The case against guns

[Tero]

Found it. The same poster posted this


http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/
the table is on the right

[Hermit]

Oh noes. The Tampa Bay Times cannot be trusted because it is run by crypto-communists. I know they are because it uses statistics. More specifically, it uses statistics of the sort that don't support my views.

If you want to quote statistics, use the ones I provide. They are sourced from good people. You know, members of the NRL and allied organisations. For instance, did you know that somewhere between 80 batillion and 200 gazillion targets of criminals have escaped the fate of becoming the victim of crime every second of every day of every year in the entire world (as defined by the US boundaries) because they were armed with a 155mm howitzer?

I put it to you, such statistics make the 3 innocent persons who get inadvertently killed due to an error of judgement brought about by the heat of the moment undeserving of any consideration. Collateral damage is inevitable, so fuck 'em. They should have stayed out of harms way. Must have been sheeple. Idiots.

[Seth]

Seth

You still have not given me a specific example of a western civilised nation (meaning USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, Britain, or any European country west of the old Yugoslavia) that has, since WWII, disarmed its citizens in order to become totalitarian.

That's because I don't play your bullshit cherry-picking game. Even an idiot realizes that past performance cannot predict future performance. So, you cannot reliably say that a "western civilized nation" cannot turn totalitarian because obviously it can. I cannot say that any nation will turn totalitarian, I can only say that many such nations have done so in the past and one of the primary correlative factors in literally every such instance is the disarmament of the populace, which allows the despot to control them.

So, given the fact that ANY society CAN turn totalitarian, even if it is not, and given the fact that when any society does turn totalitarian it is significantly facilitated and empowered by a disarmed populace, it is therefore prudent for the populations of all nations, "civilized" or not, to always ensure that the populace has the ability through force of arms to put down any attempt at tyranny or despotism.

And given the fact that the keeping and bearing of arms by law-abiding citizens does not, as you have admitted, lead to increases in crime (in fact it produces substantial decreases in crime) there is no reason to debar law-abiding citizens from keeping and bearing those arms because it does not, as hoplophobes and zealots like yourself often claim, result in bloodbaths and blood running in the gutters. This is proven beyond any doubt by our experience here, where since 1985 or so an increasing number of people have been authorized to carry concealed handguns in public, starting in Florida and expanding to 39 other states so far (and indeed it's legally authorized in 49 of 50 states...with Illinois on court-ordered notice to also comply) with absolutely no correlative rise in handgun crime or murders. In fact, as you have admitted, the crime rate continues to decline, which includes the handgun murder rate, which is half what it was a few decades ago.

So, no increase in public harm caused by the keeping and bearing of arms, and specifically concealed handguns, by law-abiding citizens does not rationally produce an argument that it's necessary to ban handguns or any other kind of arms to law-abiding citizens.

You have not, because you cannot. Your fear of gun control because it may lead to a government becoming totalitarian is paranoid, insane and irrational. It just will not happen.

That's what the Jews said. Oops, their bad...

[Seth]

Found it. The same poster posted this


http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/
the table is on the right

What's your point? The data shows that 68 percent of the time the killing was legally justifiable. That just indicates that there is a need for law-abiding citizens to be armed for self defense. And that's just killings and doesn't include all the crimes NOT committed by criminals because their potential victims were armed and thereby thwarted the crime.

Just looking at the labels on the pie chart demonstrates the anti-gun bias of the paper (as if that wasn't a well-known fact to anybody who actually follows this debate). They say "Punished" and "Not Punished," which implies that the 68 percent of killings that were justified are somehow miscarriages of justice in the opinion of the writers. They could have said "Punished" and "Innocent" or "Justified" or left that circle out completely.

Then there's the totally biased statistics about how the criminals lawfully killed by their potential victims were "unarmed." The only way any human being can be "unarmed" is to have had both arms amputated, and even then they can kick someone to death.

The paper obviously doesn't care to acknowledge that people get beaten to death with fists and feet all the time...more often in fact than they are shot with handguns. That's bias.

That's the kind of subtle bias that the liberal left Progressives use in their disinformation propaganda indoctrination campaign.

The 68 percent who were not prosecuted were not prosecuted or were prosecuted and found not guilty by a jury of their peers were deemed by the authorities (juries, judges and DAs) to not be criminally liable for the killing. What that means is that 68 percent of the time, people in Florida use their weapons appropriately in lethal confontations...which does not consider the number of times such arms are used to resolve potentially lethal confrontations without ever being discharged.

[Tero]

I didn't have a point. You asked for a source to the jpg. OK?

[Seth]

I didn't have a point. You asked for a source to the jpg. OK?

Oh, okay, thanks. It is an informative post.

For example, here's the first synopisis in their database:

Location details: outside a popular nightspot in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, on March 24, 2012

What happened: Evio Landa and his sons approached Nicholas Pastor at Mangos and asked for an apology for throwing a used tissue at his son's car. There was a confrontation and Landa and his sons left the restaurant and went in different directions. Pastor soon followed the older Landa and took off his shirt, seeming ready to fight. Witnesses said that Landa warned Pastor to stay away from him because he had a gun and they saw Pastor knock Landa to the ground and pummel him. After several blows Landa shot Pastor once in the chest. Landa had a concealed weapons permit for the derringer and remained at the scene to be interviewed by police. Pastor survived the gunshot wound and recovered.

The outcome: Prosecutors declined to file criminal charges because it qualified as a Stand Your Ground case. In his decision, Assistant State Attorney Alex Urruela wrote, "The verbal warning, coupled with the size difference between the two men and the fact that Landa waited until he was struck numerous times before firing his weapon indicate that he reasonably believed that potentially deadly force was necessary to prevent his own death or great bodily harm."

Investigating agency: Fort Lauderdale Police

Case decision made by: prosecutors

Justifiable shooting. Without a handgun, Landa could easily be dead or severely injured right now. Excellent self-defense outcome.

I can go on, and on, and on about 2.5 million times...but I won't.

[Blind groper]

Interesting that Seth accuses me and other in favor of better gun control of cherry picking data, and then Seth goes ahead with anecdotes.

Seth,

Selecting anecdotes is the ultimate in cherry picking. Because there are 100,000 shootings each year in the USA, and you pick one that supports your case. What about the other 99,999? That makes your cherry picked anecdote totally meaningless.

[Seth]

Interesting that Seth accuses me and other in favor of better gun control of cherry picking data, and then Seth goes ahead with anecdotes.

Seth,

Selecting anecdotes is the ultimate in cherry picking. Because there are 100,000 shootings each year in the USA, and you pick one that supports your case.

Of course I do. I'm not making a statistical argument that requires me to research and analyze every instance of a handgun shooting for all of history to try to make the point that handguns are being used lawfully for defensive purposes all the time in the US, much more often in fact than they are used to commit crimes.

What about the other 99,999?

What about them? Suppose you provide some scintilla of evidence that all 99,999 of them are NOT lawful acts of armed self-defense. You never will because you can't and you know it. You simply assume, a priori that handguns are useless for self defense and that therefore every handgun shooting must be an evil event without ever producing a credible argument in support of this thesis. I respond to your a priori fallacy by posting current examples demonstrating that handguns ARE useful for lawful self-defense.

You have never ever challenged or rebutted one single example of lawful armed self-defense that I've presented, you just ignore them and go right on shouting "IS NOT" with your fingers in your ears like a four year old.

You see, it wouldn't matter if all 99,999 other shootings were totally unlawful because this is not a statistical argument, no matter how many times you try to turn it into one. If the life of ONE PERSON is saved or protected by the lawful presence of a handgun, that one incident fully vindicates the state's policies allowing law-abiding individuals to carry such arms. Assuming arguendo that all 99,999 other shootings were entirely criminal assaults all that would do is to reinforce my argument that more people need to be lawfully armed for self defense.

More guns, less crime. It works. We've proven it works for going on 30 years now. Your arguments are bum custard and have always been bum custard.

That makes your cherry picked anecdote totally meaningless.[/quote]

[Blind groper]

Seth

I have never, not once, said that DGU's do not happen. Of course they happen. It is just that the number of genuine successful DGU's is nothing like the numbers you quote.

Your statement that a single life saved justifies everything is bullshit. There was a time when strychnine was used as a 'cure' for syphilus, and as such it probably saved a small number of lives. However, that does not justify selling strychnine freely to everyone who wants it. The poison would then end up killing lots of people, and it needs to be kept out of the hands of people who have not been trained to use it responsibly. In the same way, hand guns need to be kept out of the hands of everyone not trained to use them responsibly - meaning everyone except the police. Even then, it is clear that some police cannot use them responsibly.

On successful DGU's.
All the numbers you quote are not successful DGU's. What they are is "claims" of successful DGU's. Can you see the difference?

In my adult life, I have been threatened with violence three times. Twice I talked my way out of the nasty situation, and on the third time, I yelled out, and some of my friends came at my call, leaving the threatener to decide that the fields were greener elsewhere.

DGU's are cases were a person who has a gun threatens someone else when he/she feels threatened. I have a 100% incidence of successfully getting out of a threatening situation without using a gun. I have no doubt that the vast majority of those who claim successful DGU's, even the minority actually telling the truth, did not need a gun to extricate themselves.

Having a gun tends to lead to using it, which is one reason why the USA has 100,000 people each year who get shot.

So there are a small number of genuine DGU's each year. But only a very small number. Not the tens of thousands you erroneously claim.

[Seth]

Seth

I have never, not once, said that DGU's do not happen. Of course they happen. It is just that the number of genuine successful DGU's is nothing like the numbers you quote.

And yet you provide no actual evidence, other than your favorite Harvard "study" to support your claim, whereas I provide pertinent and new examples of DGUs at least once a week, and that's just from perusing one news site where I come across them happenstantially. The NRA publishes thousands of them every year on their website, and perhaps 10 examples in their NRA Armed Citizen column in their magazines ever single month.

Your statement that a single life saved justifies everything is bullshit.

So, any argument that banning guns because it might save "just one life" is bullshit too. I agree.

I argue that to the person whose life is saved it's of supreme importance that they were permitted to be armed for self-defense.

I also argue that neither you nor anyone else has any moral, ethical or legal authority to tell someone else that they are required to be an unarmed and helpless victim of violent crime merely because you believe the handgun murder rate is "too high."

There was a time when strychnine was used as a 'cure' for syphilus, and as such it probably saved a small number of lives. However, that does not justify selling strychnine freely to everyone who wants it.

Ah, but not everybody gets syphilis, or is even potentially exposed to it, and all those who did get it were given access to the most effective current treatment known to medical science. Everybody IS potentially exposed to violent crime, it being a rather random occurrence that cannot, for example, be avoided by not having sex with an infected person. Therefore, just like taking a TB or Smallpox vaccination against the chance that one will be unknowingly exposed to an easily transmissible (as opposed to syphilis, which is difficult to transmit) disease is a prudent defensive medical measure, owning and being proficient with a handgun is one of the best ways to prepare for the potential that one may suddenly and without warning face a potentially lethal or harmful criminal victimization.

Think of handguns like a vaccination; most people never need the vaccination (gun) because they are never exposed to the pathogen (criminal) but they get it anyway because the consequences of coming into contact with the pathogen (criminal) are extremely severe and can result in death or permanent disability.

Handguns are the vaccine against violent criminal victimization just as injected vaccines are the defense against smallpox and TB.

Thanks for bringing up that analogy, it's a very apt one that I'll use again often.

The poison would then end up killing lots of people, and it needs to be kept out of the hands of people who have not been trained to use it responsibly.

The key is "use it responsibly." All that requires is education and training and an individual not predisposed to misusing the tool/substance. This militates for universal gun education and marksmanship training, not for banning guns. Your argument is that we should prevent everyone from using an effective tool against a particular danger just because some people might misuse that tool and cause harm to themselves or others. Stupidity.

In the same way, hand guns need to be kept out of the hands of everyone not trained to use them responsibly - meaning everyone except the police.

Here's where you go off the rails with your hoplophobic pathology. The fact is that of all the handguns in the possession of law-abiding citizens in the US fewer than one-hundredth of one percent of those guns are EVER used to harm anyone, lawfully or otherwise. This proves that you're swatting at gnats with a sledgehammer.

So you would deny syphilis treatment to everyone merely because someone might misuse the curative. Stupidity.

Even then, it is clear that some police cannot use them responsibly.

Your mistrust and denigration of your fellow citizens shows a degree of arrogance that is beyond nauseating...but then again it's typical of the Marxist mindset to believe that everyone else is a bad person at heart and cannot be trusted to exercise any liberty without government control and supervision.

On successful DGU's.
All the numbers you quote are not successful DGU's. What they are is "claims" of successful DGU's. Can you see the difference?

And all of the examples I've provided are valid and lawful examples of actual DGUs, not "claims." And I have no reason not to believe the numbers claimed by professional scientific researchers like (but not limited to) Kleck and Lott et al. If you disbelieve them, that's your prerogative, but we don't make public policy based on the opinions of Internet pundits. If you, or your Harvard buddies want to be believed, then somebody from your side can duplicate the research of Lott and Kleck, with appropriate controls to prevent deliberate bias and skewing of the data, and produce a "peer reviewed" study that squarely conflicts with the other data that's been collected and analyzed. It's insufficient to merely try to examine a study and conclude, because one didn't have access to, or bother to obtain access to the raw data, that a study has been falsified. The Harvard study does NOT conclude that the number of DGUs reported by Kleck et al is actually some other number, it merely takes issue with the methodology and objects to not being given full access to the data by Lott, which is not at all the same thing as demonstrating what the ACTUAL number of DGUs is. To do that, they have to do the research too.

And we know that the DOJ has done the research, and even the most conservative number they came up with, despite having a probable institutional bias against an armed citizenry, is that at least ten times the number of effective DGUs occur each year than illegal handgun murders. That number alone justifies allowing law-abiding citizens to possess handguns for self defense. Add to that all the recorded and unrecorded instances of the presence of a handgun in the possession of a law-abiding citizen thwarted crime not including murder (something which you utterly ignore at every turn) and the justification for an armed citizenry becomes very solid and reasonable. Add to that the fact that you yourself have admitted that the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens DOES NOT contribute to the number of murders, which are in decline worldwide and there is absolutely no reason at all to ban handguns and many good reasons not to, and to in fact increase handgun ownership worldwide.

In my adult life, I have been threatened with violence three times.Twice I talked my way out of the nasty situation, and on the third time, I yelled out, and some of my friends came at my call, leaving the threatener to decide that the fields were greener elsewhere.


DGU's are cases were a person who has a gun threatens someone else when he/she feels threatened. I have a 100% incidence of successfully getting out of a threatening situation without using a gun.

Talk about your pointless, futile and misleading anecdotes...

You really think that your experience is universal? Sheesh.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of those who claim successful DGU's, even the minority actually telling the truth, did not need a gun to extricate themselves.

Your opinion is noted. Now all you have to do is prove that your belief is scientifically valid. Get on it Sparky. Get back to me when the peer reviews come in. Until then you're just spouting personal opinion unsupported by fact.

Having a gun tends to lead to using it, which is one reason why the USA has 100,000 people each year who get shot.

Well, obviously if there were no guns nobody would get shot, but the problem with that argument is that guns exist, so people are going to get shot. What matters is WHO gets shot and WHY they get shot, not the fact that some people get shot. Some people die of typhus and auto accidents, but we can't ban typhus (we can only protect against it) and those killed in auto accidents are "acceptable collateral damage" for the convenience and necessity of having a transportation system.

So there are a small number of genuine DGU's each year. But only a very small number. Not the tens of thousands you erroneously claim.

Unsupported and fallacious conclusion. Where's the data? Show your work.

[Blind groper]

On DGU's

Estimated numbers come from surveys. It is widely recognised that survey results are unreliable and enormously variable. This point need not even be debated. It is simply correct.

In the case of surveys on DGU's, estimates coming from surveys range from a few tens of thousands to millions, if we include the fictional results of certain "researchers". That variability alone is sufficient to cast enormous doubt on such results.

As I have pointed out before, this subject is inherently subject to enormous abuse. It is exactly like running a survey of 16 year old males to find out how many are still virgins. I mean, how naive can you be? Ask a 16 year old male who has never had sex if he is a virgin, and what are the chances he will lie?

In the same way, using a gun defensively, when talking to gun nutters, is exactly the same as teenage sex. It is something all those gun nutters have been dreaming of and fantasizing about. Most will still tell the truth, but it only requires about 1 in 20 to respond to the question according to his fantasy rather than according to the truth in order to totally exaggerate the results beyond all recognition. And the number of people in any population, not just gun nutters, who are strongly influenced by delusions coming from their imagination, is about 10% - twice the 1 in 20 needed to screw the results.

The short answer is that anyone who believes a DGU survey will give accurate answers is living in fairyland.

[Audley Strange]

Anyone change their mind yet?

[Seth]

On DGU's

Estimated numbers come from surveys. It is widely recognised that survey results are unreliable and enormously variable. This point need not even be debated. It is simply correct.

Wait...what? You recognize that survey results are unreliable and enormously variable and yet you still rely on survey results to prop up your claim? Is that stupid or what?

In the case of surveys on DGU's, estimates coming from surveys range from a few tens of thousands to millions, if we include the fictional results of certain "researchers". That variability alone is sufficient to cast enormous doubt on such results.

And it's just as doubtful that there are, as you claim, zero or very few based on your own pet surveys, or did that escape you.

As I have pointed out before, this subject is inherently subject to enormous abuse. It is exactly like running a survey of 16 year old males to find out how many are still virgins. I mean, how naive can you be? Ask a 16 year old male who has never had sex if he is a virgin, and what are the chances he will lie?

And that's why the DOJ and FBI compiled "anecdotes" of reported DGUs in coming up with their very conservative figure of 80,000 DGUs per year...Ten times the number of murders you like to tout, which means that ten times more people are defended successfully by handguns than are murdered by them.

And that's also why I present data points in the form of reports of substantiated and reported DGUs, each of which is one of those 80,000 per year the DOJ came up with.

In the same way, using a gun defensively, when talking to gun nutters, is exactly the same as teenage sex.

Your credible, critically-robust scientific evidence of both this classification, how many individuals it applies to, and the reliability of other reports from other categories of gun owners please...

It is something all those gun nutters have been dreaming of and fantasizing about.

Which shows how fucking ignorant you actually are. The only dreams I have about shooting someone are the ones that wake me up in a cold sweat. And the only "fantasies" I have are referred to in the trade as "critical incident analysis and planning."

Most will still tell the truth, but it only requires about 1 in 20 to respond to the question according to his fantasy rather than according to the truth in order to totally exaggerate the results beyond all recognition.

Funny how that works...it also applies, and more so, to questions asked about who owns what and how many guns, which makes your claim that gun ownership is dropping so much bum custard.

Hoist on your own petard there Sparky.

And the number of people in any population, not just gun nutters, who are strongly influenced by delusions coming from their imagination, is about 10% - twice the 1 in 20 needed to screw the results.

Your critically robust scientific evidence supporting this claim please...

The short answer is that anyone who believes a DGU survey will give accurate answers is living in fairyland.

And yet not a single data point I've presented here, not one of which is a "survey", has ever been challenged or refuted by you.

So, once again you're spouting ideological bullshit by the cubic yard.

[Seth]

Anyone change their mind yet?

Hopefully some credulous lurker will not be swayed into irrationality and illogic by BG's idiotic arguments as a result of my dissecting and debunking them in painful detail. And that's the point. BG is just a useful idiot in the program of debunking hoplophobe lies. The more often he posts the SOS, the more ignorant and biased he appears, which is fine with me.

[JimC]

Anyone change their mind yet?

Actually, it is getting a little dirty...

I better shove it in the wash, and pop in a new one from the cognitive drawer...