Gun Control (v.2)

Well said URUK-HAI and ENDER_SAI. If this was a boxing match at the Olympics, you guys would get GOLD.

And to you Special_Fred and Mr 44.....
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Boring.

Isn't it time you went to bed? It's rather late now and you must get up early for school tomorrow. There is still a lot for you to learn.

 

I would consider Mr44 to be one of the most fair, open minded and intelligent people in this particular forum. As such, I'd appreciate it if you didn't make personal attacks against him, because I have this nascent loyalty streak I just can't shake...

E_S

 

Oh, forgive me. It was not meant to be personal in anyway. But did you forget Special_Fred out on purpose?

The debate is healthy, don't get me wrong, and I am enjoying the topic.

Do continue. Afterall, it is me who needs to learn.

 

You've never left the US have you Fred?

I've been to Canada and Mexico a couple of times, but I've never been to Australia, if that's what you're asking.

Let us assume for a second that our knee-jerk guns laws had never been born into existence. Those gangs would still do what they do, and next to nobody would own guns for defence.

You're telling me that everyone in your country would refuse a self-defense tool as effective as a handgun, even when presented with a clear threat to their well-being (such as a gang)??? This is truly sad.

They would still, by and large, find your gun obsession sad.

What exactly makes one "obsessed" with guns? Is there a specific number of guns one must own to be considered "obsessed"?

People, even those who've never shot one and only seen Bowling for Columbine think you're from a nation of gun freaks.

Well, of course...I know of no one who has shot a gun and still hated them afterwards. And naturally, using Bowling for Columbine as a source of information for any anti-gun argument is a ridiculous idea at best.

There is still a lot for you to learn.

Like what, exactly? Do you have the intelligence to assemble a coherent argument, or are you going to pull an Uruk-hai and resort to petty insults like "Yeah, you need guns for protection from King George! Yuk, yuk!"

 

LOL. Show me where I said that.

You really have no answers do you? Here's an idea, instead of trying to insult me by imagining things I said, why don't you rebuff the argument that a gun in the home is a bad idea because it is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than an intruder, Mr I Need A Gun For Self Defence?

 

You're telling me that everyone in your country would refuse a self-defense tool as effective as a handgun, even when presented with a clear threat to their well-being (such as a gang)??? This is truly sad.

Yeah, this is everywhere. Everywhere but the United States, and again, your failure to export this aspect of your culture (when, say, music, dress styles and Coke have taken off) has shown that the majority of people in the developed first world categorically reject the idea of Americanised firearms.

Simply put, you're only a small segment of the world's population and an overwhelming majority of the planet disagrees with you; you need to accept that.

E_S

 

LOL. Show me where I said that.

From page 81: "Well, it's because of the French, the King of England and those damn commies."

Hmm....

...why don't you rebuff the argument that a gun in the home is a bad idea because it is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than an intruder, Mr I Need A Gun For Self Defence?

You asked for it.

EVALUATING THE "43 TIMES" FALLACY

by David K. Felbeck
Director, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners
August 10, 2000

Those who oppose the use of firearms for self-defense have for fourteen years quoted a study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay published in the June 12, 1986 issue of New England Journal of Medicine (v. 314, n. 24, p. 1557-60) which concluded that a firearm in the home is "43 times more likely" to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder. This "statistic" is used regularly by anti self-protection groups which surely know better, and was even published recently without question in a letter to the Ann Arbor News. Representative Liz Brater cited this "43 times" number in a House committee hearing just a year ago. Thus the original study and its conclusion deserve careful analysis. If nothing else, the repeated use of this "statistic" demonstrates how a grossly inaccurate statement can become a "truth" with sufficient repetition by the compliant and non-critical media.

The "43 times" claim was based upon a small-scale study of firearms deaths in King County, Washington (Seattle and Bellevue) covering the period 1978-83. The authors state,

"Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified?A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known."

Having said this, these authors proceed anyway to exclude those same instances where a potential criminal was not killed but was thwarted.

How many successful self-defense events do not result in death of the criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of successful defensive uses of firearms against criminal attack concluded that the criminal is killed in only one case in approximately every one thousand attacks. If this same ratio is applied to defensive uses in the home, then Kellermann's "43 times" is off by a factor of a thousand and should be at least as small as 0.043, not 43. Any evaluation of the effectiveness of firearms as defense against criminal assault should incorporate every event where a crime is either thwarted or mitigated; thus Kellermann's conclusion omits 999 non-lethal favorable outcomes from criminal attack and counts only the one event in which the criminal is killed. With woeful disregard for this vital point, recognized by these authors but then ignored, they conclude,

"The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned."

In making this statement the authors have demonstrated an inexcusable non-scientific bias against the effectiveness of firearms ownership for self defense. This is junk science at its worst.

This vital flaw in Kellermann and Reay's paper was demonstrated clearly just six months later, on Dec. 4, 1986 by David Stolinsky and G. Tim Hagen in the same journal (v. 315 n. 23, p. 1483-84), yet these letters have been ignored for fourteen years in favor of the grossly exaggerated figure of the original article. The continual use of the "43 times" figure by groups opposed to the defensive use of firearms suggests the appalling weakness of their argument.

But there's more. Included in the "43 times" of Kellermann are 37 suicides, some 86 percent of the alleged total, which have nothing to do with either crime or defensive uses of firearms. Even Kellermann and Reay say clearly

"?[that] the precise nature o

 

From the "Director, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners".

Hardly an unbiased source. Have you got an unbiased source? If someone posted an anti-Gun statement from the "Society for Gun Control", you'd scream bloody murder. If we're going to debate something, can we at least pretend to be intelligent about it?

E_S

 

Have you got an unbiased source?

Have you? You trust a study from the New England Journal of Medicine which concludes that a firearm is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal, and then you reject a perfectly logical analysis proving said study to be FALSE simply because said analysis was conducted by a (gasp!) responsible gun owner. The horror!

EDIT in response to yours:

If someone posted an anti-Gun statement from the "Society for Gun Control", you'd scream bloody murder.

If I could find a logical argument proving that anti-gun statement wrong, yes.

If we're going to debate something, can we at least pretend to be intelligent about it?

You heard him, Uruk...

 

Yeah, cause I actually used that study. No, wait, no I didn't!

Is it just me, or is this thread just going in circles? I don't think it'd be too far off to suggest that we could just copy and paste arguements from 20 pages back; and even we would have trouble spotting the difference. There's no room for compromise for some here; Mr44 and I achieved the closest that this thread will come by acknowleging the various cultural perception differences with firearms. It just ends up being the same thing repeated over and over and over and over again.

E_S

EDIT:
"You heard him, Uruk... "

Ah. How very child-like a response. Cute.

I was talking as much to you in that Fred, so don't be like that kid in class who looks around him when the teacher points to him. You are just as much an impediment to this discussion, by way of Churchill; "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject," as anyone else.

 

There's no room for compromise for some here...

When it comes to gun rights? Ha! Most definitely not.

It just ends up being the same thing repeated over and over and over and over again.

You're absolutely right. We need Gun Control (v.3)...perhaps it will bring a few 'lurkers' out of the shadows.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject,"

More like won't change his mind and can't change the subject. If I wanted to change the subject, I'd post in another thread.

 

Why would Gun Control v.3 be *any* different?

This discussion is expired.

There is nothing that can be achieved by it, save for giving you an excuse to post articles every so often and for most of us to say stuff we already said in this thread.

E_S

 

Well, that's interesting. That's an interesting use of mathematics and assumption to jumble and cloud the issue. He hasn't said that of the number of deaths recorded in the survey that the number of 43 times is incorrect. He's thrown in a whole bunch of other stats and assumptions to try and reduce the number.

Look at the deaths, look at the figures. It's 43 times higher in households with guns. No argument. Throwing in rubbish figures about intruders who got away, didn't get killed, or - how scientific is this - were deterred from intruding (how do you measure that????) doesn't change the real figures of the deaths. You can't extrapolate figures and say they are fact in this type of survey. Are households without guns 167 times more likely to have an intruder? I don't think so.

 

Oh, but I miss Krash...



Emoticons are fun...

He hasn't said that of the number of deaths recorded in the survey that the number of 43 times is incorrect. He's thrown in a whole bunch of other stats and assumptions to try and reduce the number.

Suicides comprise 86% of the deaths in this study. If you had a gun sitting next to your monitor right now, would you suddenly feel compelled to pick it up and shoot yourself with it? No? Then is it fair to include suicides in that number?

Look at the deaths, look at the figures. It's 43 times higher in households with guns. No argument.

Can you read? Read the paragraph about "reverse causation". Note: I said read, not skim. Read every word, and show me where the author is committing some logical fallacy.

 

Look at the deaths, look at the figures. It's 43 times higher in households with guns. No argument. Throwing in rubbish figures about intruders who got away, didn't get killed, or - how scientific is this - were deterred from intruding (how do you measure that????) doesn't change the real figures of the deaths. You can't extrapolate figures and say they are fact in this type of survey. Are households without guns 167 times more likely to have an intruder? I don't think so.

At the same time, it is a valid point to specify that a statistic does not give the complete picture.

For example, if a gun were 43 times as likely to kill someone in your house than out of it, but 100 times more likely to wound the intruder than a family member (with the woundings being an order of magnitude or two more common than the killings), then the killings statistic is meaningless and distorted in the big picture.

Also, the point about suicides is a valid one. Both my uncle and my grandfather committed suicide, and neither of them used a gun, because none were available. THey used what was available to them (one used medications and a bag over his face, the other hung himself). A person who is suicidal will find a way, so including suicides does distort the risks by including those who are mentally unstable.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Yes, Fred. I read the baloney about reverse causation. You know what it is? It's all assumption and supposition. What does he want the researchers to do? Take out drug dealers, those with bad debts, those who have had an argument down the pub, etc etc etc and just leave Mike Brady in the survey? That's hardly an accurate measure is it? He's doing what most gun advocates here have done, and that's relied on supposition to argue their point.

Kimball, I believe that suicides are relevant in this instance. The study doesn't say that the suicide was done by the gun owner, but that it was done by a member of the houshold where the gun was available. That is relevant in this argument.

In any case, those households with guns are 5 times more likely to have someone commit suicide.

Oh, and Fred, getting personal and attempting to insult me simply makes me laugh at you. You don't have much if you can't be impersonal in your arguments.

 

Take out drug dealers...

Yes.

...those with bad debts, those who have had an argument down the pub, etc etc etc and just leave Mike Brady in the survey?

No. That isn't David Felbeck's argument, nor is it mine. Stop exaggerating.

The study doesn't say that the suicide was done by the gun owner, but that it was done by a member of the houshold where the gun was available. That is relevant in this argument.

No, it isn't. Just because someone commits suicide with a gun doesn't mean they committed suicide because of that gun. If the gun was removed, they still would have committed suicide.

In any case, those households with guns are 5 times more likely to have someone commit suicide.

Come on...would you read Guns and Ammo to learn more about heart surgery? Than why would you read the New England Journal of Medicine for "expert advice" about guns??? These studies are inaccurate and deliberately misleading. Stop the propaganda.

You don't have much if you can't be impersonal in your arguments.

This from Mr. "I couldn't be arsed arguing with an idiot"?

EDIT: So many edits, so little time, eh?

 

Stop the propaganda? I'm not the one posting quotes from gunnutsgalore.com. Tell me that they aren't peddling propaganda and I'll stop quoting from reputable scientific journals.

About the suicides, you don't know if they would have committed suicide with the gun or without. You can't possibly say that.

About the reverse causation mumbo jumbo, I'm not exaggerating. He is saying that they shouldn't include anyone who feels the need to have a gun because they may be at some sort of perceived risk. He said it, not me.

Fred. Read your post above that comment. Weren't you saying "Baaaa Baaaaa" to me? Hmmm. Seems fairly idiotic to me.

 

About the suicides, you don't know if they would have committed suicide with the gun or without. You can't possibly say that.

Uruk, this is a rather interesting statement..

Setting aside the actual gun topic for a moment, what do you you mean?

Because, to me, it looks like such a statement totally ignores the rationale for suicide in the first place.

Maybe if we were talking about Russian roulette, sure, because that's hard to play without a gun.

However, suicide, as an action, is a complicated mix of personal problems, mental illness, and a lack of hope.

Are you really suggesting that a person would kill themselves simply because a gun was there?

Or did you mean something else?

 

I'm saying that you cannot possibly draw the conclusion that if there was no gun in the house, the person would have committed suicide anyway. It's not possible to do so.

It doesn't take into account the quick and easy method of suicide that guns represent. It doesn't take into account that the person may attempt some other way, but not succeed.

 

I'm saying that you cannot possibly draw the conclusion that if there was no gun in the house, the person would have committed suicide anyway. It's not possible to do so.

But again, the two are totality seperate.

The rationale for suicide is not dependent on a gun being present.

I guess I'm still missing your point..

To me, its like comparing the number of cars on the road if you want to treat drunk driving.

Alcoholism is seperate disease...The automobile aspect is not the central issue.

 

Let's not make this personal here. I'd hate to have to whip out "Ye Olde Bane Sticke".

Kimball Kinnison

 

Ok, you say that every single one of those suicides caused by guns would have been commited anyway, no matter what, if the gun wasn't there.

I'm saying it's impossible to prove that statement.

I could equally say that absolutely none of those people would have killed themselves if there was no gun in the house.

Either way, you can't make either judgement.

 

Ok, you say that every single one of those suicides caused by guns would have been commited anyway, no matter what, if the gun wasn't there.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that suicide, in this case, is not dependent on a gun.

If we are discussing faults with gun systems, then that's where I feel Australia comes up short.

The symtoms don't disappear by being overly reactionary.

Suicide, in this example, is not going to disappear if guns are completely taken away.

What has to be examined is the root cause that makes people so isolated that they kill themselves.

It isn't the gun's fault, that's for sure.