Gun free zone

[Richy_T]

You're out to lunch, dude. It's not cherry picking. If we were talking about the environment in jet airliners, we wouldn't use data from open canopy biplanes, even though both are clearly aircraft.

If we were discussing some property of jet engines, you couldn't suddenly turn around and say "Oh, but only commercial passenger carrying aircraft with at least 200 capacity"

The simple truth is that guns and/or gun control are not good predictors of violence. Violence is generally low, pretty much everywhere and people intent on committing violence tend to go ahead and commit violence regardless. Guns have several small effects, both positive and negative on the amount and quality of violence. Combine these competing and complex and small effects on a fairly low level of violence and overlay that on the immensely complex and inseparable factors that lead to different levels of violence though different cultures and countries and you have a signal that is completely flooded by the noise. This is why it is possible to have two sides so opposed. And this is also why there is no good justification to remove the right of the people to own and bear firearms.

As someone above noted, the only semi-fair way to judge things is to study what happens before and after legislation. What happens after "assault weapon" bans? Gun bans in Australia and the UK? Carry permit legislation? Castle doctrine legislation? And none of this "gun violence" or "gun deaths" bullshit, you have to look at general levels of the outcome you're looking for. And even then, there are other societal and time-based effects that could make your results completely worthless.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Some interesting statistics about what use to happen to disarmed populations:

Gun Control and Genocide - by Gary North
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north367.html

[augustocroppo]

Indeed, I would prefer they not act, or rather - delegate their action - rather than literally firing blind.

A man or a woman cannot 'delegate their action' when in face of an imminent physical attack.

But they still have the moral obligation to see to their own defense, whether by learning to defend themselves without sight (doable, but not usually worth the effort) or by delegating that responsibility.

People have no moral obligation to learn to defend themselves and a right of self-defense cannot be delegated.

Certainly I have no obligation to defend them, nor does anyone else who has not explicitly agreed to.

If you do not have a duty to defend people, people also do not have a duty to defend whoever they choose, including themselves!

So, though it may be delegated, you cannot just expect someone to take care of it for you. It is your duty to see that it gets taken care of, just as with parenting.

No, self-defense is not my duty.

If you take away my ability to defend myself, you are taking the responsibility for that duty. You may not see it that way, but that is the truth of the matter.

A private school have no moral obligation to protect you after you VOLUNTARILY agree to enter without a gun, except if there was a previous explicit agreement between you and the school to determine the protection.

[FirstAscent]

You're out to lunch, dude. It's not cherry picking. If we were talking about the environment in jet airliners, we wouldn't use data from open canopy biplanes, even though both are clearly aircraft.

If we were discussing some property of jet engines, you couldn't suddenly turn around and say "Oh, but only commercial passenger carrying aircraft with at least 200 capacity"

I sure as heck could and would if we were discussing jet engines on wide bodies. Back to the main point, why in the hell would we use tin pot dictatorships for comparison?

[Richy_T]

You're out to lunch, dude. It's not cherry picking. If we were talking about the environment in jet airliners, we wouldn't use data from open canopy biplanes, even though both are clearly aircraft.

If we were discussing some property of jet engines, you couldn't suddenly turn around and say "Oh, but only commercial passenger carrying aircraft with at least 200 capacity"

I sure as heck could and would if we were discussing jet engines on wide bodies. Back to the main point, why in the hell would we use tin pot dictatorships for comparison?

Because you can use such a strategy to filter to get the results you are looking for rather than gauging the situation as it actually stands. You end up in a no-true-Scotsman situation.

[FirstAscent]

You're out to lunch, dude. It's not cherry picking. If we were talking about the environment in jet airliners, we wouldn't use data from open canopy biplanes, even though both are clearly aircraft.

If we were discussing some property of jet engines, you couldn't suddenly turn around and say "Oh, but only commercial passenger carrying aircraft with at least 200 capacity"

I sure as heck could and would if we were discussing jet engines on wide bodies. Back to the main point, why in the hell would we use tin pot dictatorships for comparison?

Because you can use such a strategy to filter to get the results you are looking for rather than gauging the situation as it actually stands. You end up in a no-true-Scotsman situation.

No. Need I repeat myself? If we're comparing New York apartments, we don't bring Salt Lake condos into the discussion.

[foggyb]

FirstAscent, you're just moving the goalposts like you did earlier. That's dishonest.

Just concede your point if the data doesn't support it.

[FirstAscent]

FirstAscent, you're just moving the goalposts like you did earlier. That's dishonest.

Show where I moved the goalposts. What you'll find is that I planted goal posts, based on countries listed in a chart. I said let's discover what these countries are doing that we are not, as they obviously are doing much better than we (the US) is doing. And I stick to those countries. Along comes Richy_T, and says, out of context, to look at all countries - which is rather stupid, due to extreme differences the US has to many countries. The goal isn't (nor has it ever been) to desire to emulate some tin pot dictatorship. In fact, the goal is to discover methods employed by countries which clearly do better than us in this arena.

Note the words in boldface? They indicate a constancy. Thus, I render your accusation of me moving the goalposts to be a flat out false accusation, which I would call being dishonest, in an attempt to corrupt what I am suggesting in favor of whatever your agenda is. And your dishonesty further qualifies you as a hypocrite, I'm sorry to say.

[Richy_T]

No. Need I repeat myself? If we're comparing New York apartments, we don't bring Salt Lake condos into the discussion.

I stand by what I said. You've picked your specific filter which supports your general assertion and you're sticking with it.

And it wasn't I that brought that list into the discussion. Keep it straight.

[FirstAscent]

No. Need I repeat myself? If we're comparing New York apartments, we don't bring Salt Lake condos into the discussion.

I stand by what I said. You've picked your specific filter which supports your general assertion and you're sticking with it.

And it wasn't I that brought that list into the discussion. Keep it straight.

As explained in the above post, it should be very clear what the purpose and intention is. I never declared any desire, nor value, in studying the methods of some third world country with a vastly different economy and style of living. I linked to a list of countries and essentially pointed out that "these countries are doing so much better than the US. What gives?"

If you personally want to explore the methods, laws and policies in other countries that are not on that list and are often not doing well at all, feel free to do so, as I'm sure you think its significant.

[conspirosphere.tk]

I never declared any desire, nor value, in studying the methods of some third world country with a vastly different economy and style of living.

Then you might compare violent crime rates and gun possession/regulation between, let's say metropolitan LA or NYC and rural Texas. Or maybe one of them is third world too?

[edit] BTW: a "first world" social scientist found that males in favor of gun control are predominatly pro-gay and know-nothing about guns, and females kind of pro-castration (metaphorically) types: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/gun-control-as-castration/

This seems to me a more interesting correlation.

[FirstAscent]

I never declared any desire, nor value, in studying the methods of some third world country with a vastly different economy and style of living.

Then you might compare violent crime rates and gun possession/regulation between, let's say metropolitan LA or NYC and rural Texas. Or maybe one of them is third world too?

They are all in the same country. Local regulations have little effect as city and state lines are easily crossed. That's actually why Australia moved to federal gun regulation. So, in truth, I might not try to compare those violent crime rates. Thanks for trying to push your anti-helpful and poorly thought out solution for studying gun crime to further your own agenda though.

[notme]

I never declared any desire, nor value, in studying the methods of some third world country with a vastly different economy and style of living.

Then you might compare violent crime rates and gun possession/regulation between, let's say metropolitan LA or NYC and rural Texas. Or maybe one of them is third world too?

They are all in the same country. Local regulations have little effect as city and state lines are easily crossed. That's actually why Australia moved to federal gun regulation. So, in truth, I might not try to compare those violent crime rates. Thanks for trying to push your anti-helpful and poorly thought out solution for studying gun crime to further your own agenda though.

You can account for the effect of local jurisdictions with different gun control laws in a careful study.

Studying US states and their differences is the best way to eliminate extraneous variables.  There are still drastic cultural differences, but you're at least an order of magnitude better than comparing against other countries.

Lots of people have pointed out serious flaws with the dataset you chose to restrict yourself to.  Yet all you can say is that "only the data I picked matter".

[organofcorti]

I never declared any desire, nor value, in studying the methods of some third world country with a vastly different economy and style of living.

Then you might compare violent crime rates and gun possession/regulation between, let's say metropolitan LA or NYC and rural Texas. Or maybe one of them is third world too?

[edit] BTW: a "first world" social scientist found that males in favor of gun control are predominatly pro-gay and know-nothing about guns, and females kind of pro-castration (metaphorically) types: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/gun-control-as-castration/

This seems to me a more interesting correlation.

"Pro-gay" doesn't mean anything. "Anti-homophobe", on the other hand, does.

Since you're keen on generalising, are you implying pro gun advocates are predominantly homophobic? That helps me a bit. I have a hypothesis about correlations between people with unreasoning fears and being pro gun for "protection".

[conspirosphere.tk]

BTW: a "first world" social scientist found that males in favor of gun control are predominatly pro-gay and know-nothing about guns, and females kind of pro-castration (metaphorically) types: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/gun-control-as-castration/

This seems to me a more interesting correlation.

"Pro-gay" doesn't mean anything. "Anti-homophobe", on the other hand, does.

I am of a different opinion: "pro-gay" seems just a politically correct way to say "gay". But I am anti-semantic. But that term is used by the author of that research. So you can go to argue with him.

[organofcorti]

BTW: a "first world" social scientist found that males in favor of gun control are predominatly pro-gay and know-nothing about guns, and females kind of pro-castration (metaphorically) types: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/gun-control-as-castration/

This seems to me a more interesting correlation.

"Pro-gay" doesn't mean anything. "Anti-homophobe", on the other hand, does.

I am of a different opinion, since I am anti-semantic. But that term is used by the author of that research. So you can go to argue with him.

The term "pro gay" is mentioned nowhere in the article. Is it a term you made up - are you afraid of the gays?

[conspirosphere.tk]

The term "pro gay" is mentioned nowhere in the article. Is it a term you made up - are you afraid of the gays?

In a 1994 research paper titled “Sex and Guns: Is Gun Control Male Control?” Canadian sociologist H. Taylor Buckner documented three surveys he conducted of his undergraduate students concerning their attitudes on guns and gun control. He concluded that:

…students who were pro gun control were also pro homosexual, pro censorship of pornography, and not experienced with guns.

[organofcorti]

The term "pro gay" is mentioned nowhere in the article. Is it a term you made up - are you afraid of the gays?

In a 1994 research paper titled “Sex and Guns: Is Gun Control Male Control?” Canadian sociologist H. Taylor Buckner documented three surveys he conducted of his undergraduate students concerning their attitudes on guns and gun control. He concluded that:

…students who were pro gun control were also pro homosexual, pro censorship of pornography, and not experienced with guns.

Ah, I searched only for the term you mentioned - pro gay.

Did you read the paper the article links to? It also doesn't really explain what pro-homosexual means, except that it implies some acceptance of gays. The opposing viewpoint would be rejection of gays. Not a very liberal attitude. Or are you of a more fascist right wing ideology?

[conspirosphere.tk]

For me it implies that they were just gays. Anyway, I find very unintelligent to be "regulated" by anyone -of the gay lobby or not-, especially if the "regulation" is based on illogical and specious arguments.

[organofcorti]

For me it implies that they were just gays.

So anyone who does not discriminate against gays is gay? Very poor logic there sonny. I am disappoint.

Anyway, I find very unintelligent to be "regulated" by anyone -of the gay lobby or not-, especially if the "regulation" is based on illogical and specious arguments.

So you've decided that no one has the right to tell you what to do. That's rather egotistical of you, isn't it? You do belong to some society? Or are you a unibomber-esque loner who enjoys only his own companies and does not care what society thinks of him?

Or, more likely, is it that you're happy to be regulated by laws you agree with, but not by laws you disagree with?

I have no position either for or against gun control in the US. I do have a position against muddy thinking, as well as illogical and specious arguments - such as yours.

For the record, are you anti-homosexual?