"separate historical memory" to your excellent observation.

People tend to "remember" things that support what they wish to believe. As a so-called "gun controller", anytime I say something in this forum the "guns for (nearly) everyone" people will filter what I say through their own beliefs and reject what I say. As well as reject any sources that I produce to support my contentions. Similar to a debate over religion.

But only one side lives in the universe where people shouldn't sue ford or jim beam because someone drove drunk and killed someone, therefore nobody should be suing gun makers for equally third party criminal misuse of a legal product.

And only one side lives in the universe where the group isn't held responsible for the criminal actions of the individual.

I could be wrong, but the universe I describe, doesn't appear to be the one you reside in.



It isn't intended to. Those are the proper purview of mental health care (assuming one presumes they have a controlling interest in the lives of others, I don't) and education.

Of course, 'mental health' care has been branded by people in one of those universes, seemingly yours, as an nra talking point...



The problem with that is, that to gun banners, it is a zero sum game , and you know it.

Good post.

Other recent posts reminded me of the gun culture aspects

Some people grow up in the gun culture with no issues, well accustomed to havign guns around for hunting, shooting, defense, collecting, etc. They, and even non-gun owners around the culture, don't usually see themselves (or guns) as 'the problem'.

People who are against guns often seem to have not had the same experiences, so may not see or understand the attachments people have to their...lifestyles, associated with guns. They would likely see no viable need or purpose in most people owning them.


Your "Safety feature post is a good thread in that it talked about basically simple things that could help make guns safer, without asking for people to have to give up something(s) that for whatever reasons they feel are important to them.

...such as it is, very early:

Beyond the fact that people who hang out in places like the gungeon are deeply invested in the issue of guns and are arguably on the fringe of gun owners as a whole the two sides talk past each other instead of to each other.

Emphasis added.

As soon as you engage in ad hominem attacks, the rest can be safely dismissed, as you are clearly not attempting to engage in honest debate.

Perhaps, if you truly are interested in engaging in a cogent discussion about guns, you should dispense with the logical fallacies and personal attacks. Until such a time, screeds like this are safely dismissed as the empty rhetoric that they are.

discussion groups like this one and belong to the NRA with a membership of only 3% of gun owners are much more deeply invested in gun rights than the majority of gun owners.

Would periphery be a better term? TomAto tomAHto?

A good example of why we can't talk. Imagined slight where none exists.

And then there are just some people . . .

It worked out so well for Katie Couric -- by all means, carry on.

You engage in personal insult, then claim it's only an "imagined slight." This is just one of many examples why those who want to discuss the issue in honest and meaningful terms dismiss attempts at derailment such as yours.

I will reiterate, then move on -- you engaged in personal attacks, and therefore your attempt at discussion has been shown to be neither honest nor constructive. That being the case, it is a waste of time trying to engage you in meaningful discussion. Perhaps in the future you can engage in a discussion without such tactics.

Like this one but don't belong to the NRA? I think the 2d Amendment protects private ownership of firearms but don't like the NRA because of assholes like Ted Nugent (who is also a crappy musician).

Chet Atkins and Jimi Hendrix he isn't. He can only play three cords.
for your reading pleasure.
http://www.somethingawful.com/your-band-sucks/worst-rock-stars/

And no, I do not belong to the NRA

Most people who are regulars here seem to be of the FDR/LBJ stripe, probably unlike a large swath of people, including those on DU

The reason why good discussion cannot occur on the politics of guns is because most discussion from a "control" perspective are prohibitionist in outlook, and in the language that outlook employs; that the "other side" is morally reprehensible; that any and all attacks and proposals are thereby justified. This is abundantly clear to virtually anyone who drops in to see the... "discussion."

Most here expect and rather good-naturedly deal with the vast categories of spew, emit and bile brought here. (I think the GunzIssue must be an agreed-upon glory hole where any and all garbage can be brought in within full view of everyone, up to and including the Ads.). But after several years of this, two perhaps unexpected results have occurred:

1). The "Gungeon" is by any reasonable measure where pro-2A argument is sound, tight, well-documented and rather clever.

2). The control/ban side has diminished. Even its allies have to some extent walked away from the argument -- perhaps even the issue -- after realizing it is grandly miscast and can have no practical positive impact on social policy.

For generations we progressives have toiled, sometimes unsuccessfully, to resolve the many social ills of our society, and all we get is some gun-control tee??

but owners of "assault weapons", over-10-round rifles/handguns, and over-5-round shotguns probably constitute 40-50% of gun owners, all told. Throw in owners of under-10-round handguns, and owners of pump-actions and other guns the gun control lobby would like to ban, and you rope in most of us. And if you drop that magazine limit to 7 as Bloomberg wants, you grab almost all handgun owners and a whole slew of additional rifle owners.

Your average semiauto-rifle or handgun owner may not be involved in the political side of the issue yet, but Bloomberg et al are trying very hard to make them involved.

I'm not an NRA member, but I have several guns in my gun safe that your side of the debate desperately wants to criminalize my ownership of, and I will energetically oppose that.

Hard to have a civil discussion when one starts with ad hominem attacks and insults directed a DU members.

...that it's only a civil discussion if they are able to toss around personal attacks and falsehoods with impunity. Pointing out their falsehoods and personal attacks aren't allowed -- that's just rude, or something.

What you're describing, is the defacto SOP for bansalot.

In the past he's always pointed out to the whiners that there are "Real" Dems that own guns and feel differently about them and basically, if they don't like the Gungeon, put it on ignore or stay out.

If he sticks to what they are saying, that whole penis frame of reference may be denied to them.

Yeah, I'm thinking that 'delicate flowers' and 'glib sociopaths' and 'murder supporters' and the like will be a thing of the past, as well as a few controllers that wont be able to control themselves enough to cease using such terms.

Will start treating that like the homophobic slur that it is? I would like to think so but we'll have to see.

Over many years, I have found that some insults and slurs are accepted. I really hope Skinner will follow through on that and they will be not allowed.

An appeals process means those ignoring the rules will be recognized for what they're doing.

And presumably dealt with accordingly if it continues.

It will be interesting

We need go back no further than the "Under the Gun" fiasco when folks complained that the source -- which broke the story -- was RW. Yeah, well, when most of MSM is and has been all-in for gun control for the last 40 years, do you expect CBS, WaPo, the NYT, AP, etc. to break it??! At least some (by no means all) of these entities begrudgingly acknowledged the corrupt journalistic ethic in the "documentary's" production. But don't expect even standard, but conceivably pro-2A, research to make it past editorial gate-keepers.

One day he quietly and politely pulled me to the side and, apologizing in advance, asked:. "Why are you such a n----- - lover?" Of course, I couched my answers in the most respectul manner which I could, given the respectful nature of the inquiry. Such are the pains of diplomacy.

She invited her best friend from grammar school to a high school dance as a sophomore. He's a really nice Filipino kid.

Monday after the dance, one of the jocks gets in her face in the hallway and tells her real loudly; "Don't ever bring another N- to a dance here again!"

My skinny little kid brings a punch all the way from the floor and knocks football boy out cold.

Next day I'm in the Superintendent's office with the kid she hit, his parents, the disciplinary dean and I'm being told she'll have a 3 day suspension for "fighting" and have to apologize to him.

I said; "it wasn't much of a fight this racist pig never got a punch in". "What do you mean racist?"

Then my daughter told them what the kid said and his parents got real sheepish looking real fast. At that point everybody in the room knew where he heard that word in the first place.

I asked if they really wanted to suspend her for this, or if he'd rather just have the local news people crawling all over his office and school to look into the blatant racism in their athletic program?

The decided to give the football star detention and probation and let her go with a warning ... not to beat up big, strong football players any more.

But she's still very proud of punching that kid and my standing behind her and the story has made the rounds of her Roller Derby friends and her 2 boys.

is simply a school restroom that a handful of teenagers use to scribble offcolor, rude and stupid messages on the walls. There really is nothing to discuss over there

Would periphery be a better term? TomAto tomAHto?

Riiiiiiiight. Pretending the word 'fringe' doesn't carry a negative connotation. Typical passive-aggressive Controller cowardice.

Refused to respond to a reasonable and respectfully tendered request for the name of the book he was reading as well. Y'know - the one that was "ostensibly neutral".

Rather fluid definitions depending on the circumstances.

This is probably the most interesting and well thought out post I've ever read by someone who generally favors more gun control.

Would you be willing to provide the name of the book? I would like to order a copy.

Thanks flamin. Excellent post.

Never wants to discuss or answer questions

I personally think that the OP was storytelling about actually reading a book......why else would he/she be unwilling to respond to the (politely tendered) question.

Than storytelling, lol

An avoidance response. But, at this point, not sure what else to think.

Overall, well-written.


Eh... I had a paragraph written, but it boiled down to "Your post is missing many details, but correct overall." Ain't my style to pick a fight where there's no fight to be picked though, so I'll leave it at "Well-written".

If you're not making any traction consider the fact that even as you attempt to sound scholarly and erudite you're still unable and/or unwilling to refrain from taking a slap at the people you profess to want to reach.

If you slap someone every time you reach out to them they very naturally and wisely begin to see every extension of your hand as a threat.


Oh, and diseases are a poor choice of metaphor.

Unless you're insinuating you want to eradicate carriers you are overlooking the fact that behind every shooting whether accidental, suicidal, defensive or criminal is a series of deliberate human choices. That is what we are confronting.

I find it curious that you would not reference the title in your OP, and as of yet have not answered the question now posed several times.

https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-intro.pdf

Interetsing - talks openly about the threat to the gun industry from the many lawsuits, and the attempts to legislate from the bench where the NRA isn't as effective.

Also contrasts the criminologists vs. epidemiological approach as described in the OP.

Was written before the PLCAA but has ab addendum I think.

Very sleep inducing. I suggest the Kindle version and follow the links to later chapters as the topics are discussed.

And heaven forbid you read an award-winning book by an honest, bona-fide liberal that is less sleep-inducing, more relevant and comprehensive and broader in scope.

https://www.amazon.com/Targeting-Guns-Firearms-Control-Institutions/dp/0202305694/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1465605931&sr=1-1&keywords=targeting+guns

...because his conclusions don't agree with your agenda, or is there truly a flaw in his research methodology?

1. He randomly surveyed 5000 phone numbers. The best information we have is that only 34% of households have guns, so 66% of his sample is flawed.

2. He had no way of verifying the data gathered; no police reports, no secondary witnesses, nothing. He just took their word for it.

3. He asked a question that guaranteed a very high false positive rate of response. People who own guns have a vested interest in defending that ownership, so when asked 'did you use your gun for self defense in the last 12 months' a lot of people said yes whether they did or not. A very high false negative response can be had by asking 'have you watched internet porn in the last year'. Anecdotal evidence for this high false positive came when the study was repeated but for only verified gun owners, one respondent reported using his/her gun 50 times in the last year.

4. He failed to correct for 'telescoping'. Did the respondents actually have a DGU in the last 12 months or was it 15 months?

5. He took the results of his flawed sample and extrapolated it to all households even though 66% did not have guns and therefore could not possibly have had a DGU.

The man does not know how to research and doesn't care to do quality work.

The CDC had one reference to his 2 million DGUs/year and gunners lap it up while at the same time denigrating every other study they've done.

Then you have Lott who admits to simply making up numbers and using false identity to applaud his own work. Yeah, like I'm going to respect these guy's work.

he used a larger sample size than polls that call only a few hundred phone numbers. If his poll is wrong, then every poll is wrong. But at least you didn't do what Hemenway did, which was to claim that Gertz's employees falsified data. Can you explain how two thirds would be flawed outside of maybe those would be the bulk of the no answers?

He didn't do that either. Every positive response was passed to a supervisor who asked a variety of questions aimed to weed out false positives. BTW, false negatives are probably more common.

Assumption not based on evidence. You provided no evidence that the poll was flawed other than simply claim that it is.

So how come you, well really Hemenway can find so called flaws yet no one else could, not even Marvin Wolfgang? Why did this study, and the book that was spawned from it, received an award from his professional society? Can you also explain that Phil Cook of all people were among the researchers that verified his results?

because they were not done by researchers trained in that area, was funded by Bloomberg, and usually didn't show up in a peer review criminology journal. Oh, the the studies were objectively shit.

Have you actually read the book and study, or just read what others say about it?

He offered no evidence, so either you pick and choose what is evidence worthy and what isn't. Either way you bring NOTHING to the conversation.

That line never gets old to you, does it? You really do need to consider some new material, guy!

The best information we have is that only 34% of households have guns, so 66% of his sample is flawed.

WTF?! Your "logic" is not just ill, but excruciatingly so! The percentage of respondents who provided a 'yes' response to the DGU query was so small that it's perfectly plausible that they fall within the category of gun owning households. As GE queried - can you provide a plausible explanation of why this would not be the case? The burden of explanation is on YOU.

He just took their word for it.

Simply a brazen lie -- as has already been pointed out. There are some very skilled individuals who can "lie on the fly" as they answer a series of questions.....but such persons are in the great minority. If a respondent claimed a DGU they were asked if the conversation could be recorded from that point -- and yes answers were scrutinized for false positives. Also - as the CDC has admitted - the Kleck/Gertz survey is not an outlier. There are something in the order of 14-15 surveys that support their conclusions. Academia isn't exactly known for it's 'right-wing bias'. So what --- is there some sort of vast "left wing conspiracy" to inflate defensive gun use by "just taking respondents word for it"? Lunacy!

He asked a question that guaranteed a very high false positive rate of response.

There is some validity to this criticism --- but even if all of the DGU surveys are off by a wide margin, it's still pretty ludicrous to suggest that they're off by such a margin as to invalidate the conclusion that DGU's happen with enough frequency to completely or largely offset gun misuse - given the relatively low numbers of gun misuses by criminals. (Quote from CDC on this forthcoming)

He failed to correct for 'telescoping'. Did the respondents actually have a DGU in the last 12 months or was it 15 months?

Mr. Johnston addressed this......but more on this in a moment.

He took the results of his flawed sample and extrapolated it to all households even though 66% did not have guns and therefore could not possibly have had a DGU.

"Logical" fruit from the poisoned tree. See response to #1.

The man does not know how to research and doesn't care to do quality work.

That asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

NOW -- HERE IS THE CRUCIAL POINT W/REGARD TO **ALL** OF KLECK'S RESEARCH:

Targeting Guns contains detailed responses to all of Kleck's DGU critics. Before he went to print, Kleck provided said critics (Hemenway, Wintemute, Ludwig, Cook, Kellerman etc.) with his manuscript --- offering them a chance to rebut any/all of his statements. TO DATE, NOT ONE OF HIS CRITICS HAS RESPONDED. Why would they? Their political purposes were served the moment they tendered their rebuttals -- fully aware that the press would lap up what they had to say and disregard Kleck's comments.

The CDC had one reference to his 2 million DGUs/year and gunners lap it up while at the same time denigrating every other study they've done.

Another falsehood. What a shocker! In point of fact, the latest statement by the CDC is hostile to the gun-restriction position on numerous fronts. More on that in a bit.

which is what gunners really want anyway.

You and GE offer no evidence, so I dismiss you both.

Then why not just buy a gun with a longer barrel? It's much cheaper because you don't need that $200 federal stamp.

I've told you that before. You must have forgotten.

This is what you have to offer? What precisely do you mean by "gunners" only wanting suppressors so as to make their guns longer?

Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.” (emphasis added)

Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

“Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

At least, that's what some people keep claiming -- I'm sure they wouldn't be mistaken about such an important claim...

Do I really need the sarcasm tag...?

And I really should apologize to our friend flamin lib for my post, given that I'm contributing nothing to the conversation.

(Do I really need the sarcasm tag...?)

And your beloved CDC now admits that there are high numbers of defensive gun uses.

Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig's study confirmed Kleck's finding of high number of DGU's -- I imagine that's the issue that prompted your post. Of course they immediately walked back their own findings......even though they had no reservations about embarking on their survey to begin with.

And of course, you present no evidence to support your assertion. How typical. You suffer from the delusion that 'Because I say so' is a valid argument.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Republicans don't have the market cornered with regard to factose intolerance:

http://www.ancient-origine.com/scientists-earth-endangered-new-strain-fact-resistant-humans/

or the fact that rifle handgrip shape is irrelevant to said misuse, or the now-overwhelming dominance of modern-looking rifles in sporting shooting and responsible ownership, or the irrelevance of magazine capacities over 10 rounds to both offensive criminal misuse and to mass murder in detachable-magazine guns. Trying to address gun misuse by banning rifle handgrips or magazines that stick out is like trying to address Zika by spraying for spiders.

Some gun-control advocates have indeed acknowledged the irrationality of those approaches (the former head of Americans for Gun Safety comes to mind), but very few. That fundamentalist devotion to early-90s gun control shibboleths is certainly an impediment to rational debate, IMO, but Bloomberg vehemently wants rifle/mag bans, and since he almost single-handedly funds the gun control lobby, his preferences frame the debate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126210844#post9

Deconstructed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172195556