Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Connecticut mass killings -- OF CHILDREN! (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 39 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  37  38  39   
Author Topic: Connecticut mass killings -- OF CHILDREN!
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

"You'd have to define what you mean by defective for me to be able to answer that."...

What did you mean when you first introduced the term into this discussion?

"The term (eugenics) has two common usages, one to improve the breeding stock and the other is broader meaning the advocacy of social policies that will improve the fitness of individuals to their proper roles in society."...

Al, the second definition is novel to me, but how would denying the right to bear arms dictate one's "improved... fitness... to their proper roles" in society? Would this apply equally to someone that was prohibited from using motor vehicles on public roads because they could not pass a written driver's exam?

"You need to define 'stupidity'..."...

Why am I not surprised. Stupidity describes a below average capacity to evaluate, and solve, problems.

[ December 18, 2012, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Part of the reason you haven't received responses of CPL holders coming to the rescue is twofold. Most of these incidents happen in gun free zones. To even have their weapon there for the possibility of rescue means the permit holder is breaking the law."

You realize that if that's true (I'm not willing to concede that, since robberies often happen on the streets), then you are forgiving people for using a gun and breaking the law at the same time. This is a very dubious proposition, even if you argue that it results in a positive outcome. Let's posit a case where someone did as you suggest and shot the perp. What are they supposed to do about it then?

I must have been unclear. I was saying that a story of a CPL holder saving the day in a “weapons free zone” is pretty much not going to happen. If it did happen then they would loose almost certainly loose their license and likely be fined and would likely face criminal charges. I would expect/hope that the criminal penalty would be waived or greatly reduced but that's just my opinion.

To answer the other part of the question. Lets say I witness a mugging. I, despite knowing this is both physically and legally a bad situation to interject myself into, I decide to be a help. I draw my weapon, the mugger drops theirs and runs away. If they dropped their weapon there is no way I can justifiably fire unless maybe they charge me. Then my defense is going to hinge on the mugging victim. So I let this hypothetical mugger run.

If I do everything right I call the cops and file a report. You are probably right about the local news catching wind of the story. But if I inform the police that I wish to remain anonymous I'm fairly certain they are going to respect that unless they catch the guy and it goes to trial. My guess is this would be why the other story reports “identity is unknown”. Or the guy just left before the cops arrived. Not smart but doubtful you would receive more than a slap on the wrist unless you actually discharged the weapon.

I don't think you will find statistics. They just aren't tracked very well. If you find one I'd be interested as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defensive_gun_use_incidents

I've seen this tossed around on various sites as well but haven't researched further. It's also dated info.

quote:
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

You would think the NRA or other pro gun lobbies would be flexing their membership dues in keeping tabs on this stuff.

I didn't expect you to respond to each story. I didn't do much but gloss over them myself so I couldn't refute any of your conclusions anyway. Was just giving examples that the stories were out there.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Pete, I can't name any of the people involved. I don't know what you're asking me to concede.

You knew about the beating instant during the riots did you not? Did you even know that the white trucker was rescued by 6 black kids? The beating was on the news. The rescue was not. Only reason I know about the kids, Is that I happened to be at a university ceremony where they were honored. I have a hard time believing that someone could watch Fox News as often as you do, and not concede that the news is more likely to show us racial violence and other things that panic thier viewers and make them more dependent on the news, than to show incidents of rescue or hazard prevention.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What did you mean when you first introduced the term into this discussion?"

I put it in a question and in quotes to indicate that I wanted you to answer that to help me better understand what you thought those tests would prove.

"Why am I not surprised. Stupidity describes a below average capacity to evaluate, and solve, problems."

It could also mean lacking in common sense. Like I said, I wasn't sure if you were going for sub-par problem solving skills or a more fundamental deficiency like an inability to tell the difference between right and wrong.

"Al, the second definition is novel to me, but how would denying the right to bear arms dictate one's "improved... fitness... to their proper roles" in society?"

Slippery slope, Noel, slippery slope. First they want to take away your guns, then they can take away your freedoms. Next thing you know, the fascists got you right where they want you.

I would say that a drunk person can have impaired problem solving skills and a deficiency in their ability to tell right from wrong. Would you support disallowing drunk people to have a gun in their possession using the same criteria that would get them arrested for DUI?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You knew about the beating instant during the riots did you not? Did you even know that the white trucker was rescued by 6 black kids?"

I followed it closely on the news at the time, but the details are murky. I do remember that the trucker met with and forgave the person who hit him with the brick after some period of time. I'm not sure why this matters to you. I don't watch FOX News all the time, but I certainly wouldn't have watched FOX to find out what really happened. I remember that this was big news at the time, but if I knew the rescuers were black at the time, I've forgotten it now.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would say that a drunk person can have impaired problem solving skills and a deficiency in their ability to tell right from wrong. Would you support disallowing drunk people to have a gun in their possession using the same criteria that would get them arrested for DUI?
It is already illegal Al.

The 3.5% of us in Michigan with CPL can't have even one drink let alone be drunk. And we can not refuse a blood test or our permit is gone instantly regardless of the outcome.

[ December 18, 2012, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, like you I watched the incident closely on the news, and like you I did not watch it on Fox News; I did not have cable. I mention Fox News, because the other newscasters treated the Denny incident much like Fox treats most everything: playing up terror and hopelessness to create news dependency.

Damian Williams was acquitted of attempted murder on Reginald Denny. Although you're right that Denny did forget Williams, soon after release Williams murdered a black man and this time was convicted.

I am very sure the news never even mention the rescuers. The news was all about racial panic. Remember this was back when Time magazine made O J Simpson look more black when he was accused of killing his white wife. Most of America will never know, that during the LA race riots, that six black kids saw Reginald Denny on the news, saw that neither the white camera crew nor the white police going to lift a finger to stop him from dying. So the 6 black kids went out of their house into the burning city, and saved a life of a stranger. While the cops played the Levite and the news crew played the fastidious priest, they played the Good Samaritan. And it seems that no one will ever remember them for it.

[ December 18, 2012, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

"Common sense" may be measurable by an IQ test... I suppose it depends upon how *you* are defining it. The inability to tell the difference between right, and wrong, (if not age correlated) is a mental disorder.

I am not really clear about your drunk shooter question. Are you asking if a DUI conviction should preclude the legal purchase of a firearm? You were also vague about the "eugenics" question. Would you try again?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, Matters to me because it's a good illustration of an obvious fact: news pays more attention to mayhem than to successful defense. I'm surprised you would not concede such an obvious fact.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The inability to tell the difference between right, and wrong, (if not age correlated) is a mental disorder."

At some level, sure. Since you think an IQ test will help determine that, how would you solve the following set of problems:

1: A man is walking with his wife and two children on a city street. He is approached by two men who act very friendly to his wife and bends to say hello to your 5 year old daughter. The next thing you know one of them pulls a knife and threatens to kill her unless you give him your wallet. You don't have a gun and your response is to ...

2: Similar to #1, but you have a concealed weapon tucked into the waistband near your rear wallet pocket. You say, sure, whatever you say and reach behind you and pull out your ...

3: Similar to #1, but you are walking alone and see the above scenario happening to the family about 20 yards in front of you. You don't know if the man being victimized has a gun or not. You don't have one and you ...

4: Similar to #3, but you do have a gun, so you ...

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Al, Matters to me because it's a good illustration of an obvious fact: news pays more attention to mayhem than to successful defense. I'm surprised you would not concede such an obvious fact."

Pete, I honestly didn't know that was what you were driving at. News reporting in the popular media follows the trail of blood, but it doesn't completely ignore good Samaritans or happy outcomes. If all you have is 5 minutes to spare to catch up on what's happening you won't get much depth on any side of an issue.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The 3.5% of us in Michigan with CPL can't have even one drink let alone be drunk. And we can not refuse a blood test or our permit is gone instantly regardless of the outcome."

Not that I don't trust you (I do, but I wanted to see what else the law said), so I read various documents on the pre- and post- requirements for CPL in Michigan. You're right on all counts so far, so I can see that you take this all very seriously.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Always good to fact check. I stumbled across the open-carry in "weapons free zones" purely by accident about 2 days before the media noticed this loophole. And I've been known to be colossally misinformed before.

Some of our lawmakers and most of our media reporters are misinformed as well though so I'm in good company.

[ December 19, 2012, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1: Give him my wallet and try to find an opportunity to get between the assailant and my child or get my child out of arms reach of the assailant.
2: Similar to #1, even if I got my gun out he’s still holding a knife to my child, my situation has not improved and the assailant now needs my child as a hostage not just as a means of coercion.
3: Shout, “Get away from them, I’m calling the police.” Approach cautiously staying out of reach of the man with the knife. Another variable for the assailant to keep track of means more opportunity for the parents to achieve #1.
4: Similar to #2 but I don’t reveal the weapon unless the assailant comes after me or the child (and family) are out of reach of the assailant. Then add, “Stop, I have a gun.”

At least this is what I would do if fear/adrenalin or other variables didn’t muck up my intentions… FWIW.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

Somehow you have conflated low IQ with a mental disorder. The two are not the same. Think of it this way; stupidity is equivalent to an engine designed with low horsepower, but otherwise functionally normal. Mental disorders, eg. schizophrenia, borderline personality, autism, etc. are comparable to an engine with intermittently shorting plug wires.

In your knife attack scenarios the answer is pretty straightforward; if the assailant is demanding a wallet, and you have it... give it to him. If you do not, then tell him so and turn out your pockets. A renewed attack upon the child that is not satisfied with a wallet, or proof that one is not available, should result in a center-of-mass hit on the perp.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al If I could point you to an article from Reason on Pete's topic would you dismiss that as inherently onesided and ignorable as well?
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Viking I would appreciate if you would like us to it. Maybe Al willthat listen to the reason article. I'll seems convinced this is simply a trait of Fox News specifically.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel, I'm really just trying to pin you down on what you mean. You tend to throw out things that could be interpreted to mean lots of different things. I'm never sure you've actually thought about the implications of what you propose. I never conflated low IQ with mental disorder. You're the one who would rule people out of exercising their Constitutional rights based on a test used to diagnose mental illness and another on low IQ. You obviously think those will somehow screen out people who should not be allowed to own guns, or even a BB gun -- your words, not mine. I'm trying to understand exactly what those test results mean to you.

So far you call people with low IQ stupid, and based on my probing you agree that they lack the ability to tell right from wrong (moral judgment). You haven't explained exactly how the MMPI will determine suitability.

All I can discern from your arm-waving is that you'll impose tests on people, and based on the results will deny them their rights. If you recall Buck v. Bell, this sort of criteria was used to sterilize women against their will. I'm wondering how powerful a set of indicators those tests are and whether you're heading in the Buck/Bell direction (eugenics) or not.

You're really not helping me to understand.

"A renewed attack upon the child that is not satisfied with a wallet, or proof that one is not available, should result in a center-of-mass hit on the perp."

I think you leave out a step. In this scenario your child is being threatened with a knife. It will take you a few seconds to pull out your gun (since it's not visible it must be somewhere within your clothing), during which time the perp could stab your daughter or the other perp, who is likely watching you like a hawk, will jump you and you will have to fight him.

I'll make up a corollary to "never bring a knife to a gun fight", which is "don't try to stop a man ready to kill your daughter with a knife by looking for your gun".

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Al If I could point you to an article from Reason on Pete's topic would you dismiss that as inherently onesided and ignorable as well?"

You frame that pejoratively, but post the link and I'll read it.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"Al If I could point you to an article from Reason on Pete's topic would you dismiss that as inherently onesided and ignorable as well?"

You frame that pejoratively, but post the link and I'll read it.

Well if you are going to dismiss anything from John Stossel out of hand it would seem that Reason.com would fall into the same category.

Anyway

Loaded Coverage

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This story is a little off IMO. Myrick goes to get his weapon, and then meets the shooter outside of the school. Did he REALLY cut short the shooting or did he only prevent the escape of the shooter after it was done?

Not that it isn't important but to me the author is misrepresenting things a bit as well. It COULD have gone the other way but I don't think this is the success story a lot of pro-gun control / anti-gun ask to see as evidence they are wrong.

[ December 19, 2012, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
[QB] Japan has super-strict gun control. And there is almost no gun violence there. Just sayin'.
/QB]

Japan has virtually no crime period relative to us. I don't now how much can really be attributed to gun laws. They have a completely different culture.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
It is simply not necessary to unleash a spray of bullets to protect your home, or hunt an animal. Rapid-fire weapons of any kind should be restricted to military use, as should large magazines.

Anyone wishing to use such weapons for recreational purposes should be required to keep them in a central location -- near the "range" or whatever. They should not be allowed for general circulation in public spaces.

A semi-auto can still fire very rapidly, if you have a fast finger. I can understand why this could be useful for self-defense, but a magazine with more than six or eight bullets is clearly going far beyond protection from night-time intruders.

I could be wrong because I'm far from a gun expert, but I think most hunting rifles are semi auto, and I can think of plenty of reasons a hunter would want that. Also I don't really see why the clip size matters *that* much. With practice it is possible to reload very quickly with extra clips (less than a second if you start as soon as the last round is in the chamber)... even with empty clips people can load them in less than 10 seconds

[ December 19, 2012, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: LinuxFreakus ]

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It COULD have gone the other way but I don't think this is the success story a lot of pro-gun control / anti-gun ask to see as evidence they are wrong.


That's not the point of the article.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is? Most of his incident reports are not "stopped" by a gun owner. At least not in the way that convincingly makes a point.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But again, what the media don't report about guns and violence is just as important as what they do report. There are countless cases, full of drama and emotion, in which Americans use guns to prevent calamity. Based on survey data, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that Americans use guns to defend themselves as many as 2.5 million times a year. In the vast majority of these cases, the gun is not fired--simply brandishing it is enough to deter the attack. Such incidents rarely receive much coverage, and they rarely, if ever, prompt phone calls to Handgun Control.
This may be the point of the article. But it was just this which Al and I were questioning. The cited study has some very legitimate criticisms which can be found as well. If there are "countless" instances we should be able to scrounge up significantly more with ease if not actual studies. Despite media bias against them.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Well if you are going to dismiss anything from John Stossel out of hand it would seem that Reason.com would fall into the same category."

I say that John Stossel is a dishonest interlocutor based on long exposure to him. I've never read Reason so I have no opinion about the honesty of any of their contributors.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
But again, what the media don't report about guns and violence is just as important as what they do report. There are countless cases, full of drama and emotion, in which Americans use guns to prevent calamity. Based on survey data, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that Americans use guns to defend themselves as many as 2.5 million times a year. In the vast majority of these cases, the gun is not fired--simply brandishing it is enough to deter the attack. Such incidents rarely receive much coverage, and they rarely, if ever, prompt phone calls to Handgun Control.
This may be the point of the article. But it was just this which Al and I were questioning. The cited study has some very legitimate criticisms which can be found as well. If there are "countless" instances we should be able to scrounge up significantly more with ease if not actual studies. Despite media bias against them.
The article argues that there is an anti-gun bias in the media.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Noel:] "Al, Somehow you have conflated low IQ with a mental disorder. The two are not the same."

Then what did you mean when you wrote the following in the same post where you proposed the MMPI/IQ test criteria for owning a gun?
quote:
Mental health is the real issue relative to the handling of *any* firearm

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
But again, what the media don't report about guns and violence is just as important as what they do report. There are countless cases, full of drama and emotion, in which Americans use guns to prevent calamity. Based on survey data, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that Americans use guns to defend themselves as many as 2.5 million times a year. In the vast majority of these cases, the gun is not fired--simply brandishing it is enough to deter the attack. Such incidents rarely receive much coverage, and they rarely, if ever, prompt phone calls to Handgun Control.
This may be the point of the article. But it was just this which Al and I were questioning. The cited study has some very legitimate criticisms which can be found as well. If there are "countless" instances we should be able to scrounge up significantly more with ease if not actual studies. Despite media bias against them.
Not sure what you would expect to find. We don't live in a totalitarian state where everything is recorded. We value our freedom, and there is a price for freedom.

Many people one the news and elsewhere including this forum keep citing Japan as a model society for gun control, but I don't think most people have any idea what it is like there. The police have sweeping powers there... many in this country would be horrified if they knew how little "freedom" there is in Japan.

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I expect the reality to be is that self defense and lawful use of firearms is a significant deterrent to crime and aid in keeping people safe. I just can’t convince anyone of that. (who isn't already "sure" of it.)

The question both Al and I seem to have is, does reality support this belief? And yes media bias is a major problem. Is it a significant enough problem that we don’t hear about it happening or are the cases so rare that there isn’t much to report anyway?

The article VL linked makes some points I strongly agree with. It’s anecdotal evidence supplied to support these points is far from persuasive to me and I’m moderate to anti gun control.

Maybe the reason we can’t get good data is because an “anonymous poll” could be interpreted as self incrimination?

Have you ever drawn your weapon in your own defense or the defense of others? (possible brandishing charge?)
Have you ever fired your weapon in your own defense or the defense of others?
(possible negligent discharge charges?)
Have you ever shot someone in your own defense or the defense of others?
(possible homicide or attempted homicide charges?)
Nope, nope nope, have a nice day. <click> ?

[ December 19, 2012, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't see why that would cause a problem. The people carrying guns are exercising their Constitutional rights and are within the requirements of the laws of their state. If they used them lawfully they should be *proud* to have realized the full potential of their intended and allowed use.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fine and dandy if there is no correlation between gun ownership and paranoia. [Smile]

But from a very real standpoint the default position is to be treated as a suspect until proven innocent despite how the system is intended to work. Sadly (IMO) you are told repeatedly during training that if you are ever unfortunate enough to be involved in a shooting say nothing other than ask for your lawyer. One stating this opinion was a former law enforcement official…

Volunteering information which could be used against you is considered a really bad move for a lot of people. Why tell some reporter something that could get your weapon taken away while the cops investigate you for wrongdoing? Even if you are confident they will eventually clear you. Police are no different than us. Some are for citizens being able to carry a weapon and some are dead set against it. Both for good reasons. The outcome even if you are in the right is never guaranteed. How much time unarmed and court fees is your pride worth just to aid someone’s study on self defense with firearms? It’s very upsetting and cyclical.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW, this can cut in all sorts of bad ways. Why would these people look out for anybody else in the first place if they're paranoid? Why would someone who used a weapon but didn't have a CPL/CCL admit it on the scene? I would expect them to say they did have one and then melt away before the police came and checked like the man in the first example you gave a page or two back.

But this prejudices the whole discussion of what CPL/CCL people say and think if there is a significant bias toward paranoia and dishonest self-representation in their reports.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
VL,
quote:
Loaded Coverage
The main paper "Outgunned:..." is cited on a number of Conservative blogs as an authority and reads convincingly, but it doesn't appear to be reviewed anywhere. It also bases its statistics on references to other studies that I can't trace critical reviews of.

Echoing DW's comments, the story says that Myrick prevented more mayhem, but it says he only stopped the shooter when he was trying to drive away from the scene. That's an overstatement.

The report overall definitely has a bias that weakens the sense of its objectivity. I'd feel better about it if there was a critical analysis of the claims it makes and those of the research it relies on.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why would these people look out for anybody else in the first place if they're paranoid?
Some people are just good people and would put themselves in danger and to help another person. When you consider that a bit of legal inconvenience may not seem like a big deal. Sympathy and empathy can overwhelm common sense for those on the pro-gun side of the issue just as much as those on the anti-gun side. (terms used for simplicity ignoring moral weight)

quote:
Why would someone who used a weapon but didn't have a CPL/CCL admit it on the scene?
Some people are ignorant of the laws. Some are dumb. Some are honest to their detriment or despite any hardships that honesty may bring.
quote:
I would expect them to say they did have one and then melt away before the police came and checked like the man in the first example you gave a page or two back.
Good luck getting anyone but a traumatized and/or rookie of a cop to turn their back on you after you admit to having a weapon, permit or not. Unless you want to melt away without your weapon…

As to your last point, I agree. I have only what I trust as logical and a hope that the bias is working against my view point supplemented by the high volume of ignorance regarding gun laws put forward by the media to back it up. I, like you, would prefer hard data. Since I began looking for it I’ve become increasing skeptical that there is an accurate way to gather that data.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW, I keep scraping away at everyone's comments hoping to find the irreducible set of facts underneath. I don't expect that they are really there, so I should probably ease off on the gas pedal myself.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The gun control "debate" is starting to appear to be two conflicting religions. Both sides just have faith that they are correct. Any evidence to the contrary is suspect. [Frown]

Probably why so many take the constitutional tact. Viscus is easier to pin down than ethereal.

[ December 19, 2012, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
The gun control "debate" is starting to appear to be two conflicting religions. Both sides just have faith that they are correct. Any evidence to the contrary is suspect. [Frown]

Probably why so many take the constitutional tact. Viscus is easier to pin down than ethereal.

I already was discussing gun issues in America with one of my classes before the shooting. Ultimately I find there's not much conclusive to say. States with strict gun control aren't necessarily safer but states with more lax gun controls aren't either.

You can easily find anecdotes of people defending their homes and twarting crimes with their guns on the web, but usually the sites they're on have a pro-gun agenda.

Like you I think this is like a religion for many people on both sides. They've already arrived at their conclusions and have no interest in contratry arguments.

[ December 19, 2012, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm always interested to discover when I live in a world contrary to my beliefs. Keeps life interesting... Blinders and blind faith make people boring. (but sometimes fun to tease)
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 39 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  37  38  39   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1