A collection of gun/gun control/ gun culture links for your research pleasure

[ImmortalFlame]

The bad guys are armed, no matter what, they don't follow the law, and even if there were laws against guns, they'd still have guns.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html

"By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)"

I'd say that gun ownership, even if you don't own one decreases the possibility of crime being committed against you or your property, period.

And, as evidence of this, you cite an extract from a paper (published over 20 years ago) that explicitly says:

"Although there is no evidence to indicate gun ownership deters overall burglary rates, gun ownership may be a factor in deterring burglars from entering occupied dwellings ("hot" burglaries)."

and is written by Gary Kleck, someone with a history of sampling errors and poor academic practice.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

 

[Curious George]

This was extensively discussed at the time. The 2nd amendment isn't referring to a militia as a general collection of gun owners.

At which time? And I suggested that the militia was conscription age people (it was males at the time, but I hope we can now say people), who are able to fight. Do you think you have evidence to support otherwise?

 

[Mindmaster]

And, as evidence of this, you cite an extract from a paper (published over 20 years ago) that explicitly says:

"Although there is no evidence to indicate gun ownership deters overall burglary rates, gun ownership may be a factor in deterring burglars from entering occupied dwellings ("hot" burglaries)."

and is written by Gary Kleck, someone with a history of sampling errors and poor academic practice.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Errors or not, it's basically common sense. If you "could" have a gun, people are far less likely to act in ways that harm your property or person. That's to say, I feel the right to have arms is more important than actually having one.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Errors or not, it's basically common sense. If you "could" have a gun, people are far less likely to act in ways that harm your property or person. That's to say, I feel the right to have arms is more important than actually having one.

But the logic works both ways. If you have a gun, you're far more likely to act in ways that harms people or their property.

 

[Revoltingest]

But the logic works both ways. If you have a gun, you're far more likely to act in ways that harms people or their property.

This is a common but inaccurate generalization.
I assume it's based upon the usual dubious statistics which don't take
into account individual variation (eg, training level, licensing status).
Even the most conservative (NCVS) studies show that armed self
defense occurs tens of thousands of times more than wrongful shootings.
Ref....
A collection of gun/gun control/ gun culture links for your research pleasure

 

[Mindmaster]

But the logic works both ways. If you have a gun, you're far more likely to act in ways that harms people or their property.

That's sort of loaded with the opinion that everyone that buys a gun has a harmful intent. Most guns are purchased for target shooting first, defense second, and lastly hunting. Your logic only makes sense if most people are the sort who could be provoked to evil merely by having a destructive implement, sorry if I refuse to buy that.

 

[Valjean]

At which time? And I suggested that the militia was conscription age people (it was males at the time, but I hope we can now say people), who are able to fight. Do you think you have evidence to support otherwise?

A short history lesson:
Second amendment was Passed to Protect Slavery
The records of these debates are there for anyone to peruse. The issue was widely discussed in the newspapers and letters of the time.

 

[Revoltingest]

A short history lesson:
Second amendment was Passed to Protect Slavery
The records of these debates are there for anyone to peruse. The issue was widely discussed in the newspapers and letters of the time.

Well, of course...that's why we revolted against the British, to keep slavery.
And it's why the Irish, English, Scots, Germans, etc, came here....to own slaves.
And English common law (source of the 2nd Amendment) existed for the purpose of slavery.
And the Democrats existed to preserve it. (But those pesky Republicans got in the way.)

Anyway, for those interested in a broader view....
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[Twilight Hue]

No one has refuted my statistics on gun control and gun violence. People love their guns so much that they're willing to forgo the reality of it.

All you got to do is convince the world's governments to lead by example. If governments don't have guns than people won't need guns either.

 

[Curious George]

A short history lesson:
Second amendment was Passed to Protect Slavery
The records of these debates are there for anyone to peruse. The issue was widely discussed in the newspapers and letters of the time.

Let me get this straight. You expect this supports your point that the militia was not a men of conscription age that were able to fight?

And you also expect this to show that the the right to keep and bear arms was a concession to help allow slavery?

Let us go over the problems. Firstly, not only the South had Militias. This is well evidenced.

Secondly, the original draft was changed to help persuade some of the southern states that the federal government would not use their power to essentially force out slavery or prevent the state from stopping a slave insurrection.

Nowhere in any of that does it suggest what you have asserted. Namely that the militia was other than men of conscription age capable of fighting. Moreover, that a 2nd ammendment, more clear to the point of an individual's right to keep and bear arms, would have been passed had it not been for the fear that the federal government might abuse their authority to allow for the quicker dissolve of slavery, shows not that the intention behind the individuals right to keep and bear arms was to allow for slavery but that the focus on the "state" and the placement of the words was. The right to keep and bear arms would have most assuredly been past were slavery already outlawed.

But thanks for the video.

 

[suncowiam]

All you got to do is convince the world's governments to lead by example. If governments don't have guns than people won't need guns either.

That's ludicrous.

Governments have bombs, specifically nuclear bombs, war plans, tanks, missiles, submarines, and the list goes on.

And you're focused on guns.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is a common but inaccurate generalization.
I assume it's based upon the usual dubious statistics which don't take
into account individual variation (eg, training level, licensing status).
Even the most conservative (NCVS) studies show that armed self
defense occurs tens of thousands of times more than wrongful shootings.
Ref....
A collection of gun/gun control/ gun culture links for your research pleasure

Except the source of the 65,000 number is a survey carried out 20 years ago by a researcher known for sampling errors, whereas the "less than 1%" figure comes as a result of collating numerous studies, and it's not simply a case of "defensive uses" vs "wrongful shootings", but "defensive cases" vs "criminal uses". For example, there were over 120,000 robberies committed using a firearm in 2016.

Number of robberies in the U.S. 2016, by weapon | Statistic

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's sort of loaded with the opinion that everyone that buys a gun has a harmful intent.

No it isn't. I said that the logic works both ways.

Most guns are purchased for target shooting first, defense second, and lastly hunting. Your logic only makes sense if most people are the sort who could be provoked to evil merely by having a destructive implement, sorry if I refuse to buy that.

No, the logic works based on the availability of guns versus rate of violent crime, both of which correlate. There's no assumption about intent in purchasing, just the availability of guns.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except the source of the 65,000 number is a survey carried out 20 years ago by a researcher known for sampling errors, whereas the "less than 1%" figure comes as a result of collating numerous studies, and it's not simply a case of "defensive uses" vs "wrongful shootings", but "defensive cases" vs "criminal uses". For example, there were over 120,000 robberies committed using a firearm in 2016.

Number of robberies in the U.S. 2016, by weapon | Statistic

You doubt even the NCVS?
Ref....
National Crime Victimization Survey - Wikipedia

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is a national survey of approximately 49,000[1] to 77,400[2] households twice a year in the United States, on the frequency of crime victimization, as well as characteristics and consequences of victimization. The survey focuses on gathering information on the following crimes: assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, rape, and robbery. The survey results are used for the purposes of building a crime index. It has been used in comparison with the Uniform Crime Reports and the National Incident Based Reporting System to assess the dark figure of crime.[3] The NCVS survey is comparable to the British Crime Survey conducted in the United Kingdom.

The NCVS began in 1972 and was developed from work done by the National Opinion Research Center and the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. A key finding of the survey was the realization that many crimes were not reported to the police.

Their figures are far more conservative than Kleck's.
Would you support your criticism of them?
Do you have any alternative survey regarding self defense?

There's no doubt that guns are used in crimes without any deaths.
But this doesn't change the fact that guns are used in self defense
far more often than they result in wrongful killings. This is useful to
know for those who'd ban self defense use. Bans affect legal users
far more than illegal ones.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You doubt even the NCVS?
Ref....
National Crime Victimization Survey - Wikipedia

Their figures are far more conservative than Kleck's.
Would you support your criticism of them?
Do you have any alternative survey regarding self defense?

Not really, but you don't have to have an alternative to still see the number as flawed via the methodology used.

There's no doubt that guns are used in crimes without any deaths.
But this doesn't change the fact that guns are used in self defense
far more often than they result in wrongful killings. This is useful to
know for those who'd ban self defense use. Bans affect legal users
far more than illegal ones.

I already gave you a link that showed that guns are used illegally twice as often as they are used in self defense. Choosing to ignore firearms used in non-homicide crimes (not to mention the injuries and unintentional deaths caused by firearm use), and only compare self-defensive use with intentional homicide is a deliberate obscuring of the issue. Just as it would be to compare overall firearm crime rates with rates of justifiable homicide to paint gun ownership as even more disproportionately ineffective.

But, when you look at at all of the statistics, the "guns for self defense" argument just doesn't stand up. Guns are used for more to facilitate crime than they are used to prevent it, there is no evidence that a firearm is an effective deterrent to crime, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest increased availability of guns leads to increase in overall crime rates.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not really, but you don't have to have an alternative to still see the number as flawed via the methodology used.

Explain why, eh.

I already gave you a link that showed that guns are used illegally twice as often as they are used in self defense.

Your link doesn't show that.
It deals with the NCVS figure, but it doesn't include instances of self defense which
resulted in diffusing the conflict without injury. Yet your figure includes crimes with
no injury. This is comparing bananas to tomatoes.

What this points out is that one cannot simply find numbers which accomplish a purpose.
Anything can be proven by that approach. The assumptions of the statistics must be
considered, & then presented as evidence in a cogent argument.....not nust dueling numbers.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Explain why, eh.

For starters, they're based on interviews with relatively small sample sizes, not on actual crime stats.

Your link doesn't show that.

It shows that over 120,000 robberies were committed using firearms. So, yes it does.

It deals with the NCVS figure, but it doesn't include instances of self defense which
resulted in diffusing the conflict without injury. Yet your figure includes crimes with
no injury. This is comparing bananas to tomatoes.

We're already assuming the 65,000 figure is accurate. It still doesn't match the use of guns in robberies alone, let alone combining that with use in intentional homicide, accidental homicide, suicide or injury.

What this points out is that one cannot simply find numbers which accomplish a purpose.
Anything can be proven by that approach. The assumptions of the statistics must be
considered, & then presented as evidence in a cogent argument.....not nust dueling numbers.

Which is why I advocate looking at all the available statistics, and not just comparing defensive use to intentional homicides and calling it a landslide win for guns.

 

[Revoltingest]

For starters, they're based on interviews with relatively small sample sizes, not on actual crime stats.

Interviews are necessary for matters which often don't become crime statistics.
This is typical for the US Census Bureau (who conduct the surveys).

It shows that over 120,000 robberies were committed using firearms. So, yes it does.

I'm not disputing the number.
The issue is where it fits in analyzing the larger picture.

We're already assuming the 65,000 figure is accurate.

We can assume it's accurate, but are the premises useful?
As I posted before.....
The NCVS considers only actual attack victims. This would exclude a large number of people who were threatened with attack, but thwarted it by presenting a handgun (included in Kleck's studies). This choice isn't right or wrong....just different. But it's presented as though it debunk's Kleck's results. Moreover, the NCVS results claim to show self defense use of a gun is rare, but this is a value judgement which I find incredible. To call 65,000 "rare" is to paint a picture of the utility of armed self defense as insignificant. But 65K is a relatively large number relative to yearly wrongful gun deaths.

Thus the 65,000 figure is made relatively low by the premises,
while your 120,000 figure is made relatively large by the premises.

It still doesn't match the use of guns in robberies alone, let alone combining that with use in intentional homicide, accidental homicide, suicide or injury.

Regarding suicide, guns aren't a major factor.
Ref.....
Last February, Trump signed a bill making it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns

Which is why I advocate looking at all the available statistics, and not just comparing defensive use to intentional homicides and calling it a landslide win for guns.

"Landslide" is your term.
I just observe that guns have their usefulness.
Of course, the net benefit can be improved by taking measures to decrease wrongful gun violence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Interviews are necessary for matters which often don't become crime statistics.
This is typical for the US Census Bureau (who conduct the surveys).

Sure, but you must admit it's hard to justify 65,000 being a reliable estimate.

We can assume it's accurate, but are the premises useful?
As I posted before.....
The NCVS considers only actual attack victims. This would exclude a large number of people who were threatened with attack, but thwarted it by presenting a handgun (included in Kleck's studies). This choice isn't right or wrong....just different. But it's presented as though it debunk's Kleck's results. Moreover, the NCVS results claim to show self defense use of a gun is rare, but this is a value judgement which I find incredible. To call 65,000 "rare" is to paint a picture of the utility of armed self defense as insignificant. But 65K is a relatively large number relative to yearly wrongful gun deaths.

But it's a relatively small number compared to number of guns and the number of gun-related crimes and combined number of gun deaths and injuries. On top of that, the 65,000 figure can't even be considered a reliable estimate, and none of this takes account of the overall impact gun availability has on crime rates.

Thus the 65,000 figure is made relatively low by the premises,
while your 120,000 figure is made relatively large by the premises.

Isn't that exactly what you were doing earlier by exclusively comparing the figure to intentional homicide? You warped the statistics the exact same way.

Regarding suicide, guns aren't a major factor.
Ref.....
Last February, Trump signed a bill making it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns

Actually, there is plenty of evidence to suggest it is:

The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household MembersA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians
Household firearm ownership and rates of suicide across the 50 United States. - PubMed - NCBI

"Landslide" is your term.

I hold my hands up there. But nevertheless, comparing defensive gun use to intentional homicide is a deliberately misleading tactic.

I just observe that guns have their usefulness.
Of course, the net benefit can be improved by taking measures to decrease wrongful gun violence.

We're in agreement there, the question is how to do that. I happen to think greater gun control is one method that should be considered very seriously.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, but you must admit it's hard to justify 65,000 being a reliable estimate.

It appears low.

But it's a relatively small number compared to number of guns and the number of gun-related crimes and combined number of gun deaths and injuries.

To say that one number is lower than another doesn't address using this in designing public policy.
In my proposals for gun control, these statistics are no problem.
But I don't know what you propose, so the statistics you claim aren't part of a larger picture.

But nevertheless, comparing defensive gun use to intentional homicide is a deliberately misleading tactic.

I could accuse you of intentionally misleading with statistics.
But I don't.
I presume you're honest.
You ought to consider how you appear when accusing someone
of dishonesty, particularly when the accused knows otherwise.
Perhaps you know that you have The Truth, & no honest person
would disagree. This would be hubris.