Physically striking someone is battery.
I've been making that distinction all along.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
jcd11235 0
Quotethe legal definition of assault varies based on state law. Typically it's that there was a threat that was believable that it would be followed through. So yes, menacing behavior, when believable that the threats would be acted upon, would be assault. since assault is typically based on intent, I don't understand the use of the phrase "intent to assault". Isn't it a little like "PIN number" (man, that's annoying)
That's exactly my point. Someone claimed that they would pull their gun when the recognized someone had an intent to assault, and I've been trying to figure out what they meant by that particular phrase.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Quote
That's exactly my point. Someone claimed that they would pull their gun when the recognized someone had an intent to assault, and I've been trying to figure out what they meant by that particular phrase.
I see your point. I've been reading "intent to assault" as menacing behavior. IMO, menacing behavior extends beyond verbal threats. It becomes a judgment call.
We are all engines of karma
wolfriverjoe 1,523
QuoteQuotethe legal definition of assault varies based on state law. Typically it's that there was a threat that was believable that it would be followed through. So yes, menacing behavior, when believable that the threats would be acted upon, would be assault. since assault is typically based on intent, I don't understand the use of the phrase "intent to assault". Isn't it a little like "PIN number" (man, that's annoying)
That's exactly my point. Someone claimed that they would pull their gun when the recognized someone had an intent to assault, and I've been trying to figure out what they meant by that particular phrase.
Ok, I think I am that "someone". Personally I will not point a gun at anyone until I can establish all 5 of the "points" I described in a previous post.
And to clarify a bit, I was talking theoretically about the difference (and there are many very subtle differences) between "assault" and "self-defense" when brandishing a gun.
And I did say (maybe not clearly enough) that brandishing a gun, even in self defense will very often got one arrested. And perhaps charged and convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.
Which is why I also said (and all this is across a bunch of different posts) that carrying a gun is a huge responsibilty and carries certain risks.
I think that it should be up to the individual (if they are qualified) to make that decision for themselves.
The folks that did this study seem (to me at least) to be in the group that wishes to take that option away from me and everyone else.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
TomAiello 26
QuoteCan you explain why the gun lobby worked so hard to prevent the CDCP from continuing its analysis of gun violence?
Because increases or decreases in rates of violence or suicide are totally irrelevant to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
TomAiello 26
Quoteif a mugger tells me to give him my wallet and watch and cell phone or whatever, then I give it to him. Even if I'm carrying my gun. It's stuff. It can be replaced.
Which is exactly the point.
Every single day, virtually everywhere I go, I take with me the two most valuable things in my world. If someone tries to take them, you can damn well bet there's going to be a physical altercation. If producing a gun means I increase my chances of being shot in that altercation, but also increases my chances of defending them, then I'm going to be using a gun. I'm willing to get shot in that cause.
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
billvon 3,114
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I'm willing to get shot in that cause.
I guess the question is - are you willing to have them shot, and will carrying a gun make that more or less likely? I don't think there have been any studies done on such a topic, but I also don't think the answer is a slam dunk.
I guess the question is - are you willing to have them shot, and will carrying a gun make that more or less likely? I don't think there have been any studies done on such a topic, but I also don't think the answer is a slam dunk.
billvon 3,114
>Because increases or decreases in rates of violence or suicide are totally
>irrelevant to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?
Can you explain why that would be justification for second amendment supporters to try to shut down such research? I mean, if it's irrelevant, why didn't they try to shut down global warming or cancer research instead?
>irrelevant to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?
Can you explain why that would be justification for second amendment supporters to try to shut down such research? I mean, if it's irrelevant, why didn't they try to shut down global warming or cancer research instead?
jcd11235 0
QuoteOk, I think I am that "someone".
Perhaps so, but I'm not really sure. I've tried to address the posts, not the posters. My use of the word someone is indicative of me being too lazy to go back through the thread to see who first used the phrase.
QuoteAnd I did say (maybe not clearly enough) that brandishing a gun, even in self defense will very often got one arrested. And perhaps charged and convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.
You did say that, and I agree. That's actually one of the primary reasons I choose not to carry a gun for self defense despite being a gun owner.
QuoteWhich is why I also said (and all this is across a bunch of different posts) that carrying a gun is a huge responsibilty and carries certain risks.
Also agreed.
QuoteI think that it should be up to the individual (if they are qualified) to make that decision for themselves.
Ideally, yes, I agree. Pragmatically, I've seen way too many people who believe that carrying a gun will have some magical protective effect that makes them invincible to think that every individual is capable of making a good decision w/r/t carrying.
QuoteThe folks that did this study seem (to me at least) to be in the group that wishes to take that option away from me and everyone else.
I didn't get that impression about the authors.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
OK, show some contradictory results from a peer reviewed journal
Incorrect. Peer review is about ensuring the methodology is correct, that previous work in the area is accounted for, that the conclusions are supported by the results, etc. (I have been on the editorial boards of 2 peer reviewed journals and a reviewer for many more).
Anecdotal evidence is unable to say anything about statistics and probabilities. This IS a situation where sophisticated statistical analysis is the whole point.
Science is not lawyering.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites