Guns

[Danoff]

First, assume it's true that 65,000 Americans used guns in self defence and not 2.5 million as earlier research suggested.

Quite an assumption given that they toss everyone who wasn't a confirmed victim of crime. Meaning, if the would-be criminal ran away and no harm was done... they're tossed out.

 

[PocketZeven]

Because the conclusion is overly simplistic and does not take into account the facts that they themselves provided. I explained it in detail. Did you not read it?

I did. but I think both of us read it with a bias and therefore interpret it differently? The conclusion was that SDGU does not make you safer. different studies use different sets of data. That doesnt not mean the conclusion arent accurate, but perhaps their survey wasnt big enough. But do consider that the other articles confirm the same conclusion.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Quite an assumption given that they toss everyone who wasn't a confirmed victim of crime. Meaning, if the would-be criminal ran away and no harm was done... they're tossed out.

I was going to mention that but I had no hard figures to back it up.

I did. but I think both of us read it with a bias and therefore interpret it differently? The conclusion was that SDGU does not make you safer. different studies use different sets of data. That doesnt not mean the conclusion arent accurate, but perhaps their survey wasnt big enough. But do consider that the other articles confirm the same conclusion.

No, I read it without bias. It's only with bias that one can draw the conclusions that were made without considering the obvious weaknesses in their conclusions. I only saw a summary and didn't see the entire study so it's possible they mentioned those weaknesses in the body of the study. I laid out the logical steps that show their conclusion is flawed. Can you not see them? There's no point in me looking at any of the other work when I've already pointed out obvious weaknesses in the first study and attempt to show them to you and your only answer is, "that's not what the study says" and you completely ignore the individual points I made. Adding in what Danoff said above, that those that were able to defend themselves completely and the potential criminals just ran off because they saw a weapon, for example, are excluded from the study, further inflates the self defence numbers by an unquantified amount. It's almost as if they wanted the numbers as low as possible and made their definitions as narrow as possible to produce a desired outcome.

 

[PocketZeven]

I was going to mention that but I had no hard figures to back it up.

No, I read it without bias. It's only with bias that one can draw the conclusions that were made without considering the obvious weaknesses in their conclusions. I only saw a summary and didn't see the entire study so it's possible they mentioned those weaknesses in the body of the study. I laid out the logical steps that show their conclusion is flawed. Can you not see them? There's no point in me looking at any of the other work when I've already pointed out obvious weaknesses in the first study and attempt to show them to you and your only answer is, "that's not what the study says" and you completely ignore the individual points I made. Adding in what Danoff said above, that those that were able to defend themselves completely and the potential criminals just ran off because they saw a weapon, for example, are excluded from the study, further inflates the self defence numbers by an unquantified amount. It's almost as if they wanted the numbers as low as possible and made their definitions as narrow as possible to produce a desired outcome.

Please dont claim quotes I didnt actually say.

I referenced the other studies that corroborate the conclusion of the study you quoted. I am not sure how you think it is biased, but that is probably me being biased.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Please dont claim quotes I didnt actually say.

I referenced the other studies that corroborate the conclusion of the study you quoted. I am not sure how you think it is biased, but that is probably me being biased.

That is essentially what you're saying. I gave you the chain that I followed to show you that the conclusions were suspect and incomplete from their very own evidence and you haven't addressed those specific concerns. And again, if you haven't even addressed the things I've specifically said, why would I waste my time looking at other studies if you aren't going to respond to any points of concern I might have with those as well? There's no back and forth here. You just dismiss everything said with a waive of you hand.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Not sure if you are trolling, but I posted multiple links about exactly about this too.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...-in-jacksonville.381215/page-11#post-12464163

First off no one is trolling it's interesting you make this claim when you've been the one to come here with a set outlook and objective and then entertain a guise of "discussion and/or discourse". Let me dumb it down for you, you posted and kept echoing claims that the U.S. has the most guns per citizen basis, you then made the connection that since this is so, then surely the population shouldn't have much crime. You then went on the say that in reality this isn't the case and thus more guns doesn't mean less crime.

What I did, and what you've failed to understand for whatever reason, is show you that the majority of the population in the U.S. is not armed and thus only a small portion of said population owns guns. Furthermore, showing why the correlation you made is in fact not accurate because there is no way to model that.

I saw those links they have nothing really to explain the one I gave in that same thread that undoes most of what you posted.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...-in-jacksonville.381215/page-12#post-12464773

 

[PocketZeven]

That is essentially what you're saying. I gave you the chain that I followed to show you that the conclusions were suspect and incomplete from their very own evidence and you haven't addressed those specific concerns. And again, if you haven't even addressed the things I've specifically said, why would I waste my time looking at other studies if you aren't going to respond to any points of concern I might have with those as well? There's no back and forth here. You just dismiss everything said with a waive of you hand.

No I did not say that. You used quotes as if I said it. Inaccuries are probably because the article is a condensed version of a larger research paper. I referenced you to other articles. Please examine them as well.

First off no one is trolling it's interesting you make this claim when you've been the one to come here with a set outlook and objective and then entertain a guise of "discussion and/or discourse". Let me dumb it down for you, you posted and kept echoing claims that the U.S. has the most guns per citizen basis, you then made the connection that since this is so, then surely the population shouldn't have much crime. You then went on the say that in reality this isn't the case and thus more guns doesn't mean less crime.

What I did, and what you've failed to understand for whatever reason, is show you that the majority of the population in the U.S. is not armed and thus only a small portion of said population owns guns. Furthermore, showing why the correlation you made is in fact not accurate because there is no way to model that.

I saw those links they have nothing really to explain the one I gave in that same thread that undoes most of what you posted.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...-in-jacksonville.381215/page-12#post-12464773

My postition was based on the high number of fire weapons in the USA and not the high number of ownership. Even though 20-30 of US citizens owning a gun is already a very, very high number compared to other countries. Your position in this debate was that guns are for protection and the logic that followed is that guns make you safer. I could not find evidence for that.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

My postition was based on the high number of fire weapons in the usa. 20-30 of US citizens owning a gun is already a very, very high number compared to other countries. Your position in this debate was that guns are for protection and the logic that followed is that guns make you safer. I could not find eveidence for that.

No you said far more than just that, what you said was that you couldn't find evidence and thus since you couldn't you assessed that more guns does not equal more safety because there isn't less violence in the U.S. And since that was the case that many victims of crime are likely to have a weapon.

However, you can't say that because of the stats I just provided. It's not 30% it is around 20%, the number of people who own at least one or two firearms is about 18 or 19%. While another 3% own half the current legal gun circulation in the U.S. That means a little more than 9 million people own a distribution of 196 million guns, estimated. The reason I bring this up again and why it's important is because you specifically said that logic would dictate that if so many guns existed in the U.S. crime would go down. Yet if only 9 million out of the 326 million for example own guns that leaves a larger number without. If you too the other 18%, that is a little less than 59 million more with at least one gun. Yet combined still shows a great public without a weapon. Thus the idea that every victim at least has a weapon or chance of one is not a reality at all.

More so again as I said you can't find a stat that having a weapon makes you safer or not. You tried to prove that it doesn't make you safer based on bad use of data provided.

 

[PocketZeven]

No you said far more than just that, what you said was that you couldn't find evidence and thus since you couldn't you assessed that more guns does not equal more safety because there isn't less violence in the U.S. And since that was the case that many victims of crime are likely to have a weapon.

However, you can't say that because of the stats I just provided. It's not 30% it is around 20%, the number of people who own at least one or two firearms is about 18 or 19%. While another 3% own half the current legal gun circulation in the U.S. That means a little more than 9 million people own a distribution of 196 million guns, estimated. The reason I bring this up again and why it's important is because you specifically said that logic would dictate that if so many guns existed in the U.S. crime would go down. Yet if only 9 million out of the 326 million for example own guns that leaves a larger number without. If you too the other 18%, that is a little less than 59 million more with at least one gun. Yet combined still shows a great public without a weapon. Thus the idea that every victim at least has a weapon or chance of one is not a reality at all.

More so again as I said you can't find a stat that having a weapon makes you safer or not. You tried to prove that it doesn't make you safer based on bad use of data provided.

You are focusing on the wrong numbers here. Read back my posts. I never concentrated on the amount of gunowners. It is about both the total amount of guns and ownership relative to other developed countries. The idea that owning guns makes you safer should show that in the statistics.

And I repeat again: I did not claim that 88 people of 100 americans (or 120 of 100 , which is the accurate number of guns per capita and wouldnt make sense) own guns. I specifically adressed the high amount of guns relative to other developed countries. In your own view it is safer to have guns then not at all. That claim should show in the statistics in countries with very little guns.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You are focusing on the wrong numbers here. Read back my posts. I never concentrated on the amount of gunowners. It is about both the total amount of guns and ownership relative to other developed countries. The idea that owning guns makes you safer should show that in the statistics.

How would it show in that stat?

And no I've focused on the numbers provided and correlated to your argument, the fact you want to shift points in your argument and not acknowledge other things you've actually said, even when people directly repost them is my issue at this point. You want to say that the amount of guns in the U.S. legally owned is an issue, then you want to say that the stats should prove owning a gun makes you safer, then when given stats that show that it is not possible to prove that since only a small sector owns said guns you dismiss it. If gun ownership between citizens who are not looking to perpetuate a crime was 1 to 1 and not the more realistic 1 to 4 and the same results were seen, then yes you could possibly make a logical argument that gun ownership doesn't help keep people safer.

And I repeat again: I did not claim that 88 people of 100 americans (or 120 of 100 , which is the accurate number of guns per capita and wouldnt make sense) own guns. I specifically adressed the high amount of guns relative to other developed countries.

Did I put that in my post? No I didn't so why beat a dead horse?

 

[Danoff]

Your position in this debate was that guns are for protection and the logic that followed is that guns make you safer. I could not find evidence for that.

Already addressed:

I don't see how that conclusion can be properly drawn from those articles. Can you explain?

I remember seeing statistics about how overall crime didn't seem to change for a town when 50% of the people owned guns versus before (where presumably gun ownership was roughly similar). I remember seeing some statistics about how often guns are used by people within the household, but of course it's very difficult to figure out what would have happened in those circumstances if there weren't guns. It is quite possible (for example) that there is a correlation between people who were going to be involved in a violent altercation at home, and gun ownership. I've seen country-to-country statistics, which of course can't really be applied to the current state of the US (as there is no country I know of that has a similar profile to the US when it comes to crime and gun ownership).

So on the one hand we have a LOT of sloppy statistics, and especially statistics that we can remove ourselves from. For example, if you remove all people with a prior history of criminal activity from the statistics, how does it change? If you adjust for how the guns are stored, how does it change? If you adjust for gun training, how does it change? If you adjust for mental health, how does it change?

All of that makes it pretty difficult for me to conclude that my guns do not make me safer. I know my wife and I have no criminal history. I know that I have no mental health issues and that my wife has no mental health issues. I know that I keep my guns stored securely. I know how to use them safely and have practiced with them.

What is the scenario here where they do not make me safer, because I can give you scenarios where they do.

 

[Johnnypenso]

No I did not say that. You used quotes as if I said it. Inaccuries are probably because the article is a condensed version of a larger research paper. I referenced you to other articles. Please examine them as well.



My postition was based on the high number of fire weapons in the USA and not the high number of ownership. Even though 20-30 of US citizens owning a gun is already a very, very high number compared to other countries. Your position in this debate was that guns are for protection and the logic that followed is that guns make you safer. I could not find evidence for that.

I glanced at the other articles and they often referred back to the same research found in the first one. Again, there's no point in investing any time looking at them when you haven't addressed the points I've already brought up.

 

[PocketZeven]

How would it show in that stat?

And no I've focused on the numbers provided and correlated to your argument, the fact you want to shift points in your argument and not acknowledge other things you've actually said, even when people directly repost them is my issue at this point. You want to say that the amount of guns in the U.S. legally owned is an issue, then you want to say that the stats should prove owning a gun makes you safer, then when given stats that show that it is not possible to prove that since only a small sector owns said guns you dismiss it. If gun ownership between citizens who are not looking to perpetuate a crime was 1 to 1 and not the more realistic 1 to 4 and the same results were seen, then yes you could possibly make a logical argument that gun ownership doesn't help keep people safer.



Did I put that in my post? No I didn't so why beat a dead horse?

You wrote:
"what you've failed to understand for whatever reason, is show you that the majority of the population in the U.S. is not armed and thus only a small portion of said population owns guns"

Implying I used the guns per capita incorrectly. I am still writing the same message, so how am I shifing arguments? I am stating facts and my issues with the belief that more guns equal more safety. But to understand your own views more correctly, do you believe that if more people own a gun, that these people will be safer?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You wrote:
"what you've failed to understand for whatever reason, is show you that the majority of the population in the U.S. is not armed and thus only a small portion of said population owns guns"

Implying I used the guns per capita incorrectly. I am still writing the same message, so how am I shifing arguments? I am stating facts and my issues with the belief that more guns equal more safety. But to understand your own views more correctly, do you believe that if more people own a gun, that these people will be safer?

I'm not implying you used per capita incorrectly, implying you did that would be me actually saying the 88 of 100 in my post. What I said is exactly as placed, you made a claim that people are most likely to be armed and a victim, I proved that isn't the case and thus wanted you to fix said statement, you ignored it at first and now you're trying to argue something else rather than what you previously said.

The question you now pose to steer away from what you previously said is another deflection. My bring it up has nothing to do with if a person feels they'd be safer or not. That's for them to decide. My point is that you said something you were wrong, it was proven wrong and thus you still keep perpetuating it rather than fix said wrong and then move on to the variety of other reasons you want to see guns limited.

 

[Danoff]

You wrote:
"what you've failed to understand for whatever reason, is show you that the majority of the population in the U.S. is not armed and thus only a small portion of said population owns guns"

Implying I used the guns per capita incorrectly. I am still writing the same message, so how am I shifing arguments? I am stating facts and my issues with the belief that more guns equal more safety. But to understand your own views more correctly, do you believe that if more people own a gun, that these people will be safer?

Totally depends on the person. My buddy with the long gun on his bookshelf (it was a bookshelf, not a cabinet), no absolutely not. His guns do nothing but endanger his family and society in general (because they are easily stolen). My guns? Yes absolutely.

And you can't take statistics that include people with prior criminal histories, or a propensity for domestic abuse, or a history of having been abused domestically, or mental health issues, or people who are presently suicidal, or people who are religious fanatics, and try to apply them to me. I know me.

 

[PocketZeven]

Already addressed:

The fact that you never have had to use them and probably (and hopefully) never will, already shows that you dont need them. I am sure you feel safer with them around, but in essence it doesnt make you safer then if you didnt have guns.

I'm not implying you used per capita incorrectly, implying you did that would be me actually saying the 88 of 100 in my post. What I said is exactly as placed, you made a claim that people are most likely to be armed and a victim, I proved that isn't the case and thus wanted you to fix said statement, you ignored it at first and now you're trying to argue something else rather than what you previously said.

The question you now pose to steer away from what you previously said is another deflection. My bring it up has nothing to do with if a person feels they'd be safer or not. That's for them to decide. My point is that you said something you were wrong, it was proven wrong and thus you still keep perpetuating it rather than fix said wrong and then move on to the variety of other reasons you want to see guns limited.

I wrote that a criminal is more likely to encounter a victim with a gun. That was in relative to a country with very little guns. How did I make a wrong statement? The whole debate was about the USA gun statistics relative to other developed countries.

 

[Danoff]

The fact that you never have had to use them and probably (and hopefully) never will, already shows that you dont need them. I am sure you feel safer with them around, but in essence it doesnt make you safer then if you didnt have guns.

Fire extinguishers.

 

[PocketZeven]

Fire extinguishers.

What do you mean?

 

[Danoff]

What do you mean?

You just described a fire extinguisher.

 

[PocketZeven]

You just described a fire extinguisher.

There are similarities, but the threat would then be other fire extuingishers. Also a fire extinguisher is not built to kill.

 

[Danoff]

There are similarities, but the threat would then be other fire extuingishers. Also a fire extinguisher is not built to kill.

It is built to kill a fire!

No you said it hadn't made me any safer because I haven't had to use it. Fire extinguishers effectively extinguish that line of reasoning.

Edit: They are apparently also designed to kill arguments.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I wrote that a criminal is more likely to encounter a victim with a gun. That was in relative to a country with very little guns. How did I make a wrong statement? The whole debate was about the USA gun statistics relative to other developed countries.

Which has been shown to be false, and you did not apply "compared to another country". No the debate wasn't about that, you wanted to make a point out of U.S. gun stats vs. other nations, what that has to do with this particular nations violent crime is beyond me.

 

[Famine]

It is built to kill a fire!

And you absolutely can kill a human being with a fire extinguisher - and I don't just mean battering them around the head with it.

 

[PocketZeven]

It is built to kill a fire!

No you said it hadn't made me any safer because I haven't had to use it. Fire extinguishers effectively extinguish that line of reasoning.

Edit: They are apparently also designed to kill arguments.

The threat arent other fire extinguishers. And I havent seen any mass killings with fire extinguishers. The point is comparing fire extinguishers with guns isnt accurate.

On another note I would argue that fire-alarms/sensors are more effective in saving lives.

Which has been shown to be false, and you did not apply "compared to another country". No the debate wasn't about that, you wanted to make a point out of U.S. gun stats vs. other nations, what that has to do with this particular nations violent crime is beyond me.

Please read all the posts back. I was specifically comparing areas with less guns to areas with more guns!

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

There are similarities, but the threat would then be other fire extuingishers. Also a fire extinguisher is not built to kill.

And again you take a point, and then for lack of better phrasing mutilate it because it actually "Extinguishes" your argument. The point is being proactive, and doing something preventative. I have more than one weapon, I know how to use each one proficiently because I've taken the time to practice and understand how to use them. Same thing with anything else I have that will help protect me or needs to be protected.

The threat arent other fire extinguishers. And I havent seen any mass killings with fire extinguishers. The point is comparing fire extinguishers with guns isnt accurate.

On another note I would argue that fire-alarms/sensors are more effective in saving lives.

This has been addressed, what does his or my safety have to do with school shootings. We are responsible owners and take our guns being safely stored very seriously. You're jumping around from personal safety to then safety on a public mass level.

 

[PocketZeven]

And again you take a point, and then for lack of better phrasing mutilate it because it actually "Extinguishes" your argument. The point is being proactive, and doing something preventative. I have more than one weapon, I know how to use each one proficiently because I've taken the time to practice and understand how to use them. Same thing with anything else I have that will help protect me or needs to be protected.

No it doesnt. The anology would be more accurate if the threat of a of a fire is the same as a robbery or assasination.

40-50% of homefires are cooking related. So do you cook with guns?

Edit: added comment

 

[Danoff]

The threat arent other fire extinguishers. And I havent seen any mass killings with fire extinguishers. The point is comparing fire extinguishers with guns isnt accurate.

I'll take that as an apology (or as close as I'll get). Hopefully you don't go on using the line of reasoning that because I haven't had to use guns that they haven't made me any safer. I get that you don't want to admit that it was flawed logic, and would rather attempt to re-cast my comment in some other light.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'll take that as an apology (or as close as I'll get). Hopefully you don't go on using the line of reasoning that because I haven't had to use guns that they haven't made me any safer. I get that you don't want to admit that it was flawed logic, and would rather attempt to re-cast my comment in some other light.

I completely understand your reasoning. And in a sense is accurate. But I am trying to use facts. I am sure there are statistics that prove fire extinguishers do make homes safer. However there is no evidence that owning guns will make you safer. Better and more law enforcement, less poverty, less criminals with weapons will make you safer.

 

[Danoff]

I completely understand your reasoning. And in a sense is accurate. But I am trying to use facts. I am sure there are statistics that prove fire extinguishers do make homes safer.

However there is no evidence that owning guns will make you safer. Better and more law enforcement, less poverty, less criminals with weapons will make you safer.

Did you go look up that youtube video I mentioned? Guy breaking through a door with a machete gets put down by the home owner. That is evidence that owning guns can make you safer. Done, one video is all that it takes.

You keep trying to use general statistics to back up decisions about individual cases. It's not going to work. If the general statistics were that most of the time when there is a house fire the fire extinguishers in the house are too hard to get to, not properly charged, and the homeowner doesn't no how to use them, and so it doesn't make you any safer... I would completely disregard those statistics in my own circumstance. Because my fire extinguishers are fully charged. My fire extinguishers are easy to get to (at least one on each floor). I know how to use my fire extinguishers and have practiced with it.

In other words, I don't care what the statistics are for how effective other people are with their fire extinguishers. I know me. I know my fire extinguishers make me and my family safer. I know that I have practiced with them, keep them working, keep them secured in a safe place where I can access them if needed, and I know that I am competent to take the responsibility seriously. Also, it is my right to own a fire extinguisher to protect myself against threats, because I don't want to rely on the fire department to get here fast enough.

 

[PocketZeven]

Did you go look up that youtube video I mentioned? Guy breaking through a door with a machete gets put down by the home owner. That is evidence that owning guns can make you safer. Done, one video is all that it takes.

You keep trying to use general statistics to back up decisions about individual cases. It's not going to work. If the general statistics were that most of the time when there is a house fire the fire extinguishers in the house are too hard to get to, not properly charged, and the homeowner doesn't no how to use them, and so it doesn't make you any safer... I would completely disregard those statistics in my own circumstance. Because my fire extinguishers are fully charged. My fire extinguishers are easy to get to (at least one on each floor). I know how to use my fire extinguishers and have practiced with it.

In other words, I don't care what the statistics are for how effective other people are with their fire extinguishers. I know me. I know my fire extinguishers make me and my family safer. I know that I have practiced with them, keep them working, keep them secured in a safe place where I can access them if needed, and I know that I am competent to take the responsibility seriously. Also, it is my right to own a fire extinguisher to protect myself against threats, because I don't want to rely on the fire department to get here fast enough.

I understand completely. In your case I also agree, but I am speaking in the context of the higher risk in the USA of Mass shootings at schools. We already discussed that you shouldnt need to sell or give up your guns. You should not have any problem of getting a permit in the context of stricter gun laws. You also agreed that gun availability should be adressed. However your country is still not taking any action to adress these school mass shootings and that what makes me somewhat stubborn on this topic.