Congratulations. You managed to find both the proposition and the reasoning.Macbeth wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Arguing extremes is dense and a waste of everyone's time.mikkel wrote:
Should weapons-grade plutonium be uncontrolled and free to purchase by anyone? Should Anthrax spores? What about plastic explosives?
That is my point exactly... Anyone can throw a bunch of so-called facts and statistics onto a virtual poster without any citation and then expect to get a bunch of reaction from it. You can always take the extremes and spin them to your advantage. Your examples are perfect. How many people died from weapons grade plutonium last year compared to guns? If it is less, then OBVIOUSLY it must be safer, and so we should legalize it and outlaw guns instead, right?mikkel wrote:
How far are you willing to extend that reasoning? Should weapons-grade plutonium be uncontrolled and free to purchase by anyone? Should Anthrax spores? What about plastic explosives? Regulation is a consequence of measuring benefits against risk. There's nothing special in that regard about firearms regulation. You may feel that gun ownership is more beneficial than other people do, or you may have less regard for the risk, but you're making that determination using precisely the method that you're berating other people for using. Arguing extremes is dense and a waste of everyone's time.HITNRUNXX wrote:
Department of Transportation @ http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811172.pdf : About 40,000 people per year are killed in the U.S. in traffic accidents.this list of made up/out of context/skewed statistics wrote:
"Gunshot wounds are the #1 killer for young men."
Department of Transportation @ http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811172.pdf : About 12,000 people per year are killed by drunk drivers.
Council of Conservative Citizens @ http://cofcc.org/2011/04/black-men-are- … ng-blacks/ : Black men are the leading cause of death among young blacks.
So I can list out random "facts" too... But at least I can throw some citations around with them...
According to this, we should outlaw Cars, Alcohol, and Black Men in the United States. Let me know how making those suggestions work out for you.
It is all spinning out of context/questionable "statistics" to get a reaction.
The decisions I am making on my standpoints have nothing to do with statistics posted on the internet. They have to do with 1) My Constitution, 2) My personal experience, 3) My professional experience. For you to say otherwise on how I make my "determination" is ignorant on your part, as I never even stated my standpoint, let alone how I came to that conclusion.
In the grand scheme of things, I stop trusting internet opinions somewhere around electronic reviews...
Anyone who isn't stupid.Jay wrote:
Exactly. Who carries a revolver?Dilbert_X wrote:
Europeans owned firearms before America existed IIRC.Jay wrote:
Looks like a poster written by a retard to shock and scare ignorant Euros.
Who the fuck owns a .38 special
.38 Special is about the largest cartridge the average person would want to shoot in a compact revolver.
Fuck Israel
The problem with that is that in your post, in addition to rejecting uncited sources, you attacked the notion of using statistics to quantify risk. That's what I'm responding to. There's nothing ignorant about presuming how you make your determination, because regardless of your basis for judging risk and judging reward, that's still what it comes down to.HITNRUNXX wrote:
That is my point exactly... Anyone can throw a bunch of so-called facts and statistics onto a virtual poster without any citation and then expect to get a bunch of reaction from it. You can always take the extremes and spin them to your advantage. Your examples are perfect. How many people died from weapons grade plutonium last year compared to guns? If it is less, then OBVIOUSLY it must be safer, and so we should legalize it and outlaw guns instead, right?mikkel wrote:
How far are you willing to extend that reasoning? Should weapons-grade plutonium be uncontrolled and free to purchase by anyone? Should Anthrax spores? What about plastic explosives? Regulation is a consequence of measuring benefits against risk. There's nothing special in that regard about firearms regulation. You may feel that gun ownership is more beneficial than other people do, or you may have less regard for the risk, but you're making that determination using precisely the method that you're berating other people for using. Arguing extremes is dense and a waste of everyone's time.HITNRUNXX wrote:
Department of Transportation @ http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811172.pdf : About 40,000 people per year are killed in the U.S. in traffic accidents.
Department of Transportation @ http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811172.pdf : About 12,000 people per year are killed by drunk drivers.
Council of Conservative Citizens @ http://cofcc.org/2011/04/black-men-are- … ng-blacks/ : Black men are the leading cause of death among young blacks.
So I can list out random "facts" too... But at least I can throw some citations around with them...
According to this, we should outlaw Cars, Alcohol, and Black Men in the United States. Let me know how making those suggestions work out for you.
It is all spinning out of context/questionable "statistics" to get a reaction.
The decisions I am making on my standpoints have nothing to do with statistics posted on the internet. They have to do with 1) My Constitution, 2) My personal experience, 3) My professional experience. For you to say otherwise on how I make my "determination" is ignorant on your part, as I never even stated my standpoint, let alone how I came to that conclusion.
In the grand scheme of things, I stop trusting internet opinions somewhere around electronic reviews...
Last edited by mikkel (2012-02-04 19:54:06)
does dilber carry a wheelgun?Dilbert_X wrote:
Anyone who isn't stupid.Jay wrote:
Exactly. Who carries a revolver?Dilbert_X wrote:
Europeans owned firearms before America existed IIRC.
.38 Special is about the largest cartridge the average person would want to shoot in a compact revolver.
Mot people are too dim to operate an auto safely on a range, more so as a carry gun, certainly in a combat or post-combat situation.
They aren't going to to do all the training needed to operate an auto effectively, deal with stoppages and so on, put the thousands of rounds downrange which are required to check a gun/ammo combination is reliable in their hands - none of which is required for a revolver.
IMO
But Glocks are awsm and not having a safety makes them more likely to blow your leg off even more awsm.
They aren't going to to do all the training needed to operate an auto effectively, deal with stoppages and so on, put the thousands of rounds downrange which are required to check a gun/ammo combination is reliable in their hands - none of which is required for a revolver.
IMO
But Glocks are awsm and not having a safety makes them more likely to blow your leg off even more awsm.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-02-04 20:34:17)
Fuck Israel
No, I attacked the notion of using uncited and out of context statistics and spinning them to get a reaction.mikkel wrote:
The problem with that is that in your post, in addition to rejecting uncited sources, you attacked the notion of using statistics to quantify risk. That's what I'm responding to. There's nothing ignorant about presuming how you make your determination, because regardless of your basis for judging risk and judging reward, that's still what it comes down to.
If I were to say:
"People who own screwdrivers in the United States are 17,000 times more likely to be murdered!!!" and showed a cute little graphic of a person with a screwdriver sticking out of his head, then it would imply you should immediately get rid of your screwdrivers...
But maybe I just looked at the 17,030 murders in the U.S. in 2006, applied the percentage of people who own screwdrivers to that, and show that approximately 17,029 of those victims owned screwdrivers and 1 didn't. Boom, 17,000 times more likely.
In the OP, it makes a point of saying only 12% of firearms are believed to be registered. To a lot of people, especially those unfamiliar with laws in other states, that would imply 88% of guns are illegally owned, or at least untraceable... But that isn't true... That stat has nothing to really do with anything... Including nothing to do with the rest of the "guns are an accident waiting to happen" theme of the post... But the fact is, most states don't require you to register your guns. The original owner of most guns is traceable though.
A lot of the "facts" are incomplete. It singles out Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" but a number of states have made the same or similar laws. In Oklahoma, it is the "Make My Day" law. "Even if deadly force isn't being used against them" has a negative connotation to it. It makes it sound unjust... But here is a simple fact: No force is deadly force until it is used, and then you might be dead. Carrying a gun into your home with the intention of killing you isn't deadly force to your knowledge until I point the gun at you and pull the trigger.
So what is the agenda of the poster? It doesn't even tell you that. All of it has a very negative tone to it, but doesn't even have the courtesy to really come out and try to sum up the reason for it.
HOWEVER,
I would like to say right now: I was totally wrong...
The sources ARE cited on the bottom of the poster... The lower res screen I looked at this on earlier just whited out the light grey text... MY BAD.
I would like to say right now: I was totally wrong...
The sources ARE cited on the bottom of the poster... The lower res screen I looked at this on earlier just whited out the light grey text... MY BAD.
I think the "75 children are shot each day" is pretty disgusting tbh.
200 fire arm related injuries every day. 75 children is probably over stated. Technically, technically anyone under the age of 18 is a child. A 16 or 17 or 15 year old isn't the same as a 8 year old.
I'd imagine most of those are teenage bangers defending their turf. someones gotta do it, according to them, at least.Jaekus wrote:
I think the "75 children are shot each day" is pretty disgusting tbh.
Still 0.02303030303030303% of the population get injured every year by firearms. Pretty low considering how many guns we have.
guns, of course, are dangerous. But it's much more likely that I'll be accidentally killed by a well meaning doctor or nurse. I don't really worry about either.
Also regarding the top 5 forearms deaths- It's disingenuous to say "only in America are you more likely to get killed with your own gun." Well yes you are. That's due to suicides. 55-60% of all firearm deaths every year are suicides.
I avoid doctors, guns are much safer.
Fuck Israel
Yeah, that is the point I was trying to make with the spinning stats... You just made it a lot better than I did... In a fraction of the space.Macbeth wrote:
Also regarding the top 5 forearms deaths- It's disingenuous to say "only in America are you more likely to get killed with your own gun." Well yes you are. That's due to suicides. 55-60% of all firearm deaths every year are suicides.
What would be an interesting correlation is the number of suicides per capita in the US compared to other Western countries. I know in Australia the most common method is by hanging, as per some data presented during a suicide awareness training session I attended for my work a year or two ago.
Is the suicide rate higher, or the same? And if higher would it be because guns are a quick and convenient method?
I know it's a bit of a derail, but I'm genuinely interested.
Is the suicide rate higher, or the same? And if higher would it be because guns are a quick and convenient method?
I know it's a bit of a derail, but I'm genuinely interested.
sounds like an epidemic of auto-erotic asphyxia.Jaekus wrote:
I know in Australia the most common method is by hanging, as per some data presented during a suicide awareness training session I attended for my work a year or two ago.
and I'm only being half silly.
According to the all knowing wiki the U.S. has a lower suicide rate than 41 other states. Finland, Switzerland, and France, other gun heavy places, according to the picture, have high suicide rates. There are places with much stronger gun control laws that have higher suicide rates. I don't see any sort of trend.
the "children" stats can cover anyone up to the age of 18Reciprocity wrote:
I'd imagine most of those are teenage bangers defending their turf. someones gotta do it, according to them, at least.Jaekus wrote:
I think the "75 children are shot each day" is pretty disgusting tbh.
so the picture of a baby crawling next to that stat is a bit of BS
The picture is being disputed so I would not like to use that as some sort of evidence. I have heard that in Scandanavian countries there are higher depression rates. The long winters with little/no sun has been considered an important factor, and hence a higher suicide rate. But in any case, it seems the rate is comparitively low when it has a lower rate than 40 other countries.Macbeth wrote:
According to the all knowing wiki the U.S. has a lower suicide rate than 41 other states. Finland, Switzerland, and France, other gun heavy places, according to the picture, have high suicide rates. There are places with much stronger gun control laws that have higher suicide rates. I don't see any sort of trend.
http://www.who.int/mental_health/preven … index.html
If you want a non-wiki source on suicides per capita.
My problems with the "Teenagers that live in households that own a gun are twice as likely to commit suicide."
1) About 40% of homes contain guns in the U.S.
2) How did they figure that guns in the home equate to teens twice as likely to commit suicide? Did they check every single home of a suicide for guns? No... More likely, they just used the number of suicides that WERE gunshots. So that doesn't mean the teens wouldn't have killed themselves another way.
3) They probably didn't include ATTEMPTED suicides in this category... The number of failed attempts by other methods (such as pills) is insane:
5) Any self inflicted gunshots in suicide attempts that FAILED were still probably used in the stat about 75 children being shot each day, 6 children being permanently injured.
6) Any successful suicides were probably still included in the 9 children are shot and killed each day.
7) This is what I meant with my screwdriver analogy earlier... You can twist a stat around enough to make it "true" but still not make it represent the "truth."
If you want a non-wiki source on suicides per capita.
My problems with the "Teenagers that live in households that own a gun are twice as likely to commit suicide."
1) About 40% of homes contain guns in the U.S.
2) How did they figure that guns in the home equate to teens twice as likely to commit suicide? Did they check every single home of a suicide for guns? No... More likely, they just used the number of suicides that WERE gunshots. So that doesn't mean the teens wouldn't have killed themselves another way.
3) They probably didn't include ATTEMPTED suicides in this category... The number of failed attempts by other methods (such as pills) is insane:
So the guns probably just have a higher success rate.http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention/index.shtml wrote:
An estimated 11 attempted suicides occur per every suicide death.
5) Any self inflicted gunshots in suicide attempts that FAILED were still probably used in the stat about 75 children being shot each day, 6 children being permanently injured.
6) Any successful suicides were probably still included in the 9 children are shot and killed each day.
7) This is what I meant with my screwdriver analogy earlier... You can twist a stat around enough to make it "true" but still not make it represent the "truth."
Pills have a much lower statistic for suicide completion due to the fact that it is actually pretty hard nowadays to die from ingesting large quantities of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals. The biggest risk is liver damage, not death.
Exactly. Point being: Available gun doesn't mean your kid is more likely to TRY suicide... Just might mean more kids SUCCEED at it on the first try.
Yeah, definitely.
I thought there perhaps may be a correlation between a higher suicide rate with guns being so accessible, with the idea that suicide can often be a spur-of-the-moment thing, but perhaps that thinking is incorrect and most suicides are indeed planned, as per my training on the subject suggests.
I thought there perhaps may be a correlation between a higher suicide rate with guns being so accessible, with the idea that suicide can often be a spur-of-the-moment thing, but perhaps that thinking is incorrect and most suicides are indeed planned, as per my training on the subject suggests.