flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 3, 2016 1:16:07 GMT
Feeling safe doesn't make it true. I can feel like I don't smell when I haven't showered in a week. Doesn't make it true. I still maintain that having a gun on you does NOT automatically make you safer. I'm not looking to take away anyone's rights to legally and responsibly own a gun, but I have a huge problem with this law. I don't believe it will survive legal challenges. You know, I just had a light-bulb moment here.
A person having a gun on them may make THEMSELVES safer (or feel that they are), but it could also make those AROUND them less safe (or feel that way).
I've been thinking of this from the point of view of the unarmed bystander (which is what I would be), as opposed to the carrying individual.
(getting personal here) I will readily admit that I feel less safe since our state went to conceal carry and then open carry, than I did when it was "official" (LE) carry only. This is also based on past situation in my personal life. What happened in my family in NO WAY compares to the horrors of active combat - it's but a peanut crumb. BUT it was my experience and has helped shape my perception and opinion on the subject.
That doesn't stop me from being interested in hearing the other points of view on this thread. In fact, I purposefully didn't state my opinion because I didn't want to be on one side or the other. I'll probably regret saying this much.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 3, 2016 2:52:52 GMT
It's not clear at all. In fact, at least as far as me, you're dead wrong.
I am in favor of a business owner calling the shots in his establishment; whether that be a prohibition of guns, a refusal to hand out birth control pills or a refusal to make a cake for a gay couple.
I am firmly in favor of a business owner's right to run his business as he sees fit.
So therefore, I am opposed to this law. Now, it should be "clear" to you.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 3, 2016 3:22:46 GMT
Just a thought. If the establishment has to put a sign up stating that no weapons are allowed, wouldn't that be the place someone with a grudge or whatever might go to shoot someone? To me, you are putting the establishment more at risk by doing this. That doesn't seem right. Just to clarify: nobody is obligated to put up a no-guns sign, even if they want no guns. They could verbally announce it to every customer as she enters...they could be gun-free only on Tuesdays...whatever. The signs are attached to a specific law/ordinance. For example, in Tennessee there is a law that businesses can display a sign and those who violate the sign can be fined $500. I live in a hippie-dippie town where it's highly unusual for a business NOT to display a no-guns sign. I don't know anybody around here who believes that makes us more at risk for a mass shooting. But I have read that (general) sentiment on this forum more than once. [Interestingly, for a lot of reasons, members of the Illinois Rifle Association (bankrolled by the NRA) LOOOOOVE to come to our town and make a ruckus about our anti-gun bent at our municipal meetings. So our preponderance of no-gun signs puts us more at risk - but for carpetbagger shenanigans...]
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Jul 3, 2016 3:53:04 GMT
Just a thought. If the establishment has to put a sign up stating that no weapons are allowed, wouldn't that be the place someone with a grudge or whatever might go to shoot someone? To me, you are putting the establishment more at risk by doing this. That doesn't seem right. Just to clarify: nobody is obligated to put up a no-guns sign, even if they want no guns. They could verbally announce it to every customer as she enters...they could be gun-free only on Tuesdays...whatever. The signs are attached to a specific law/ordinance. For example, in Tennessee there is a law that businesses can display a sign and those who violate the sign can be fined $500. I live in a hippie-dippie town where it's highly unusual for a business NOT to display a no-guns sign. I don't know anybody around here who believes that makes us more at risk for a mass shooting. But I have read that (general) sentiment on this forum more than once. [Interestingly, for a lot of reasons, members of the Illinois Rifle Association (bankrolled by the NRA) LOOOOOVE to come to our town and make a ruckus about our anti-gun bent at our municipal meetings. So our preponderance of no-gun signs puts us more at risk - but for carpetbagger shenanigans...] Thanks for clarifying that. Our town is such a huge mix of religious (Focus on the Family) 5 military bases (close or in town) AND we live right next to a very hippie-dippie town. Add to that legalized pot and you have a crap shoot of cultures. That part that scares me about guns is the ease that kids had getting the weapons for Columbine to the theater shooting to the Planned Parenthood crazy. These are all major shootings in or near my town. I still don't live in fear though.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 3:45:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2016 3:57:48 GMT
Not having a gun does not equal defenseless. Those with military experience have had self-defense training that does not include using firearms - it is called hand-to-hand combat. For me, it is a false argument to say the only way to defend oneself is with a gun. For me, it is also a false argument to say more guns in more hands in more settings makes us all safer. For me, more guns in the hands of more people with little training and or experience makes me feel less safe. Your mileage may vary, this is my reality. It's actually not really up for debate. We as a society are demonstrably not safer with more guns. Our murder rate is many times higher than other, similar countries. Individuals who choose to own guns are many times more likely to be killed by their gun or have a family member killed by it than to successfully defend themselves from a criminal with it. I don't mean this to be derogatory, but anyone who thinks their gun actually makes them safer is either not aware of the statistical realities or is willfully choosing to ignore them. I think many people think that they are the exception, but personally, I can't imagine taking that kind of risk. I respectfully disagree. I wonder where you're getting your statistics from, because it IS highly and correctly debated. Both sides are very sure of their facts and statistics. Can they both be right or is one side wrong and one right? And if that's the case, which is which? In other words, your declaration that it's not up for debate is not quite right. (said in the interest of maintaining civil debate)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 3:45:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2016 3:58:09 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 3:45:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2016 4:02:08 GMT
They are, they just go for the most LIKELY soft target. You know, I haven't read anything to suggest that the majority of shooters (mass or otherwise) consider whether or not an area is gun-free as their first priority. The majority of mass shootings take place where the shooter has personal ties - the fact that it may be a gun-free zone seems incidental. Here's an alternate analysis of the oft-cited information that the majority of mass shootings take place in gun-free zones: Politifact rates it half-true. (also said in the interest of maintaining civil debate) I agree with you, that we don't have any real proof that the majority of mass shooters pick a soft target, but common sense will tell you that someone who wants to inflict the most terror and kill massively, is going to pick a place that will allow them the most time and possibility of achieving their goal, before being stopped. We do have these examples to look at... "Elliot Rodger, who shot to death three people in Santa Barbara, explained why he picked his target. In his 141-page “manifesto,” he said he chose to skip one location for the shooting because he worried someone with a gun, specifically armed police, would stop him before he could kill enough people.James Holmes, the movie theater killer, decided not to attack an airport because of what he described in his diary as its ‘substantial security.’ Out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect’s apartment, only one theater banned permitted concealed handguns. That’s the one he attacked. " The Politifact article you linked cites Mother Jones, which has often been debunked, not to mention, Politifact itself has also been found to twist and just plain leave out pertinent information to reach their conclusions.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 3:45:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2016 4:10:23 GMT
To quote LeftTurnOnly from an old thread, she very wisely said "The very real threat of a firearm being used in defense is a very strong deterrent."
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 3, 2016 4:58:12 GMT
Well, this is confusing, because if you look up the actual language of 30.06 and 30.07 in the Teaxas penal law, it says the gun license holder (concealed or open) must be informed "by oral or written communication." Link hereAnother website I found that summarizes the law (similar to your site) says the communication can be oral or in writing, but that "writing is recommended." But again, that's not in the statute, so what explains the discrepancy? And who's doing the recommending, if not the law writers? But I was definitely wrong about my own state, Illinois. Turns out the notice has to be in writing. My bad. ETA for my second paragraph: Figured it out. The site SELLS the signs, so that probably explains why they're recommending them...
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jul 3, 2016 8:12:42 GMT
It's actually not really up for debate. We as a society are demonstrably not safer with more guns. Our murder rate is many times higher than other, similar countries. Individuals who choose to own guns are many times more likely to be killed by their gun or have a family member killed by it than to successfully defend themselves from a criminal with it. I don't mean this to be derogatory, but anyone who thinks their gun actually makes them safer is either not aware of the statistical realities or is willfully choosing to ignore them. I think many people think that they are the exception, but personally, I can't imagine taking that kind of risk. I respectfully disagree. I wonder where you're getting your statistics from, because it IS highly and correctly debated. Both sides are very sure of their facts and statistics. Can they both be right or is one side wrong and one right? And if that's the case, which is which? In other words, your declaration that it's not up for debate is not quite right. (said in the interest of maintaining civil debate) In simplistic terms, the USA has vast numbers of guns per capita and the most mass shooting compared to any other first world country who have far fewer guns and virtually no mass shootings.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 3, 2016 12:46:32 GMT
It's actually not really up for debate. We as a society are demonstrably not safer with more guns. Our murder rate is many times higher than other, similar countries. Individuals who choose to own guns are many times more likely to be killed by their gun or have a family member killed by it than to successfully defend themselves from a criminal with it. I don't mean this to be derogatory, but anyone who thinks their gun actually makes them safer is either not aware of the statistical realities or is willfully choosing to ignore them. I think many people think that they are the exception, but personally, I can't imagine taking that kind of risk. I respectfully disagree. I wonder where you're getting your statistics from, because it IS highly and correctly debated. Both sides are very sure of their facts and statistics. Can they both be right or is one side wrong and one right? And if that's the case, which is which? In other words, your declaration that it's not up for debate is not quite right. (said in the interest of maintaining civil debate) Gia, we've been through this many times. I get my information on our murder rate (not just shooting rate) from the UNDOC and compare us to other countries with similar political and economic situations, like England, France, Canada and Australia, because unrest and instability have been shown to drastically increase crime, so comparing us to places like Mexico and Brazil is not valid. Numerous academic studies from places like the NEJM have shown that you are anywhere from 5 to 7 times more likely to be injured or killed by a gun if you own one compared to someone who does not own one, and from the NCBI show that you are many times more likely to be shot by your own gun, or have a family member shot by it, than to use it in self defense . I'm not going to go find all the links for you again - you've been shown the information and simply prefer to believe something else, which is your right. To be honest, I am very suspect of any "facts and statistics" put out by the pro-gun lobby because they have something to sell. The NRA and its legislative action arm receives billions from the gun industry, which is obviously in the business of selling guns. Health organizations and crime statistics organizations have nothing to gain by twisting numbers - except perhaps saving some lives. That's how I choose who to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 3, 2016 12:53:11 GMT
You know, I haven't read anything to suggest that the majority of shooters (mass or otherwise) consider whether or not an area is gun-free as their first priority. The majority of mass shootings take place where the shooter has personal ties - the fact that it may be a gun-free zone seems incidental. Here's an alternate analysis of the oft-cited information that the majority of mass shootings take place in gun-free zones: Politifact rates it half-true. (also said in the interest of maintaining civil debate) I agree with you, that we don't have any real proof that the majority of mass shooters pick a soft target, but common sense will tell you that someone who wants to inflict the most terror and kill massively, is going to pick a place that will allow them the most time and possibility of achieving their goal, before being stopped. We do have these examples to look at... "Elliot Rodger, who shot to death three people in Santa Barbara, explained why he picked his target. In his 141-page “manifesto,” he said he chose to skip one location for the shooting because he worried someone with a gun, specifically armed police, would stop him before he could kill enough people.James Holmes, the movie theater killer, decided not to attack an airport because of what he described in his diary as its ‘substantial security.’ Out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect’s apartment, only one theater banned permitted concealed handguns. That’s the one he attacked. " The Politifact article you linked cites Mother Jones, which has often been debunked, not to mention, Politifact itself has also been found to twist and just plain leave out pertinent information to reach their conclusions. If you read the article again, you'll notice that it cites Mother Jones only as an example of there being a contradictory viewpoint. I agree that it's not an unbiased source of information. The rest of the article delves into the methodology of Lott's claims and mines some FBI data, and concludes that Lott himself is the one who did the twisting by re-defining what a "mass shooting" is to suit his purposes. Again I ask you - who has something to gain here by twisting numbers? It's probably not Politifact. If you want to talk common sense, let's remember that our murder rate is still demonstrably, according to unbiased sources, many times higher than those of other, similar countries, and yet our civilian population is one of the most highly armed in the world. If your hypothesis that guns=safety were true, wouldn't we have many fewer murders than other, similar countries?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 3:45:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2016 13:21:09 GMT
Well, this is confusing, because if you look up the actual language of 30.06 and 30.07 in the Teaxas penal law, it says the gun license holder (concealed or open) must be informed "by oral or written communication." Link hereAnother website I found that summarizes the law (similar to your site) says the communication can be oral or in writing, but that "writing is recommended." But again, that's not in the statute, so what explains the discrepancy? And who's doing the recommending, if not the law writers? But I was definitely wrong about my own state, Illinois. Turns out the notice has to be in writing. My bad. ETA for my second paragraph: Figured it out. The site SELLS the signs, so that probably explains why they're recommending them... The requirement for signs was also mentioned in the conceal carry class that my husband took. Realistically who is going to have someone stand at the door and tell every patron the rules?
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 3, 2016 15:22:24 GMT
It's not clear at all. In fact, at least as far as me, you're dead wrong. I am in favor of a business owner calling the shots in his establishment; whether that be a prohibition of guns, a refusal to hand out birth control pills or a refusal to make a cake for a gay couple. I am firmly in favor of a business owner's right to run his business as he sees fit. So therefore, I am opposed to this law. Now, it should be "clear" to you. My apologies, Lauren, I misunderstood and mischaracterized your stance. I'm sorry. So, it appears that only Rainbow favors this law on this thread. Which is fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 3, 2016 17:46:13 GMT
I know a lot of people feel safer when there's a sign saying that "this place is a gun-free zone," but part of me always flinches when I read one. Between the "you can't tell me what to do(ers)," the "I take that as a personal challenge(ers)," and the "there's no one to stop me(ers)" it feels like you're jinxing yourself by putting up a sign. It's not clear at all. In fact, at least as far as me, you're dead wrong. I am in favor of a business owner calling the shots in his establishment; whether that be a prohibition of guns, a refusal to hand out birth control pills or a refusal to make a cake for a gay couple. I am firmly in favor of a business owner's right to run his business as he sees fit. So therefore, I am opposed to this law. Now, it should be "clear" to you. My apologies, Lauren, I misunderstood and mischaracterized your stance. I'm sorry. So, it appears that only Rainbow favors this law on this thread. Which is fascinating. It's a bad law. The intention is to have fewer gun free zones but the language is too obfuscated to say so directly. Too much responsibility is being put on reasonable small businesses and the additional costs - just on insurance alone - will put many of them out of business through no fault of their own. To be honest, I am very suspect of any "facts and statistics" put out by the pro-gun lobby because they have something to sell. This is always running in the background. Gun manufacturers are just like people who make anything else. They have a product that they want to sell well so they can earn money. Many of these guns are beautifully crafted. It's a fine skill, and they create products that they are proud of.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 3, 2016 17:52:27 GMT
I know a lot of people feel safer when there's a sign saying that "this place is a gun-free zone," but part of me always flinches when I read one. Between the "you can't tell me what to do(ers)," the "I take that as a personal challenge(ers)," and the "there's no one to stop me(ers)" it feels like you're jinxing yourself by putting up a sign. My apologies, Lauren, I misunderstood and mischaracterized your stance. I'm sorry. So, it appears that only Rainbow favors this law on this thread. Which is fascinating. It's a bad law. The intention is to have fewer gun free zones but the language is too obfuscated to say so directly. Too much responsibility is being put on reasonable small businesses and the additional costs - just on insurance alone - will put many of them out of business through no fault of their own. To be honest, I am very suspect of any "facts and statistics" put out by the pro-gun lobby because they have something to sell. This is always running in the background. Gun manufacturers are just like people who make anything else. They have a product that they want to sell well so they can earn money. Many of these guns are beautifully crafted. It's a fine skill, and they create products that they are proud of. This is an awesome word and is now included in my vocabulary.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 3, 2016 18:00:35 GMT
The requirement for signs was also mentioned in the conceal carry class that my husband took. Realistically who is going to have someone stand at the door and tell every patron the rules? Well, it would give the greeter at WalMart something to do. Heh. But seriously, the Texas law provides an option to post a sign, hand out a printed card, or inform people verbally. Odd that there's misinformation out there, including from somebody teaching the concealed carry class. This is purely speculation, but I wonder if the two non-sign options might have been written because of what has been mentioned in this thread - the idea that a posted sign is tantamount to a welcome sign for a gunman.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 3:45:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2016 21:38:38 GMT
I respectfully disagree. I wonder where you're getting your statistics from, because it IS highly and correctly debated. Both sides are very sure of their facts and statistics. Can they both be right or is one side wrong and one right? And if that's the case, which is which? In other words, your declaration that it's not up for debate is not quite right. (said in the interest of maintaining civil debate) Gia, we've been through this many times. I get my information on our murder rate (not just shooting rate) from the UNDOC and compare us to other countries with similar political and economic situations, like England, France, Canada and Australia, because unrest and instability have been shown to drastically increase crime, so comparing us to places like Mexico and Brazil is not valid. Numerous academic studies from places like the NEJM have shown that you are anywhere from 5 to 7 times more likely to be injured or killed by a gun if you own one compared to someone who does not own one, and from the NCBI show that you are many times more likely to be shot by your own gun, or have a family member shot by it, than to use it in self defense . I'm not going to go find all the links for you again - you've been shown the information and simply prefer to believe something else, which is your right. To be honest, I am very suspect of any "facts and statistics" put out by the pro-gun lobby because they have something to sell. The NRA and its legislative action arm receives billions from the gun industry, which is obviously in the business of selling guns. Health organizations and crime statistics organizations have nothing to gain by twisting numbers - except perhaps saving some lives. That's how I choose who to believe. Referring to your other post... As far as Politifact not having something to gain by twisting the truth, apparently they must, because they have been caught doing it so often. The idea that people who don’t own a gun can’t kill themselves with a gun seems like a pretty common sense thing to me, but apparently some believe that this proves guns are not worth having to defend yourself. The question to ask: does the accidental death rate increase in households with firearms? That would be newsworthy and an actually effective argument if it were true. But it isn’t. Firearms-related accidental deaths are so STATISTICALLY insignificant that even if we were to outlaw all firearms and confiscate every single one, we wouldn’t notice a difference. (that's not to say ANY death is insignificant - statistically speaking only) The underlying concept is that more guns equal more accidental deaths. Gun ownership has been rising for decades and there’s been a spike in gun sales since 2008, so there should be more firearms related fatalities, right? At least, that would be the case if that hypothesis were correct. But… Accidental gun deaths are on the decline. Even with a boom in firearms sales, there are fewer and fewer firearms related accidental deaths. Therefore, having a gun in the house does not necessarily put you at a greater risk for killing yourself. As for the statement that defensive gun uses are outweighed by murders and other crimes involving guns, even the Violence Policy Center puts the number of defensive gun uses in the United States at over 50,000 per year. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 3, 2016 22:06:09 GMT
Gia, we've been through this many times. I get my information on our murder rate (not just shooting rate) from the UNDOC and compare us to other countries with similar political and economic situations, like England, France, Canada and Australia, because unrest and instability have been shown to drastically increase crime, so comparing us to places like Mexico and Brazil is not valid. Numerous academic studies from places like the NEJM have shown that you are anywhere from 5 to 7 times more likely to be injured or killed by a gun if you own one compared to someone who does not own one, and from the NCBI show that you are many times more likely to be shot by your own gun, or have a family member shot by it, than to use it in self defense . I'm not going to go find all the links for you again - you've been shown the information and simply prefer to believe something else, which is your right. To be honest, I am very suspect of any "facts and statistics" put out by the pro-gun lobby because they have something to sell. The NRA and its legislative action arm receives billions from the gun industry, which is obviously in the business of selling guns. Health organizations and crime statistics organizations have nothing to gain by twisting numbers - except perhaps saving some lives. That's how I choose who to believe. Referring to your other post... As far as Politifact not having something to gain by twisting the truth, apparently they must, because they have been caught doing it so often. The idea that people who don’t own a gun can’t kill themselves with a gun seems like a pretty common sense thing to me, but apparently some believe that this proves guns are not worth having to defend yourself. The question to ask: does the accidental death rate increase in households with firearms? That would be newsworthy and an actually effective argument if it were true. But it isn’t. Firearms-related accidental deaths are so STATISTICALLY insignificant that even if we were to outlaw all firearms and confiscate every single one, we wouldn’t notice a difference. (that's not to say ANY death is insignificant - statistically speaking only) The underlying concept is that more guns equal more accidental deaths. Gun ownership has been rising for decades and there’s been a spike in gun sales since 2008, so there should be more firearms related fatalities, right? At least, that would be the case if that hypothesis were correct. But… Accidental gun deaths are on the decline. Even with a boom in firearms sales, there are fewer and fewer firearms related accidental deaths. Therefore, having a gun in the house does not necessarily put you at a greater risk for killing yourself. As for the statement that defensive gun uses are outweighed by murders and other crimes involving guns, even the Violence Policy Center puts the number of defensive gun uses in the United States at over 50,000 per year. So we'll have to agree to disagree. Those charts are incredibly skewed in terms of how they present the Y axis data. For example, if you plotted graph #2s data using the numbers on the Y-axis of chart number 1, it would look like a straight line with no noticeable decline. I use charts similar to those to show how you can bias how conclusions are drawn from stats in the stats courses I teach. In chart #1, the interval is unrealistically large - a 20,000 interval is so large that any cause of accidental death that is under 10,000 per year will look very small. Can you imagine the uproar if faulty tires caused 10,000 deaths per year? In chart #2, the lack of starting the Y-axis at zero makes it appear as though the number is approaching zero, when in fact it still is far from zero - much farther from zero than the distance between the highest and lowest point of the graph. So, really, graph number 1 says nothing worthwhile, especially since they didn't include other causes like car accidents for us to all see how tiny those bars would be on that Y-axis for perspective. For graph #2, if you take the lack of true zero and reimagine what the graph would look like with a true zero point and all the 50 point intervals in place, it doesn't make it seem as though gun deaths are decreasing all that much.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 3, 2016 22:17:59 GMT
Gia, we've been through this many times. I get my information on our murder rate (not just shooting rate) from the UNDOC and compare us to other countries with similar political and economic situations, like England, France, Canada and Australia, because unrest and instability have been shown to drastically increase crime, so comparing us to places like Mexico and Brazil is not valid. Numerous academic studies from places like the NEJM have shown that you are anywhere from 5 to 7 times more likely to be injured or killed by a gun if you own one compared to someone who does not own one, and from the NCBI show that you are many times more likely to be shot by your own gun, or have a family member shot by it, than to use it in self defense . I'm not going to go find all the links for you again - you've been shown the information and simply prefer to believe something else, which is your right. To be honest, I am very suspect of any "facts and statistics" put out by the pro-gun lobby because they have something to sell. The NRA and its legislative action arm receives billions from the gun industry, which is obviously in the business of selling guns. Health organizations and crime statistics organizations have nothing to gain by twisting numbers - except perhaps saving some lives. That's how I choose who to believe. Referring to your other post... As far as Politifact not having something to gain by twisting the truth, apparently they must, because they have been caught doing it so often. The idea that people who don’t own a gun can’t kill themselves with a gun seems like a pretty common sense thing to me, but apparently some believe that this proves guns are not worth having to defend yourself. The question to ask: does the accidental death rate increase in households with firearms? That would be newsworthy and an actually effective argument if it were true. But it isn’t. Firearms-related accidental deaths are so STATISTICALLY insignificant that even if we were to outlaw all firearms and confiscate every single one, we wouldn’t notice a difference. (that's not to say ANY death is insignificant - statistically speaking only) The underlying concept is that more guns equal more accidental deaths. Gun ownership has been rising for decades and there’s been a spike in gun sales since 2008, so there should be more firearms related fatalities, right? At least, that would be the case if that hypothesis were correct. But… Accidental gun deaths are on the decline. Even with a boom in firearms sales, there are fewer and fewer firearms related accidental deaths. Therefore, having a gun in the house does not necessarily put you at a greater risk for killing yourself. As for the statement that defensive gun uses are outweighed by murders and other crimes involving guns, even the Violence Policy Center puts the number of defensive gun uses in the United States at over 50,000 per year. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 3, 2016 23:08:43 GMT
Referring to your other post... As far as Politifact not having something to gain by twisting the truth, apparently they must, because they have been caught doing it so often. The idea that people who don’t own a gun can’t kill themselves with a gun seems like a pretty common sense thing to me, but apparently some believe that this proves guns are not worth having to defend yourself. The question to ask: does the accidental death rate increase in households with firearms? That would be newsworthy and an actually effective argument if it were true. But it isn’t. Firearms-related accidental deaths are so STATISTICALLY insignificant that even if we were to outlaw all firearms and confiscate every single one, we wouldn’t notice a difference. (that's not to say ANY death is insignificant - statistically speaking only) The underlying concept is that more guns equal more accidental deaths. Gun ownership has been rising for decades and there’s been a spike in gun sales since 2008, so there should be more firearms related fatalities, right? At least, that would be the case if that hypothesis were correct. But… Accidental gun deaths are on the decline. Even with a boom in firearms sales, there are fewer and fewer firearms related accidental deaths. Therefore, having a gun in the house does not necessarily put you at a greater risk for killing yourself. As for the statement that defensive gun uses are outweighed by murders and other crimes involving guns, even the Violence Policy Center puts the number of defensive gun uses in the United States at over 50,000 per year. So we'll have to agree to disagree. Those charts are incredibly skewed in terms of how they present the Y axis data. For example, if you plotted graph #2s data using the numbers on the Y-axis of chart number 1, it would look like a straight line with no noticeable decline. I use charts similar to those to show how you can bias how conclusions are drawn from stats in the stats courses I teach. In chart #1, the interval is unrealistically large - a 20,000 interval is so large that any cause of accidental death that is under 10,000 per year will look very small. Can you imagine the uproar if faulty tires caused 10,000 deaths per year? In chart #2, the lack of starting the Y-axis at zero makes it appear as though the number is approaching zero, when in fact it still is far from zero - much farther from zero than the distance between the highest and lowest point of the graph. So, really, graph number 1 says nothing worthwhile, especially since they didn't include other causes like car accidents for us to all see how tiny those bars would be on that Y-axis for perspective. For graph #2, if you take the lack of true zero and reimagine what the graph would look like with a true zero point and all the 50 point intervals in place, it doesn't make it seem as though gun deaths are decreasing all that much. Go Elaine!!
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 3, 2016 23:24:35 GMT
Those charts are incredibly skewed in terms of how they present the Y axis data. For example, if you plotted graph #2s data using the numbers on the Y-axis of chart number 1, it would look like a straight line with no noticeable decline. I use charts similar to those to show how you can bias how conclusions are drawn from stats in the stats courses I teach. In chart #1, the interval is unrealistically large - a 20,000 interval is so large that any cause of accidental death that is under 10,000 per year will look very small. Can you imagine the uproar if faulty tires caused 10,000 deaths per year? In chart #2, the lack of starting the Y-axis at zero makes it appear as though the number is approaching zero, when in fact it still is far from zero - much farther from zero than the distance between the highest and lowest point of the graph. So, really, graph number 1 says nothing worthwhile, especially since they didn't include other causes like car accidents for us to all see how tiny those bars would be on that Y-axis for perspective. For graph #2, if you take the lack of true zero and reimagine what the graph would look like with a true zero point and all the 50 point intervals in place, it doesn't make it seem as though gun deaths are decreasing all that much. Go Elaine!! I am all for using statistics, but to only present graphical representation, without the actual numbers in addition to the graphs, and to present the graphs in such a way as to skew how the data look, is the worst way to use stats and is why people who don't understand statistics don't trust them. I don't think Gia did this on purpose, but copied the graphs from sites with a vested interest in making it seem as if gun deaths are not a significant problem.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 3:45:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2016 2:10:00 GMT
Referring to your other post... As far as Politifact not having something to gain by twisting the truth, apparently they must, because they have been caught doing it so often. The idea that people who don’t own a gun can’t kill themselves with a gun seems like a pretty common sense thing to me, but apparently some believe that this proves guns are not worth having to defend yourself. The question to ask: does the accidental death rate increase in households with firearms? That would be newsworthy and an actually effective argument if it were true. But it isn’t. Firearms-related accidental deaths are so STATISTICALLY insignificant that even if we were to outlaw all firearms and confiscate every single one, we wouldn’t notice a difference. (that's not to say ANY death is insignificant - statistically speaking only) The underlying concept is that more guns equal more accidental deaths. Gun ownership has been rising for decades and there’s been a spike in gun sales since 2008, so there should be more firearms related fatalities, right? At least, that would be the case if that hypothesis were correct. But… Accidental gun deaths are on the decline. Even with a boom in firearms sales, there are fewer and fewer firearms related accidental deaths. Therefore, having a gun in the house does not necessarily put you at a greater risk for killing yourself. As for the statement that defensive gun uses are outweighed by murders and other crimes involving guns, even the Violence Policy Center puts the number of defensive gun uses in the United States at over 50,000 per year. So we'll have to agree to disagree. Those charts are incredibly skewed in terms of how they present the Y axis data. For example, if you plotted graph #2s data using the numbers on the Y-axis of chart number 1, it would look like a straight line with no noticeable decline. I use charts similar to those to show how you can bias how conclusions are drawn from stats in the stats courses I teach. In chart #1, the interval is unrealistically large - a 20,000 interval is so large that any cause of accidental death that is under 10,000 per year will look very small. Can you imagine the uproar if faulty tires caused 10,000 deaths per year? In chart #2, the lack of starting the Y-axis at zero makes it appear as though the number is approaching zero, when in fact it still is far from zero - much farther from zero than the distance between the highest and lowest point of the graph. So, really, graph number 1 says nothing worthwhile, especially since they didn't include other causes like car accidents for us to all see how tiny those bars would be on that Y-axis for perspective. For graph #2, if you take the lack of true zero and reimagine what the graph would look like with a true zero point and all the 50 point intervals in place, it doesn't make it seem as though gun deaths are decreasing all that much. Yes, and both sides do it. Which is why I said, it IS highly and correctly debated. Both sides are very sure of their facts and statistics. Can they both be right or is one side wrong and one right? And if that's the case, which is which? In other words, your declaration that it's not up for debate is not quite right. (said in the interest of maintaining civil debate) It wasn't trying to show each individual cause. It was comparing the one cause to all causes, so it didn't need to break down each cause. The fact that firearms sales have spiked and accidental gun deaths are down, however you want to determine where the graph should start and how down they are, still shows that the number of accidents has not kept up with the rise in gun sales. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 4, 2016 2:19:11 GMT
Those charts are incredibly skewed in terms of how they present the Y axis data. For example, if you plotted graph #2s data using the numbers on the Y-axis of chart number 1, it would look like a straight line with no noticeable decline. I use charts similar to those to show how you can bias how conclusions are drawn from stats in the stats courses I teach. In chart #1, the interval is unrealistically large - a 20,000 interval is so large that any cause of accidental death that is under 10,000 per year will look very small. Can you imagine the uproar if faulty tires caused 10,000 deaths per year? In chart #2, the lack of starting the Y-axis at zero makes it appear as though the number is approaching zero, when in fact it still is far from zero - much farther from zero than the distance between the highest and lowest point of the graph. So, really, graph number 1 says nothing worthwhile, especially since they didn't include other causes like car accidents for us to all see how tiny those bars would be on that Y-axis for perspective. For graph #2, if you take the lack of true zero and reimagine what the graph would look like with a true zero point and all the 50 point intervals in place, it doesn't make it seem as though gun deaths are decreasing all that much. Yes, and both sides do it. Which is why I said, it IS highly and correctly debated. Both sides are very sure of their facts and statistics. Can they both be right or is one side wrong and one right? And if that's the case, which is which? In other words, your declaration that it's not up for debate is not quite right. (said in the interest of maintaining civil debate) It wasn't trying to show each individual cause. It was comparing the one cause to all causes, so it didn't need to break down each cause. The fact that firearms sales have spiked and accidental gun deaths are down, however you want to determine where the graph should start and how down they are, still shows that the rise in accidents has not kept up with the rise in gun sales. So we'll have to agree to disagree.That's okay with me : those graphs are garbage. You didn't make them, so that part isn't on you, but the people who created them are the scum who cause people to not trust stats and graphs.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 3:45:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2016 2:22:28 GMT
Referring to your other post... As far as Politifact not having something to gain by twisting the truth, apparently they must, because they have been caught doing it so often. In their own transcripts of a video they provided, in an article about Hillary that someone recently linked, I, myself just recently found they left off at least one instance they were reporting on, in order to reach their desired finding of truthful or not. So, I checked on it and there's no shortage of problems people are finding with Politifact's determinations. Just a few statements pulled from Google. Bias? Duh. Politifact has been ripped apart online by all genres of politicians and citizens, including independents, conservatives and liberals. Back to you... Because when you said "Numerous academic studies from places like the NEJM have shown that you are anywhere from 5 to 7 times more likely to be injured or killed by a gun if you own one compared to someone who does not own one, and from the NCBI show that you are many times more likely to be shot by your own gun, or have a family member shot by it, than to use it in self defense." I thought you were talking about accidental deaths. I never said the rise in firearm sales led to lower incidences of fatalities. What I said was, despite a rise in gun sales, there isn't a rise in accidental shootings. 2 totally different things. The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" CountriesSelf Protective Behavior - Threatened or attacked with a firearm - 235,700 times in a 4 year period.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 4, 2016 2:26:34 GMT
VPC on gun violence: "In 2013, the FBI reports there were only 211 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were 7,838 criminal gun homicides. Guns were used in 37 criminal homicides for every justifiable homicide. Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in less than 1 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2012 and 2014. Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.2 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2012 and 2014. When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense." Your conclusion that firearms are rarely used in self defense seems dependent on firearms that have been used and reported to the FBI. There must be a lot not reported to the FBI. I venture to say that the number of times a homeowner pulled a weapon on someone attempting a criminal act who never fired, wounded, or killed during the act is not taken into account at all. Therefore, the statement that firearms are relatively rarely used in self-defense is FAR, FAR, FAR more misleading than the chart 2 data that Elaine analyzed. At least the chart does show the decline in deaths that was stated, even if the interpretation of the significance of the data is circumspect.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 4, 2016 2:30:46 GMT
someone recently made a compelling case that media fact checks are really an excuse to make blatant opining appear credible by gussying it up as psuedo-scientific empiricism.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 4, 2016 2:38:04 GMT
The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries I have never, in all the years I've been with you guys, seen the question asked of why we are not compared to Mexico and other countries that are left off the list of whom we may be compared to. Finally. I realize what's been niggling at the back of my thoughts whenever these comparisons have been made - and comparisons have been made aplenty! Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 4, 2016 2:45:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 4, 2016 2:58:24 GMT
|
|