Connecticut (et al)

[Seth]

Let me add to the business of fear.
Americans are made to feel fear in order to sell guns. Is that fear appropriate?
Answer, no. Very few people are killed by strangers. So buying guns to protect against strangers who might attack you is not appropriate.
http://malini.data360.org/graph_group.a ... up_Id=1177

I quote :

"You are much more likely to be murdered by a partner, family member, friend or acquaintance. In 2004-05 only 2 percent of female and 25 percent of male victims were killed by a stranger. These percentages do not change very much over time."

As I pointed out before, 87% of killings in the home where a gun is kept were suicide by the gun owner, or a member of his family. Buying a gun adds to your risk. It does not reduce it.

Lies, all lies long debunked. Anti-gun hoplophobe propaganda, nothing more.

[Seth]

Let me add to the business of fear.
Americans are made to feel fear in order to sell guns. Is that fear appropriate?
Answer, no. Very few people are killed by strangers. So buying guns to protect against strangers who might attack you is not appropriate.
http://malini.data360.org/graph_group.a ... up_Id=1177

I quote :

"You are much more likely to be murdered by a partner, family member, friend or acquaintance. In 2004-05 only 2 percent of female and 25 percent of male victims were killed by a stranger. These percentages do not change very much over time."

As I pointed out before, 87% of killings in the home where a gun is kept were suicide by the gun owner, or a member of his family. Buying a gun adds to your risk. It does not reduce it.

Excellent point.

Except it's not true, and who cares about suicides, they're doing what they choose and I respect their right to be successful. One less dependent class proletarian I have to support and pay mental health benefits for.

[Azathoth]

bum custard

[Blind groper]

And two million or so times a year they are proven correct in their "fearmongering.

Seth

I have already shown you, with appropriate references, that this is simply one academic's "guesstimate" and that other academics dispute it utterly. Or to put it another way, that 2 million number is bullshit and always has been.

Lies, all lies long debunked. Anti-gun hoplophobe propaganda, nothing more.

This comment is typical of you, Seth. If the facts are not congruent with your crazy beliefs, you deny the facts. That is not rational. Denying the facts do not make them go away.

The simple truth is that those things the gun industry uses as scaremongering tactics are not true. They are bullshit. There is a risk close to zero that some stranger will enter your home and murder you. So having a gun at home for self defense is not of any great value at all. On the other hand, though, a woman who is murdered is probably (60% probability) murdered by her male partner, and a man who is murdered is probably murdered by wife, friend, acquaintance or someone else he knows. In both cases, having a gun at home adds to the risk, because the person you know is likely to kill you with your own gun.

Either way, buying a gun adds to your risk. it does not reduce it.

Post script edit.

I see, Seth, that another one of your buddies has decided to let rip. A convicted and released felon still managed to get hold of guns and set fires to ambush brave firefighters, killing two of them.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

I hope the families of those dead fire fighters appreciate that their men died to protect the second amendment.

[Svartalf]

Let me add to the business of fear.
Americans are made to feel fear in order to sell guns. Is that fear appropriate?
Answer, no. Very few people are killed by strangers. So buying guns to protect against strangers who might attack you is not appropriate.
http://malini.data360.org/graph_group.a ... up_Id=1177

I quote :

"You are much more likely to be murdered by a partner, family member, friend or acquaintance. In 2004-05 only 2 percent of female and 25 percent of male victims were killed by a stranger. These percentages do not change very much over time."

As I pointed out before, 87% of killings in the home where a gun is kept were suicide by the gun owner, or a member of his family. Buying a gun adds to your risk. It does not reduce it.

While the provision of using the gun for self protection may be unlikely, it is better to have a contingency against unlikely problems than getting caught flat footed.

Of course, I might state 'self defense' as my motive to buy a gun whose main use will be range shooting for pleasure.

[orpheus]

Let me add to the business of fear.
Americans are made to feel fear in order to sell guns. Is that fear appropriate?
Answer, no. Very few people are killed by strangers. So buying guns to protect against strangers who might attack you is not appropriate.
http://malini.data360.org/graph_group.a ... up_Id=1177

I quote :

"You are much more likely to be murdered by a partner, family member, friend or acquaintance. In 2004-05 only 2 percent of female and 25 percent of male victims were killed by a stranger. These percentages do not change very much over time."

As I pointed out before, 87% of killings in the home where a gun is kept were suicide by the gun owner, or a member of his family. Buying a gun adds to your risk. It does not reduce it.

While the provision of using the gun for self protection may be unlikely, it is better to have a contingency against unlikely problems than getting caught flat footed.

Unless having that contingency increases your risk in another way to a point where on balance, your contingency becomes a liability. I think that was the point.

[macdoc]

sue the bastids....

Can't seem to get any traction on this approach as a solution but clearly it has been tried from the other end and of course idjit GW has protected the gun manufacturers.

We hardly need to see further proof of negligence and against the common weal

In 2005, President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prohibits lawsuits against gun manufacturers for the damage their products do. “It does so in the name of the hoary concept that freedom of gun commerce is more important per se than freedom from gun violence,” writes Andrew Cohen, at The Atlantic.

The law worked. “It’s led to the dismissal of plenty of cases that were fully supported by civil justice law but were dismissed because this act provides special protections to the gun industry that no other industry or no other people in America enjoy,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence. In 2009, for example the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out a lawsuit by the City of New York against gun manufacturers that a lower court had supported, citing the PLCAA. The law actually makes an exception for negligence on the part of gun makers, which has allowed at least one lawsuit to proceed. But for the most part, Lowy said, “it has been abused, it’s totally unnecessary, and it has been destructive.”

If we as citizens want to make a big noise about gun control (and we should), it makes sense to focus that noise on changing one flawed law rather than instituting a host of unspecified new ones. Do away with that special protection for gun makers, and give people the power to use the courts to try to enact the kind of change Washintgon won’t.

http://www.good.is/posts/can-we-sue-our ... et-us-try/

[Jason]

Let me add to the business of fear.
Americans are made to feel fear in order to sell guns. Is that fear appropriate?
Answer, no. Very few people are killed by strangers. So buying guns to protect against strangers who might attack you is not appropriate.
http://malini.data360.org/graph_group.a ... up_Id=1177

I quote :

"You are much more likely to be murdered by a partner, family member, friend or acquaintance. In 2004-05 only 2 percent of female and 25 percent of male victims were killed by a stranger. These percentages do not change very much over time."

As I pointed out before, 87% of killings in the home where a gun is kept were suicide by the gun owner, or a member of his family. Buying a gun adds to your risk. It does not reduce it.

While the provision of using the gun for self protection may be unlikely, it is better to have a contingency against unlikely problems than getting caught flat footed.

Unless having that contingency increases your risk in another way to a point where on balance, your contingency becomes a liability. I think that was the point.

For fuck's sake. It's Groper pushing the same bullshit studies and his interpretation of raw statistics like he always does. He, and the studies he cites, do(es) not account for confounding factors nor reverse causality (someone has a gun in their home because they live in an area where they're much more likely to be the victim of a violent B&E involving armed criminals.. etc.) It's complete bullshit, it's been debunked umpteentrillion times already, long before the Connecticut shoots, so excuse me if I ignore his bullshit.

That said, I don't expect I'll have to address Groper's arguments again for at least a few days.

[Seth]

And two million or so times a year they are proven correct in their "fearmongering.

Seth

I have already shown you, with appropriate references, that this is simply one academic's "guesstimate" and that other academics dispute it utterly. Or to put it another way, that 2 million number is bullshit and always has been.

No you haven't and no it's not, and Lott himself debunked your propaganda.

Lies, all lies long debunked. Anti-gun hoplophobe propaganda, nothing more.

This comment is typical of you, Seth. If the facts are not congruent with your crazy beliefs, you deny the facts. That is not rational. Denying the facts do not make them go away.

You're the one in denial of facts here. In the last 5 years gun sales have skyrocketed and the number of guns has jumped by millions, and yet there is no increase in the violent crime rate, as you predict. In fact, crime rates continue to go down.

So, you're right, denial of facts doesn't make them go away and your bogus argument is just totally fucked.

The simple truth is that those things the gun industry uses as scaremongering tactics are not true. They are bullshit. There is a risk close to zero that some stranger will enter your home and murder you.

As long as it's non-zero, I'll take precautions whether you like it or not.

So having a gun at home for self defense is not of any great value at all.

I disagree. At worst, they have intrinsic value as an investment. My grandpa's Parker shotgun, purchased in 1941 for $100, is now worth more than $12,000, and my "assault weapon" collection has gone up in value 30 percent in the last week.

And I'd rather have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and need it.

On the other hand, though, a woman who is murdered is probably (60% probability) murdered by her male partner, and a man who is murdered is probably murdered by wife, friend, acquaintance or someone else he knows. In both cases, having a gun at home adds to the risk, because the person you know is likely to kill you with your own gun.

Sounds like she needs her own gun and better self-esteem and discretionary powers in her choice of a mate.

Either way, buying a gun adds to your risk. it does not reduce it.

Wrong.

Post script edit.

I see, Seth, that another one of your buddies has decided to let rip. A convicted and released felon still managed to get hold of guns and set fires to ambush brave firefighters, killing two of them.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

I hope the families of those dead fire fighters appreciate that their men died to protect the second amendment.

There will always be criminals and terrorists in society, and therefore it's prudent to be armed against such acts. Besides, sans gun, all he would have had to do was set up some fertilizer bombs as booby-traps for firefighters. You gonna ban ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel next?

[Blind groper]

Unless having that contingency increases your risk in another way to a point where on balance, your contingency becomes a liability. I think that was the point.

Exactly. The statistics show that a family with a gun in the house is more at risk of death by gunfire than a family with no gun. Self defense is a joke, if the actions taken for self defense increase the risk.

For fuck's sake. It's Groper pushing the same bullshit studies and his interpretation of raw statistics like he always does. He, and the studies he cites, do(es) not account for confounding factors nor reverse causality (someone has a gun in their home because they live in an area where they're much more likely to be the victim of a violent B&E involving armed criminals.

None of which debunks the statistics. There may, indeed, be a few cases where a gun increases security. However, overall, the statistics show that the reverse applies. Faku's argument is like saying a high powered Harley Davidson is safer than a family car because there are a few rare occasions when accelerating at high speed can get you out of trouble, while we all know that drivers of motor bikes have a much, much higher risk of death on the roads.

As I said to Seth, denying the facts does not make your argument correct.

[Blind groper]

In the last 5 years gun sales have skyrocketed and the number of guns has jumped by millions, and yet there is no increase in the violent crime rate, as you predict. In fact, crime rates continue to go down.

As I pointed out earlier, reputable researchers ascribe that reduction in crime rates to other factors. I have not yet found a single reputable researcher who claims that more guns is the cause of the drop in crime. Nor does an increase in guns explain why the same drop in crime rate has been happening right across the western world. A local change in the USA cannot explain a trend that exists everywhere in western countries.

The commonest explanation by American researchers is that longer prison sentences is the cause, since convicted felons who are languishing in prison cannot be out creating mayhem. My own belief is that the main cause is the aging population, because, on average, people are older, and older people commit fewer crimes. My explanation also explains why the same trend is seen across the western world, since this demographic change is ubiquitous in the first world.

Sounds like she needs her own gun and better self-esteem and discretionary powers in her choice of a mate.

She certainly needs better discretion in her choice of a mate. However, having her own gun simply provides her mate with another gun to grab and shoot her with.

[Jason]

Statistics prove nothing. The proof is in the analysis (or not).

[Blind groper]

Statistics prove nothing. The proof is in the analysis (or not).

To paraphrase your words, Faku.

"You do not need to worry about data. My own imagination is sufficient."

[Jason]

Not really. I don't accept bad science. Simple as that.

[Blind groper]

Not really. I don't accept bad science. Simple as that.

Yet you have not demonstrated any bad science. You have simply refused to accept statistical data.

When a person rejects data because it does not conform to his/her personal prejudgments, that is most definitely bad science.