Guns

[TheBitcoinChemist]

And no, more data does not equal to less bias.  Wikipedia is limiting itself to 'rampages' or 'mass killings' wherein one nutter goes off and starts shooting multiple people with whom s/he has no prior contact.  The Brady Campaign includes a great deal of events that involved crimes of passion, career criminals with guns, organized crime, inter-famililar violence (such as spouse abuse), etc.  In other words, they include a great deal of data on events that had causes/triggers having little or nothing to do with whether or not guns were used as the means to the end.  Nor do they bother to gather the same data on such events that did not include a firearm.  Again, the weapon is just a tool with a deliberate purpose.  The most successful career muggers are almost invariablely those who use weapons other than a firearm within juristictions that make it difficult for an average citizen to carry a firearm.  Usually knives.  Ironically, we even have the effects of such events in US law, as it's illegal to import, manufacture or sell a knife that is intended to be opened with a single action; thus switchblades & 'butterfly' knives are banned in the US.  I'm still waiting for the one armed war vet to sue for discrimination.  They didn't blame the criminal element for using the best tools (in this case, switchblades & butterfly knives) available to them for their crimes, they again blamed the manufacturers of such tools for making their products too easy to use.

From the above quote, it seems clear to me that your focus with regard to data is mass shootings, essentially deeming crimes of passion, career criminals with guns, family violence, and, I would add firearm accidents, as being irrelevant to the argument regarding gun control.

No.  You've read me all wrong here.  I was just pointing out that those data sets aren't reallly directly comparable.

And yet, you write this as well:

I think that whether or not a armed population limits rampages or not is statistically insignificant overall, even though I'll admit up front that my own life's experiences bias myself toward believeing that mykerl is correct.  I don't think that the practical argument is what really matters, as the results in either direction are not significant enough to overcome the predispositions on either side; as both yourself and myself are evidence of.

Here, you state that mass shootings are statistically insignificant.

You seem to be contradicting yourself as to what is relevant with regard to gun injuries. Myrkul wishes to be selective. You wish to be entirely indifferent, or contradictory at best.

Again, no.  I wasn't arguing for or against mass shootings as representative of gun issues.

Tell me now, would you be so indifferent or contradictory if you were one of the injured on Brady's list, or a friend or family member of one of the casualties on Brady's list? Certainly you wouldn't mind trading places with one of the affected in the theater shooting, given that you think such shootings are insignificant. Or perhaps you might wish to trade places with any of the affected on Brady's list that aren't designated a mass shooting, as you've said that that kind of data doesn't really count. 

I said that data was statisticly insignificant, not that it didn't count.  Keep putting words in my mouth, First Accent, and our congenial conversations are going to turn dark quick.

[1714943848]

1714943848

[1714943848]

1714943848

[1714943848]

1714943848

[1714943848]

1714943848

[FirstAscent]

I said that data was statisticly insignificant, not that it didn't count.  Keep putting words in my mouth, First Accent, and our congenial conversations are going to turn dark quick.

To me, a death or injury is statistically significant.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I said that data was statisticly insignificant, not that it didn't count.  Keep putting words in my mouth, First Accent, and our congenial conversations are going to turn dark quick.

To me, a death or injury is statistically significant.

Your opinion isn't statistically significant, either.

[myrkul]

I said that data was statisticly insignificant, not that it didn't count.  Keep putting words in my mouth, First Accent, and our congenial conversations are going to turn dark quick.

To me, a death or injury is statistically significant.

Your opinion isn't statistically significant, either.

Ain't that the truth!

[Mike Jones]

If a death or injury is statistically significant, then many statistics have been prevented by me carrying my handgun.

[FirstAscent]

The herd has spoken! One moos, and two more moo as well.

[nimda]

The herd has spoken! One moos, and two more moo as well.

Moo moo to you too!

(I only rhyme some of the time)

[myrkul]

Oh hey, look! Someone else also demanded an audit on that statistic I posted, so the Silver Circle guys re-did the statistics, examining 93 shootings, and got a slightly different number:



Since I know how lazy some of y'all can be, I've turned the image into a link to the tinyurl in the picture.

Now, again, this is a very specific dataset: rampage shootings where the shooter was stopped. Not where he quit on his own, either through suicide before the police arrived, or by walking away, but where the intervention of either civilians or police ended the shooting. So, go ahead, click the link, read the data and the explanation of it... and prepare your excuses.

My predictions: FirstAscent will say the numbers don't matter because they don't include accidents and single murders. Vampire will say the numbers don't matter because they are, after all, just numbers.

Do me a favor, and at least come up with different excuses, k?

[vampire]

Oh hey, look! Someone else also demanded an audit on that statistic I posted, so the Silver Circle guys re-did the statistics, examining 93 shootings, and got a slightly different number:

Since I know how lazy some of y'all can be, I've turned the image into a link to the tinyurl in the picture.

Now, again, this is a very specific dataset: rampage shootings where the shooter was stopped. Not where he quit on his own, either through suicide before the police arrived, or by walking away, but where the intervention of either civilians or police ended the shooting. So, go ahead, click the link, read the data and the explanation of it... and prepare your excuses.

My predictions: FirstAscent will say the numbers don't matter because they don't include accidents and single murders. Vampire will say the numbers don't matter because they are, after all, just numbers.

Do me a favor, and at least come up with different excuses, k?

Still going on with this? I already pointed out two rampage shootings which weren't included.

Keep posting crap.

Stopped by cops:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Western_Reserve_University_shooting Stopped by police. 1 dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickliffe_Middle_School_shooting 1 dead

I can look for more wiki ain't useful.

BTW when was the last time that anyone got shot in high school in NYC? Like 50s?

[Explodicle]

The herd has spoken! One moos, and two more moo as well.

Uh oh.
It's a meme now!

[TheBitcoinChemist]

The herd has spoken! One moos, and two more moo as well.

Moo moo to you too!

(I only rhyme some of the time)

http://www.cowswithguns.com/cgi-bin/listen_animation.cgi?cart=1343770925

[myrkul]

Do me a favor, and at least come up with different excuses, k?

Still going on with this? I already pointed out two rampage shootings which weren't included.

Ah! well, that is at least different from what I predicted. For that, I thank you.

Adding those incidents (assuming they were not in the revised numbers), that brings the "stopped by cop" average down to... (drumroll)... 12.625. But it's all just irrelevant numbers, right?

[vampire]

Do me a favor, and at least come up with different excuses, k?

Still going on with this? I already pointed out two rampage shootings which weren't included.

Ah! well, that is at least different from what I predicted. For that, I thank you.

Adding those incidents (assuming they were not in the revised numbers), that brings the "stopped by cop" average down to... (drumroll)... 12.625. But it's all just irrelevant numbers, right?

LOL. There are a lot more, I am not doing your work. I've proven already that you have FAULTY numbers already.

Do the statistics properly including ALL rampage shooting and we will talk.

Also read each incident that you've posted, for an example "The sniper" incident had civilians shooting back at sniper and therefor fall into both categories.

[myrkul]

Do me a favor, and at least come up with different excuses, k?

Still going on with this? I already pointed out two rampage shootings which weren't included.

Ah! well, that is at least different from what I predicted. For that, I thank you.

Adding those incidents (assuming they were not in the revised numbers), that brings the "stopped by cop" average down to... (drumroll)... 12.625. But it's all just irrelevant numbers, right?

LOL. There are a lot more, I am not doing your work. I've proven already that you have FAULTY numbers already.

Do the statistics properly including ALL rampage shooting and we will talk.

Also read each incident that you've posted, for an example "The sniper" incident had civilians shooting back at sniper and therefor fall into both categories.

Once again, Talk to Davi, not me. Better yet, check the numbers yourself. I doubt you'll trust any numbers I give you. I, however, am confident that any size set of data where the rampage shooting was stopped will show that civilians stopping the incident results in a lower casualty count than waiting for the police to show up. The difference would be even greater were injuries included, but they are not, for very good reasons, which are outlined in the article (did you read the link, even?)

As to the sniper incident, you've a point. That incident should be thrown out, for the same reason the shooting where two civilians helped the police apprehend a subject was. It isn't conclusively on either side of the data.

[vampire]

Once again, Talk to Davi, not me. Better yet, check the numbers yourself. I doubt you'll trust any numbers I give you. I, however, am confident that any size set of data where the rampage shooting was stopped will show that civilians stopping the incident results in a lower casualty count than waiting for the police to show up. The difference would be even greater were injuries included, but they are not, for very good reasons, which are outlined in the article (did you read the link, even?)

I don't have time to read retarded websites.

As to the sniper incident, you've a point. That incident should be thrown out, for the same reason the shooting where two civilians helped the police apprehend a subject was. It isn't conclusively on either side of the data.

One more wrong data point. I strike again. And I don't have time to do research, unless you're willing to pay me.

Most of US states are gun friendly, so what are you trying to prove? There are few states that don't have shall issue ccw - 7 may issue and 2 no issue. So it's 39 states with shall issue (there are some states with may issue but in practice are shall issue). Out of NYS, only NYC is may (no issue) county. The rest of state is shall issue in practice.

Better switch the topic: Is it legal to forbid guns or not.

[nimda]

In the U.S., "no, you're not 'supposed' to." Elsewhere, it is, and often is.

As for "not 'supposed' to," it can and will happen anyways. Put a huge tax on it, require $100K in licenses, papers, registration etc, then start passing laws banning them in theaters, New York City, residential areas, etc. You'll wind up with 100 rich white survivalist gun owners who also own a million acres of land, 320 million gun-less civilians, and 30 million "criminals" owning guns, some of whom will kill a person in their lifetime and some who are perfectly law-abiding minus the guns part.

Because there's a lot of guns here already.

[Mike Jones]

In the U.S., "no, you're not 'supposed' to." Elsewhere, it is, and often is.

As for "not 'supposed' to," it can and will happen anyways. Put a huge tax on it, require $100K in licenses, papers, registration etc, then start passing laws banning them in theaters, New York City, residential areas, etc. You'll wind up with 100 rich white survivalist gun owners who also own a million acres of land, 320 million gun-less civilians, and 30 million "criminals" owning guns, some of whom will kill a person in their lifetime and some who are perfectly law-abiding minus the guns part.

Because there's a lot of guns here already.

Quoted for truth.

[myrkul]

A gun is a tool. A tool for self-defense.
A hammer is a tool. A tool for pounding pointy pieces of metal into wood.
A car is a tool. A tool for getting from place to place.

Can these tools be misused? Yes, yes they can.
Can they be used for violence? Yes, yes they can.
Should they, by that virtue, be outlawed? No, No they should not.

I don't have time to read retarded websites.

I think your mother may have something to say to you about your choice of words.

[vampire]

In the U.S., "no, you're not 'supposed' to." Elsewhere, it is, and often is.

As for "not 'supposed' to," it can and will happen anyways. Put a huge tax on it, require $100K in licenses, papers, registration etc, then start passing laws banning them in theaters, New York City, residential areas, etc. You'll wind up with 100 rich white survivalist gun owners who also own a million acres of land, 320 million gun-less civilians, and 30 million "criminals" owning guns, some of whom will kill a person in their lifetime and some who are perfectly law-abiding minus the guns part.

Because there's a lot of guns here already.

If that's response to me. Let me ask questions ( I can guess the answers)

First question:

Do you think that CCW should be unrestrictive.
CCW should be allowed only after a formal training.
CCW should be allowed only after a formal training and state certification.

Second question:

If a gun gets stolen the owner isn't responsible for any crime that it caused
The owner only responsible for the portion of the damages.
The owner has a full responsibility.

Third question:

Should be businesses be allowed to established their own rules:

1) yes, they could restrict guns in their establishments
2) no.




BTW NYC has CCW (rarely issued), and you can own a gun in your apartment (which is shall issue).

[vampire]

I think your mother may have something to say to you about your choice of words.

Fucktard.