Connecticut (et al)

[Jason]

Bum a la carte!

[Svartalf]

I'll have the blue bowl special

[Jason]

Ah, a fine choice Monsieur. The blue bowl special is the chefs spécialité. It is made with only the most succulent, aromatique, et juteuse fruits de la cul. C'est un magnifique creation de cuisine sans pareil!

[Svartalf]

aka yesterday's old crap heated over.

[Seth]

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.

Wrong. It's not a statistical argument, as I've said before. Your sources are bullshit because they attempt to apply statistics improperly. There are so many variables involved in the risk assessment of having a firearm in the household that simplistic analyses such as the ones you rely on aren't even useful as bum custard cleanup paper.

Is it more dangerous to bring a gun into a family that has absolutely no firearms safety training or experience, where the weapon is improperly stored and handled carelessly? Probably.

But the facts show that the vast majority of the public is fully aware of the dangers of firearms and they handle them responsibly. What you deliberately elide in your false statistical argument is the absolute numbers of firearms accidents (or intentional shootings) that occur in any given year as compared to the total number of households containing guns in the US (estimated to be greater than 150 million households).

If the study examines only a limited number of data points and then tries to extrapolate risk to the rest of the population based on a small data pool of information that does not adjust for the many variables involved, the results will come out as "Your are 400 percent more likely to have a gun accident if you have a gun in the house." Or, "You are 400 times more likely to have a gun accident if you have a gun in the house than if you don't."

But it's a bullshit number to begin with because the population to which the prediction is being applied is neither uniform nor homogenous, and therefore without adjusting for race, sex, age, region, training, experience and a host of other variables (like communities where guns are and have been ubiquitous for hundreds of years) no rational conclusion about relative risk (which is your claim) can be validly made.

You can say that there is an "increased risk" of a gun accident in my home by referring to statistics, but those statistics don't take into account my experience, training or security measures for storage of my firearms, so your claim is just so much bilge.

It's like saying "A three-year old handed a firearm is X times more likely to shoot himself or someone else than a 50 year old man with extensive firearms training is." It may be STATISTICALLY true, but it's still a meaningless bullshit claim, just like the one you cited.

Further, any increase in risk in any particular household must be balanced by the decrease in risk of violent criminal victimization that the firearm offers. We all know that you just boneheadedly deny the facts in that regard, but that doesn't change the fact that firearms are frequently used, every single day in the United States, to thwart and prevent crime and victimization. You continue to mendaciously ignore the real-life published examples I cited as well as the reams of information to be gleaned from the Armed Citizen website because it proves again just how full of crap your argument is.

The fact is that with proper safety training and careful supervision, children as young as 8 to 10 years old can safely handle firearms. I did, so did many of my friends when I was growing up. The vast majority (of the very small number) of child-involved gun accidents occur in urban households where there is no safety training at all, much less supervision of the children (at all) much less proper gun handling by the parents.

Since 1910, the NRA has been deeply involved in gun safety education, and as a result firearms accidents have dropped 98 percent in that time, and firearms deaths of children don't even make it into the top ten causes of death in children...unless you falsify the data (as Handgun Control and their ilk regularly do) to include teenagers and young adults up to age 24 who are the largest component of urban gangs. Remove them and limit the analysis to children under 14 and firearms deaths are quite rare.

So, in short, your arguments are bogus and your conclusions quintessential hoplophobe bum custard, and always have been.

[Seth]

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.

Irrelevant evasive obfuscation and pettifoggery.

According to YOUR OWN CLAIM, an increase of the number of guns (particularly handguns) in society will (not might, but will) result in a larger number of homicides. That's your claim.

Your claim is crap, and obvious facts prove it.

Fact: There are more guns in US society now than at any time in history.
Fact: The crime rate in the United States continues to go down.
Conclusion: The number of guns in law-abiding civilian hands causes absolutely NO increase in crime, including homicides.

In other words, the empirical experiment with arming the law-abiding public in the US disproves your claim utterly and conclusively. It is a fact that here, more guns equals less crime. Causation is irrelevant here because it's irrelevant to the CLAIM YOU MADE which is "more guns, more crime." Your claim has failed critical analysis.

[orpheus]

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.

Irrelevant evasive obfuscation and pettifoggery.

According to YOUR OWN CLAIM, an increase of the number of guns (particularly handguns) in society will (not might, but will) result in a larger number of homicides. That's your claim.

Your claim is crap, and obvious facts prove it.

Fact: There are more guns in US society now than at any time in history.
Fact: The crime rate in the United States continues to go down.
Conclusion: The number of guns in law-abiding civilian hands causes absolutely NO increase in crime, including homicides.

In other words, the empirical experiment with arming the law-abiding public in the US disproves your claim utterly and conclusively. It is a fact that here, more guns equals less crime. Causation is irrelevant here because it's irrelevant to the CLAIM YOU MADE which is "more guns, more crime." Your claim has failed critical analysis.

Who was talking about simplistic analyses not being even useful as bum custard cleanup paper?

Fact: There are more guns in US society now than at any time in history.
Fact: The crime rate in the United States continues to go down.
Fact: There are many more variables to take into account.
Conclusion: The number of guns in law-abiding civilian hands might indeed cause an increase in crime, including homicides. This increase might be counteracted by other factors in society, thus resulting in an overall reduction in crime. It is impossible to conclude, as you do, that "The number of guns in law-abiding civilian hands causes absolutely NO increase in crime, including homicides."

[Blind groper]

To Seth

You are misusing statistical claims. I am not sure if this is because you do not understand statistics, or if it is because you are deliberately trying to mislead us. On at least one previous occasion you told a deliberate lie. You said that gun laws were adequate and anyone wanting to buy a gun had to have a background check. I have since demonstrated that this does not apply to gun shows, which are a major source of firearms to criminals. A criminal can serve his time, leave prison, and go straight to a gun show and buy a weapon designed to be devastating as a people killer.

Are you deliberately lying again, Seth, in your misuse of statistics?

You implied that a statistical claim was also a personal claim on an individual. I have never made such a claim. I said that having a gun in the home increased the risk of a family member being shot, which is statistically true. I did not say that datum applied to individuals.

But individual matters are not what is taken into account in determining policy - in this case gun laws - and the statistical truths - that which affects the most people - are what is important. In this case, the fact that having a gun in the home increases the risk of being shot means that the self defense argument for having a gun, and especially a hand gun, in the home, is just so much bulldust.

[Blind groper]

On Seth's statement that gun ownership has increased.

That may well be total crap. Not an unusual thing with claims made by Seth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ip-us-data

According to two sets of surveys, there is no significant change in percentage of households with guns over the past 15 years.

There is a small increase in number of background checks into would-be gun owners, but that may or may not translate into increased gun ownership. The problem is that things are so disorganised and chaotic with the very loose gun laws in the USA that no one really knows how many guns are out there.

[Blind groper]

Another claim made by Seth is that concealed carry reduces crime. This is a claim made by Dr. John Lott, who is a gun advocate who has written two books on the subject, and seems to be making $$$ from book sales and media appearances. In fact, Dr. Lott is now a thoroughly discredited researcher, who has made numerous documented mistakes, and is even considered (possibly) to falsify his data.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/1 ... ott/191885

Anyway, I try to quote reputable references. This time it is a report from Yale University. This report shows that concealed carry does not reduce crime, and probably increases crime. The researchers even suggested the increase in crime by concealed carry means roughly an increased cost to the USA of a billion dollars per year, though this figure had a high margin of error.
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayre ... omment.pdf

So concealed carry does not reduce crime. It probably does the opposite.

Add to that, the other inaccuracies in Seth's statements. There is no credible evidence of an increase in number of people owning guns over the past ten years. There is no credible evidence that there have been 2 million per year cases of successful self defense with guns.

Kinda makes Seth's arguments look pretty sick!

[mozg]

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.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times before, that study failed to take into account whether the firearms were legally possessed in the first place, and so is utterly useless when it comes to making any kind of assertions about lawful firearm owners.

Yet the USA has the highest murder rate of any western nation - four times as high as most of its peers.

A statitstic that can only be contrived by very carefully selecting a list of countries that support the conclusion and then referring to them as 'western nations' so that the numbers will appear to support a particular agenda.

There is no credible evidence that there have been 2 million per year cases of successful self defense with guns.

Not if you take a page out of the anti's handbook and only consider it a 'successful self defense' if the attacker was shot and killed, no.

You, like most of those who favor bans, have started with a conclusion and set out to prove yourself right. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that indicates barring me, a law abiding citizen, from owning firearms will have any effect whatsoever on what criminals do.

The idea that my liberites should be decided upon the basis of how those who are lawless comport themselves is ridiculous. 'Because other people commit crimes' is a bullshit argument. If you want to take away my rights (ignoring for a moment the fact that you have no say in US law), you better make a damn good case as to why I don't deserve those rights.

[aspire1670]

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.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times before, that study failed to take into account whether the firearms were legally possessed in the first place, and so is utterly useless when it comes to making any kind of assertions about lawful firearm owners.

Yet the USA has the highest murder rate of any western nation - four times as high as most of its peers.

A statitstic that can only be contrived by very carefully selecting a list of countries that support the conclusion and then referring to them as 'western nations' so that the numbers will appear to support a particular agenda.

There is no credible evidence that there have been 2 million per year cases of successful self defense with guns.

Not if you take a page out of the anti's handbook and only consider it a 'successful self defense' if the attacker was shot and killed, no.

You, like most of those who favor bans, have started with a conclusion and set out to prove yourself right. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that indicates barring me, a law abiding citizen, from owning firearms will have any effect whatsoever on what criminals do.

The idea that my liberites should be decided upon the basis of how those who are lawless comport themselves is ridiculous. 'Because other people commit crimes' is a bullshit argument. If you want to take away my rights (ignoring for a moment the fact that you have no say in US law), you better make a damn good case as to why I don't deserve those rights.

To paraphrase your own argument: like most of those who favor gun ownership, you have started with a conclusion and set out to prove yourself right. Therefore, you lack the self awareness and the self control to be trusted to engage in an honest debate and you shouldn't be trusted to own a gun.

[mozg]

To paraphrase your own argument: like most of those who favor gun ownership, you have started with a conclusion and set out to prove yourself right. Therefore, you lack the self awareness and the self control to be trusted to engage in an honest debate and you shouldn't be trusted to own a gun.

I've had firearms for 23 years, been involved in shooting for 28 years and been lawfully carrying a concealed firearm for almost 14 years.

In all that time, I have never once even come close to drawing a firearm in anger or an argument. I have never had a negligent discharge. The only things I have ever shot were targets at the range, or game animals during hunting season with the proper licenses.

Self control is something I have metric fucktons of.

[Blind groper]

As has been pointed out to you numerous times before, that study failed to take into account whether the firearms were legally possessed in the first place, and so is utterly useless when it comes to making any kind of assertions about lawful firearm owners.

The biggest cause of death by a hand gun in the home is suicide. 87% of all deaths with a gun in the home are suicide. Are you really trying to tell me that all those suicides only happened where the gun was illegal?

Go one, pull my other leg. It plays Yankee Doodle!

A statitstic that can only be contrived by very carefully selecting a list of countries that support the conclusion and then referring to them as 'western nations' so that the numbers will appear to support a particular agenda.

Sorry, mozg, but that is total crap. You do not need to select like that. All you need is to list the countries of the world in terms of income per capita. Get the list of the top 24 nations in terms of income. The USA has 80% of all gun murders of all 24 nations put together. This is not selecting nations to support the conclusion.

Face it. The USA is the developed world's murder capital. Any other belief is simply being an ostrich with its head in the sand. If you believe the reverse, you are being deliberately obtuse, and have forfeited the right to respect. I trust that is not the case.

Not if you take a page out of the anti's handbook and only consider it a 'successful self defense' if the attacker was shot and killed, no.

Read my reference. Harvard University is not in the habit of twisting data.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html

[FBM]

Only because the "underdeveloped" world doesn't count, since the inhabitants aren't real people like we are.