Gun Control V3.0

Statistics generalize about large groups of people in a very simple manner. They never speak for everyone, but they're still useful in characterizing groups.

The problem is that statistics are also very limited in their scope. They only provide a snapshot of the material at a single point in time. They don't generalize as much as they describe the specific situation within that specific scope. It is in the interpretation of those statistics that you get the generalizations.

For example, in 2000, the CDC reported an overall death rate for the US of 53.75, and a firearm-related death rate of only 10.19 (using the crude rates). The overall homicide rate was 5.96 (3.84 with a firearm) while the unintentional (accidental) rate was 34.79 (.28 with a firearm). The suicide rate was 10.43 (5.89 with a firearm). You can make all sorts of generalzations from those numbers. Let me provide a few examples:

You have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed with a gun (if you're going to be killed, that is).

You have a 2 in 3 chance of being murdered with a gun (if you're going to be murdered, that is).

You have a 1 in 2 chance of killing yourself with a firearm (if you're going to kill yourself, that is).

You have a 1 in 140 chance of being accidentally killed by a gun (if you're going to die in an accident, that is).

However, each of those generalizations would be wrong. All that those numbers do is provide a snapshot saying that in 2000, there were xxx deaths for every 100000 people because of yyy reason. Saying that you have a 1 in 140 chance of being killed in a gun accident presupposes that you will already be dying in some accident. The rate of 0.28 actually comes out to a 0.00028% chance that you will die in a gun accident, and that is assuming that all other things are equal.

Kimball Kinnison

(All data came from the CDC website here.)

 

Jabba:

Okay, that's a lot clearer. Thank you.

That said, I still see several holes in your argument and leaps in logic that I cannot track.

First, I simply do not see any of this 'overt pandering' to fearful 'cowards' that you mention. I've seen ads for pretty much all of the popular defensive handguns out there, and I cannot recall a single one with a header like 'buy Glock for when the murderer that you're afraid of kicks in your door', or 'Colt: For when you know they're out to get you'. In point of fact, the great preponderance of advertisements for primarily defensive firearms I've seen from the big-name firearms manufacturers tend to emphasize safety features, reliability, and quality.

Perhaps when you see an add for a pistol, you're looking at it with 'fear glasses' on, and percieving something that isn't there at all? Remember, I'm not exactly a novice, here. I've been a so-called "gun-nut" for years now, and I've read thousands of periodicals specifically about and/or advertising firearms of all sorts without picking up on any 'blatantly obvious', 'overt', or 'direct pandering' to individual cowardice in firearms advertising.

I think what I'm getting to is that you presuppose the 'fear' element with woefully insifficient backing. Simply saying 'it looks scary' or 'those people must be afraid' is, plainly, only your opinion.

The Exorcist, The Shining, and Nightmare on Elm Street are widely considered to be the most frightening movies of all time. I've seen The Exorcist twice, and wasn't scared at any point during the movie. The Shining made a better made-for-TV miniseries, for my money, and also lacked any real moments of fright. And Nightmare on Elm Street just plain sucks.

In my opinion.

In the words of Obi Wan Kenobi (hey, it's a Star Wars message board!), "you will find that a great many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view," or something to that effect, anyway.

Also, you seem to continuously equate fear with cowardice, which I believe to be vastly different concepts altogether, as I have explained in previous posts.

Finally, your statement that advertising represents a target audience seems, frankly, rather silly. In super-broad strokes, you're stating the obvious, but to attempt to be able to claim the state of mind of the people purchasing your wares (abject terror and irresponsibility, in this case) is more than a little bit implausible, in my opinion.

I yet again refer you to the guns/cars comparison. When Dodge advertises the Hemi Ram pickup as having best-in-class child safety systems, or the best braking for a four-by-four, I don't accuse the people who take note of those features of being 'chicken' because there's a better-than-average chance they won't actually have need of those products.

 

Finally, your statement that advertising represents a target audience seems, frankly, rather silly.

If you've never done a focus group or designed/ conducted a market research study, I can see why you might dismiss this claim. I have done all those things (though certainly not to the gun-buying market). I can say with certainty that, when you look at the advertising of a sophisticated consumer products company, you can deduce what it thinks about its target audience.

Now, I italicized that because I understand there's a fundamental difference between what a company concludes about the attributes of its target market, and the actual attributes of that target market. Moreover, few people will completely fit a company's profile of its core consumer.

But this gets back to Kimball's point about whether statistics (or in most marketing cases a combination of qualititative and quantitative research) and in general ( ) generalizations have value in discussing groups.

Of course they do. But you have to be careful.

So, at this point, if you want, we can get into an anecdotal argument about whether gun ads promoting gun onwership for personal safety sell on a fear-based message.

If there's a fundamental flaw in my argument, it's actually one you seem to have completely missed.

There may be a huge difference between the way gun manufacturers advertise to previous gun owners than to first-time potential gun buyers. If you are already sold on the personal safety message, and it may be because you grew up in a house full of guns or whatever, then the gun manufacturer may not feel it's necessary to hammer that message. It may be that the gun manufacturer wants you to upgrade to a better weapon. One with better stopping power, one that will be more likely to drop a threat on the first shot, etc. It may be a message like: you may think you're safe with the gun you have, but look at THIS gun. Or it may simply be a recitation of technical attributes with no overt fear message.

I yet again refer you to the guns/cars comparison. When Dodge advertises the Hemi Ram pickup as having best-in-class child safety systems, or the best braking for a four-by-four, I don't accuse the people who take note of those features of being 'chicken' because there's a better-than-average chance they won't actually have need of those products.

An ad, take as a prime example the Michelin tire ads, that plays on parental concern for their children, i.e. not the buyer, is different. These ads like to make the point that you can "never be too concerned about safety when it comes to your own children." This is a popular ad message across a wide range of products. And obviously the message is wrong. You can be too concerned about the safety of your children.

But there are people who buy cars with a reputation for safety because they have a strong fear of car accidents.

A few years ago I read an interesting study of the effect of ABS in cars. The study concluded that ABS had given no measurable improvement to the driving world in terms of safety, because of something the study's authors termed "risk homeostatis." Drivers tend to "consume" the additional safety provided by their ABS systems through more risky driving. In other words, they'll drive more closely to the vehicle in front of them, or faster than the road conditions would otherwise allow. So that in the end, ABS, typically doesn't offer a safety benefit. Its safety is consumed as a performance benefit. I'll add myself to this group. Like most people, I'm fairly adept at understanding the performance limits of the car I drive.

I wonder if "risk homeostasis" applies to gun owners.

 

"I wonder if "risk homeostasis" applies to gun owners."

Doesn't it apply to everything? Guns, cars, computers, ect....

 

Jabba:

Good post, I must say. That you're able to dissect your own position and evaluate it fairly objectively speaks well of you.

Also, you mentioned something that caught my attention when you regailed us all with the Michelin Tire Co. summary... There are a lot of firearms advertisements that indirectly play to the same tune of 'it's good for the children'.

"Free cable lock" or "more redundant safeties" or "internal locking system disables the firing pin for safety" are all common selling points in mainstream firearms advertising. SIGArms, Springfield Armory, Taurus, and Smith & Wesson are some of the big name companies that emphatically stress the safety aspects of their wares. This is, in a way, not unexpected, considering the sheer volume of antigunners levelling claims that firearms kill babies, or that 'they can just go off' or some such nonsense. By continuously advertising their products as posessing numerous saftey features, some of the firearms companies could well be insulating themselves from attack by groups such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center.

Anywho, anecdotally, the majority of ads I've seen have been the technical description type that you mentioned, although the other leading 'styles' that I've witnessed have been 'glamour' ads, describing the superior quality of the product (almost always with the words 'custom shop quality' in there somewhere), and 'cool by association' ones, which are indirectly similar to the 'glamour' ads, but instead of directly stating the quality of the product, the manufacturer emphasizes the quality or durability of the firearm by reciting a list of important organizations that also use their firearm.

The most famous of that latter group is probably the Kimber of America ad for their TLE/RL II M1911A1 pistol (which is, in all fairness, used by a very impressive list of governmental agencies, such as Marine Corps Force Reconnaisance Detatchment 1 to Special Operations Command [Det-1 to SOCOM], the LAPD SWAT Team, and others), or maybe the SIGArms Naval Special Warfare Edition of their P226 pistol (used by the Navy SEALs).

 

I hope this doesn't violate the Zero Tolerance rule, but I thought it was a little funny:

How do you tell the difference between Democrats, Republicans and Southern Republicans?
The answer can be found by posing the following question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner. He locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to hi m that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is the street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing!
I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Southern Republican's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click... (sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click
Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy: Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"

 

Wow and the thread didn't get locked..that's really funny stuff!

Okay anyone actually want to talk about Gun Laws, Crime Control, and how to empower the citizens of the world?
'cause I do.
There was a thread a few days ago about how sworn law enforcement officers can now carry concealed in all 50 states. I think this is good and bad.
Basically it's good,but I would like to see it expanded to all Active Duty Military with
3 years good conduct and the M-9 Qual.
Obviously Military don't have any arrest power, so it's just basic concealed carry.
Just and idea.

 

There was a thread on the very subject of granting police concealed carry rights in all fifty states. I actually tend to be opposed to that law. I don't think cops deserve special treatment in this area; either we should federalize gun law and grant all citizens concealed carry rights in all states, or we should leave it entirely to sets to set their own policies on this matter. I don't see it as a positive thing for the federal governnment to override state policies and allow a single group of citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights in a different manner from everyone else.

-Paul

 

I'd like to see a federal-level concealed weapons permit, myself. Make the background check process as stringent as it needs to be presently, require proof of training/certification, and charge a nominal tax in order to fund the program. But then, a permit holder would be allowed to carry a firearm in any of the states.

I figure that the right to keep and bear arms is a federal law, so CCW permits ought to be federal too.

*shrugs*

 

Gun Control, it seems, can work.

We did beat the snot out of the US in the Women's Trap Shooting yesterday in Athens!



E_S

 

Yes, but what you don't know is that they were mugged savagely after the event, and each had to give up their wallets because they were paradoxically unarmed.

Fine, I'm lying. But wouldn't you, in my position?

 

Let's see, would I admit that a nation with almost no firearms in it beat a nation with plenty of firearms in it at the Olympics, or would I lie about it...

No, I'd just rub it in that Australia has more Gold Medals than you!

MEDAL TALLY

Country; Gold, Silver, Bronze totals

1. China 10 4 1

2. Australia 6 2 5

3. Japan 5 1 1

4. U.S.A. 3 5 5


(It will change within hours, so you know, whilst I can still gloat).

Did anyone watch the Women's Trap Shooting? Damn that Korean girl, who got Bronze, was good.

E_S

E_S

 

Well I just got my August issue of 1stFreedom Magazine and they printed my letter in the MailCall section so I'm so happy I don't care who got gold and who didn't.


Oh yeah back on subject. The NRA is broadcasting on Siruis. So that means they are a bonafide Media. Now exempt from the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act.
Whatcha think of that?

I bet George Soros is realy happy

 

This is probably the one area where I digress from certain members of my party.

I am certainly no expert on gun laws, but they seem to pretty solid where I am located (Virginia).

I enjoy hunting and shooting. I plan to own guns when my kids are a little older and can figure out a safe place to store them.

Naturally, IMO rocket-launchers and gatling guns belong solely in the military. But I don't see why a law-abiding citizen shouldn't be able to own a rifle or handgun, or many of them for that matter.

 

A gun isn't dangerous, people are dangerous. It's that small fraction of people who aren't responsible that ruin it for those who are, as is the case with anything. What needs to be done is establish a way to keep guns out of the hands of those people who can't handle the responsibility that goes along with them, but in the hands of those who can. The problem is that no one has devised an effective way to do so yet, because I still hear about people being shot to death on the news every night. Maybe it's just one of those things that will never be achieved.

 

aLLS i CAN SAY IS BANNING GUNS WOULD BE A BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD THING TO DO. aMERICANS HAVE BEEN SHOOTING STUFF YOUR HUNDREDS OF YEARS. iF THEY TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY THEY MIGHT AS WELL CALL eNGLAND AND TELL THEM "aLRIGHT GUYS, WE WANT BACK IN"

 

What makes you think the Commonwealth would want you back? You hooligans would just lower the tone of the neighbourhood!

E_S

 

Capslock makes baby Jesus cry.

Wait, you want to keep guns just to ensure you keep a part of your national identity? How sad.

In any case, I don't mind single shot rifles, and even pistols being availible to folks. (They're pretty much a necessity for some lifestyles, anyhow). I don't like the idea of fully automatic weapons being so readily availible. Yes, it's people that kill people, but in my twisted logic, it's a lot more difficult to kill a large crowd of folks when only armed with a knife (or even, shock, a single shot rifle). Yes, it's damage control before the event actually occurs. Prevention is better then cure, and all that.

I can see poor gun owners feeling like they've been shafted, but as we all know, there are pyschos out there. Yes, they can possibly still obtain these weapons from the black market, but I see little reason to make it easier for them.

Oh well, go Australian shooter team! Wooooo!

 

I don't like the idea of fully automatic weapons being so readily availible.

See, SJJ, I think this is the biggest misperception that people outside of the US have, because it is an oft-repeated statement.

Fully automatic weapons are NOT readily available in the US, and honestly, besides watching movies like Die Hard, I don't know how this idea continues to be repeated.

Cetainly, we have our differences in beliefs, but the discussion should focus on what actually exists.

EDIT: And it is stranged because everyone seems to share that perception.

I've used this example before because it is quite amusing to me.

But whenever I travel overseas, and people find out I am from Chicago, they automatically assume Al Capone and gangsters.

It's funny until I realize they are serious. It's happened in Europe, in Asia, pretty much everywhere.

People honestly think we walk around with tommy guns and trenchcoats all day long, despite the fact that the ganster-era actually took place in the early 1900's.

I suppose that perception fuels a lot of ideas that people have.

 

Well, I can pretty safely say I didn't expect the whole 'carrying tommy guns around' scenario.

Perhaps I was pulling my punches too much. I'm not comfortable with them being availible to the public at all. My other stuff still holds up, (I think. I've a knack for missing details).

But you're right, I've no actual facts to bring to the table. I'm more one for battles of idealogies then reals of statistics, in anycase. I HATE statistics. I'm a lazy, lazy, debater. Yeah, that's right, I've declared war on facts.

Have fun arguing about stuff, you zany Americans. I hate that word. Zany.

EDIT: Why wouldn't you want to wear tenchcoats all day? Trenchcoats + fedora = ultimate in awesomness.

 

Warning!! Sarcastic U.S. Government Memo below!!!
This is an quote from Naval Safety Memo from 08/20/04

"OUR STORY OPENS AS AN FC1 AND HIS DAD WALK INTO THE WOODS
BEHIND THE FAMILY HOMESTEAD IN NORTH CAROLINA. THEIR MISSION: TO
CARVE OUT AN ATV TRAIL. AFTER THEY MARK A SMALL TREE FOR REMOVAL,
THE SAILOR GRABS HIS HATCHET AND STARTS A-WHACKING. ALAS, WHILE
RECONNOITERING THE JOB, HE HAS OVERLOOKED A BEE HIVE WHOSE
INHABITANTS ARE BECOMING CURIOUS IF NOT DOWNRIGHT AGITATED. ONE OF
THE BEES, PERHAPS TASKED WITH FINDING OUT WHAT THE HECK IS CAUSING
SUCH A RUCKUS, BEGINS HIS INVESTIGATION BY LANDING ON THE SAILOR'S
LEG.
AT THIS POINT, SOME VESTIGIAL ORGAN DEEP IN THE SAILOR'S
MEDULLA OBLONGATA SPRINGS INTO ACTION, TRIGGERING A FLIGHT-OR-
FIGHT REACTION THAT TRACES ITS DIRECT LINEAGE BACK TO CRO-MAGNON
HUNTERS WHO REGULARLY HAD SABERTOOTH TIGERS NIPPING AT THEIR
HINDPARTS. WE'RE TALKING DIRECT SHOT OF ADRENALIN TO ALL MAJOR
MUSCLE GROUPS, BYPASSING COMMON SENSE AND ANY LOGICAL THOUGHT.
"CAN'T TAKE FLIGHT," THE SAILOR'S BRAIN COMPUTES, SINCE THE BEE
HAS ALREADY LANDED. "MUST FIGHT." IN OTHER WORDS, START FLAILING
AROUND WITH WHATEVER BLUNT OBJECT IS AT HAND.
EXCEPT THE HATCHET ISN'T BLUNT. AND THE SELF-INFLICTED SLICE IN
THE SAILOR'S RIGHT LEG HAS GOT TO BE A LOT MORE PAINFUL THAN A BEE
STING.
TWO DAYS WITH THE DOCS, WHO PROVIDE A SLEW OF STAPLES AND A
CAST, AND TWO MONTHS OF LIMPDU. AND A RESERVED PARKING SPOT RIGHT
OUTSIDE THE DOOR AT THE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS OF THE ROCKET
SCIENTISTS OF THE WEEK, BESIDE THE GUY WHO SET OFF THE CHEMICAL
SELF-DEFENSE WEAPON IN HIS PANTS POCKET, AND THE GUY WHO STUCK THE
CHEM LIGHT IN THE CAN OPENER, AND THE GUY WHO TRIED IRONING HIS
SHIRT WHILE HE WAS WEARING IT."

Okay so as you can see. We can't trust people with hachets. So it's time to ban hachets. Also battle Axes and double edged Axes are dangerous and need to be banned.
The safest thing to do is not keep a blade in the House.
The United States needs to follow the Aussie example and ban Swords too.
Oh and by the way Marge, I'm being Sarcastic.

My real ideas
Fully-Automatic should Require a permit
Semi-Automatic background check at purchase
Bolt Action and lever Action Rifles- background Check
Single Action Pistols- Background Check
Muzzel Loaders-Unresticted
B-B Guns-Unrestricted

 

My real ideas
Fully-Automatic should Require a permit
Semi-Automatic background check at purchase
Bolt Action and lever Action Rifles- background Check
Single Action Pistols- Background Check
Muzzel Loaders-Unresticted
B-B Guns-Unrestricted

There's just no reason why any every day citizen needs to own an automatic or even a semi-automatic weapon. No reason whatsoever. You don't hunt with Uzis. All that's doing is asking for trouble.

 

I don't think trying to determine the percieved needs of people was part of his ideal, there.

 

xArchangelx, rights are not based on need, and the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting. And just out of curiosity, how will taking my guns away prevent any sort of crime at all?