Freedom begets freedom

[JB3]

Appreciating that carrying a firearm increases your chances of getting shot by 4.5x and your chances of getting killed by 4.2x, the only gays who should be carrying guns are those who really, really want to get shot and killed.

Period.

Argue all you want about how important and powerful a gun makes you feel. The most probable change that it will cause in your life is that you will die.

Crime and gun death statistics do not support your assertion.

 

[T-Rexx]

Crime and gun death statistics do not support your assertion.

I have cited four credible studies (three of them from American medical journals) that claim otherwise.

All you have given us is your opinion.

 

[T-Rexx]

Well, the first two aren't science, any more than your other offering was, because they're not studying what they say they're studying. In both cases, as before, they aren't studying the set of households which have firearms, they're studying the set of households which had violent deaths.

Further, both studies are irrelevant because they don't distinguish between criminals shooting each other, residents shooting intruders, and the other situations. THey don't limit it on the basis of who had the firearm or what it was used for.

I will note that in the case of the third item above, they acknowledge a study which showed some 400,000 lives saved in a year by the use of firearms. That would mean, by your prior figure, that 1.68 million people in households with guns are killed violently every year. Even using a different study, which found only half as many lives saved, the figure comes out to 840k people dying violently each year in households where there are firearms. Both figures are ludicrous; they would make it arguably safer to move to Somalia.

But the last one I can't tell if it's science or not -- it discusses all sorts of things that could affect the outcome of a study, but it never gives any basis on which a study could be or was done. It looks like a summary of other research, which is often the sort of thing done by people too lazy to do their own.

As I said, no amount of science will persuade you.

I have given you four studies , three from well-respected American medical journals, and you reject all of them. If I were to give you four thousand studies, the outcome would be the same. For you, this is not a scientific argument. It is emotional.

All you offer is your opinion.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

The fact remains. If you want to die of a gunshot would in America, the best way to accomplish that is to carry a firearm.

 

[T-Rexx]

Statistics are wonderful things, as many bright minds have observed in the past.

Indeed. Without them, there would be no such thing as science.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have cited four credible studies (three of them from American medical journals) that claim otherwise.

All you have given us is your opinion.

No, you haven't -- you've cited studies and claimed that's what they say. They do not. They study the wrong populations for reaching the conclusions you're claiming, as I've explained, so the claims are meaningless.

It doesn't matter where they come from; junk is junk.

 

[Kulindahr]

As I said, no amount of science will persuade you.

I have given you four studies , three from well-respected American medical journals, and you reject all of them. If I were to give you four thousand studies, the outcome would be the same. For you, this is not a scientific argument. It is emotional.

All you offer is your opinion.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

The fact remains. If you want to die of a gunshot would in America, the best way to accomplish that is to carry a firearm.

Science will persuade me. Lying with statistics will not. I've explained the problem with those studies, a fault easily evident to anyone with a background in Statistics 101 in college.

What three of the four show is that if you get killed, statistically speaking there's a higher chance of it having been with a firearm than any other factor. Now while that's an interesting observation, and one worth examining as to implications, it says absolutely nothing about whether having a firearm means you're more likely to get killed, because the study didn't look at the population of people with firearms, it looked at the population of people who were killed violently.

Your final statement would be correct if said this way: If you want to die violently in America, the best way to accomplish that is to seek violent people who carry firearms. The studies don't even address whether the people killed were carrying or even owner firearms, a matter that invalidates your conclusion immediately -- they only addressed violent death in households where there were firearms. They didn't look at whether the firearm was used by the person who owned it in self-defense, killing the intruder. So again, what they show is that of the varieties of violent deaths, death by firearm is most prevalent; and what they do not show is whether the presence of a firearm makes violent death more likely.

Even taking the low-end figure for use of firearms to save a life annually, from the AMA report -- 62,000 -- your claim would be that in households where there are firearms, 262,000 people are killed with them every year. That's only about a dozen times the total deaths from firearms, but what the heck -- your fake numbers serve an agenda, so what's a little discrepancy with reality?


A far more valid determinant of whether you're likely to die from a firearm-inflicted wound is if you hang around people with serious anger problems.

 

[T-Rexx]

^ Guns are designed to do one and only one thing: to kill.

They are not designed to "stop" or to "protect" or to "keep the peace."

They are designed to kill. Period. It is hardly surprising that all of the scientific studies show that guns mostly kill people. That's the whole point of a gun. That's why it makes you feel so important. You have the ability to easily kill someone when you carry a firearm.

You seem persuaded that guns somehow routinely accomplish the polar opposite of that use for which they have been specifically and exclusively designed. It is a remarkable claim. And the evidence you offer for this conclusion is your opinion that all of the scientific studies simply must be wrong.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Guns are designed to do one and only one thing: to kill.

That's an emotional judgment that is contrary to fact. Firearms are designed to deliver a projectile to a target with a particular amount of force -- period.

They are not designed to "stop" or to "protect" or to "keep the peace."

Of course not -- they can't decide how they're going to be used. That's up to those who decide to use them.

They are designed to kill. Period. It is hardly surprising that all of the scientific studies show that guns mostly kill people. That's the whole point of a gun. That's why it makes you feel so important. You have the ability to easily kill someone when you carry a firearm.

No studies show "that guns mostly kill people" -- any study that claims such a thing is mendacious. What guns mostly do is sit in storage. The most common thing they do when not sitting in storage is get transported around. When they're not sitting in storage or being transported around, they're generally being used to put holes in things made of cellulose. When they aren't doing any of those things, they're mostly being drawn and shown in order to get someone to back down. Only in a very tiny minority of what guns do is a projectile launched in the direction of a person. And except in warfare, most of those shots are not fired to kill, they're fired to intimidate or otherwise establish superiority.

By your contention, there are over 100 million people in this country who think killing is cool. That's ridiculous on the face of it, and it's a claim that can arise only out of emotional bias.

How many gun owners have you surveyed to get this conclusion that guns make them feel important because it means they can kill? For that matter, how many gun owners have you surveyed to get this conclusion that guns make them feel important? I know -- the answer is "none" because you're pulling this out of an immature inability to grasp that people have feelings that don't match your own.

In truth, having "the ability to easily kill someone" doesn't cross most gun owners' minds. It rarely crosses the minds of concealed carry owners. When it does, the emotion most often associated isn't importance, it's sorrow, along with dread.

You seem persuaded that guns somehow routinely accomplish the polar opposite of that use for which they have been specifically and exclusively designed. It is a remarkable claim. And the evidence you offer for this conclusion is your opinion that all of the scientific studies simply must be wrong.

I haven't yet offered my opinion on any of the studies -- I've offered rational analysis. I note that you've responded with emotion-based speculation, nothing else.

 

[Stardreamer]

Indeed. Without them, there would be no such thing as science.

In the right hands yes, in the wrong hands you get groups like NARTH and Exodus who can produce nice 'scientific' statistical studies that show that homosexuality is a mental illness, that male homosexuals are statistically more likely to be pedophiles, and that homosexuality can be cured 70% of the time by their therapies. And of course in the really wrong hands you get politicians.

How a study is conducted is just as critical to know as the results of the study, particularly in politically sensitive area where the researcher my be letting his bias influence the methodology.

 

[opinterph]

How a study is conducted is just as critical to know as the results of the study, particularly in politically sensitive area where the researcher my be letting his bias influence the methodology.

And that’s why any legitimate statistical study should reveal the raw data; explain how it was collected, and reveal the methodology used to interpret that data. If the conclusion is valid, it should be verifiable. – It should be possible for another statistician to replicate the results or to suggest explanations regarding how the conclusion(s) may be skewed.

 

[bankside]

That's an emotional judgment that is contrary to fact. Firearms are designed to deliver a projectile to a target with a particular amount of force -- period.

Good! I'm glad we've finally got this from you. It is a projectile delivery device. Anything else is just over-inflated emotion.

Thus guns are clearly not:

• the true means to self-protection
• the path to liberty
• America's gift to the world.

They are projectile delivery devices, nothing more, nothing less. They do not have any special significance in dealing with issues of violent communities or unsafe streets or fear of strangers, except for those who view them irrationally as some kind of totem of self protection.

Communities and countries are well within their rights to examine other methods of establishing harmony and liberty amongst their citizens, with or without some trivial projectile delivery device, and it does not make those communities "tyrannical" or "cowardly" or "naive" or "autocratic" or any of the other hyperbolic adjectives fired like so much buckshot by people who would be laughed out of the room in any country which actually does have a rational perspective on guns, simply because those communities choose a different course of action.

 

[Stardreamer]

Good! I'm glad we've finally got this from you. It is a projectile delivery device. Anything else is just over-inflated emotion.

Thus guns are clearly not:

• the true means to self-protection
• the path to liberty
• America's gift to the world.

They are projectile delivery devices, nothing more, nothing less. They do not have any special significance in dealing with issues of violent communities or unsafe streets or fear of strangers, except for those who view them irrationally as some kind of totem of self protection.

Communities and countries are well within their rights to examine other methods of establishing harmony and liberty amongst their citizens, with or without some trivial projectile delivery device, and it does not make those communities "tyrannical" or "cowardly" or "naive" or "autocratic" or any of the other hyperbolic adjectives fired like so much buckshot by people who would be laughed out of the room in any country which actually does have a rational perspective on guns, simply because those communities choose a different course of action.

Guns are a tool, just like the lock on your door, a police cruiser, a can of mace, a 911 switchboard, etc.

None of those things in and of itself is indispensable in protecting one's self or society but they do make it easier. Oddly enough, I'm not aware of one country or community (above the village level) that has excluded guns completely from the tools it uses to protect itself.

 

[T-Rexx]

Firearms are designed to deliver a projectile to a target with a particular amount of force -- period.

Exactly. And what is the sole reason you would want to deliver a projectile to a target? To kill something, of course.

What guns mostly do is sit in storage. The most common thing they do when not sitting in storage is get transported around.

You could say the same thing about cars. But cars are designed for purposes other than to kill things. Guns are designed for no use other than to kill.

When they're not sitting in storage or being transported around, they're generally being used to put holes in things made of cellulose. When they aren't doing any of those things, they're mostly being drawn and shown in order to get someone to back down. Only in a very tiny minority of what guns do is a projectile launched in the direction of a person. And except in warfare, most of those shots are not fired to kill, they're fired to intimidate or otherwise establish superiority.

I find it fascinating that you interpret guns soley in human terms. I would have thought that the vast majority of guns sold in the USA were intended for hunting animals. And yet, such use does not appear even to have occurred to you as you wrote this post.

You mention a gun "being drawn and shown in order to get someone to back down." You describe guns as being fired to "intimidate" and "establish superiority."

It is clear that guns have a powerful, emotional hold over you. Obviously, they make you feel pretty special.

By your contention, there are over 100 million people in this country who think killing is cool. That's ridiculous on the face of it, and it's a claim that can arise only out of emotional bias.

Again, you seem to assume that the only use for guns is to threaten people. That all those guns are being sold to threaten people. I find that fascinating. I agree there is an emotional bias here, but it is not mine!

How many gun owners have you surveyed to get this conclusion that guns make them feel important because it means they can kill? For that matter, how many gun owners have you surveyed to get this conclusion that guns make them feel important? I know -- the answer is "none" because you're pulling this out of an immature inability to grasp that people have feelings that don't match your own.

In truth, having "the ability to easily kill someone" doesn't cross most gun owners' minds. It rarely crosses the minds of concealed carry owners. When it does, the emotion most often associated isn't importance, it's sorrow, along with dread.

In order to appreciate the emotional appeal of guns, all you have to do is look at your posts above, Kuli. It's astonishing.

It never once occurred to you that the vast majority of guns purchased were intended for hunting. All that seems to have crossed your mind was how they may be used to "intimidate," "get someone to back down" and "establish superiority" over people.

Amazing. Just amazing denial.

I haven't yet offered my opinion on any of the studies -- I've offered rational analysis. I note that you've responded with emotion-based speculation, nothing else.

Rational analysis? Just look at your own posts.

Yeah, there's a lot of "emotion-based speculation" going on here. But it isn't mine.

 

[Kulindahr]

Good! I'm glad we've finally got this from you. It is a projectile delivery device. Anything else is just over-inflated emotion.

Thus guns are clearly not:

• the true means to self-protection
• the path to liberty
• America's gift to the world.

They are projectile delivery devices, nothing more, nothing less. They do not have any special significance in dealing with issues of violent communities or unsafe streets or fear of strangers, except for those who view them irrationally as some kind of totem of self protection.

Communities and countries are well within their rights to examine other methods of establishing harmony and liberty amongst their citizens, with or without some trivial projectile delivery device, and it does not make those communities "tyrannical" or "cowardly" or "naive" or "autocratic" or any of the other hyperbolic adjectives fired like so much buckshot by people who would be laughed out of the room in any country which actually does have a rational perspective on guns, simply because those communities choose a different course of action.

Now that you've spouted the same old drivel, I'll pass on pointing out why you're wrong except for the core:

because they do their job of delivering a projectile to its intended point, they make very nice tools for leveling the playing field between intended victim and criminal, something no weapon that requires closing with the attackers can do. And since the right of self-defense is meaningless without an effective tool of defense, the right of self-defense still entails the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Kulindahr]

Exactly. And what is the sole reason you would want to deliver a projectile to a target? To kill something, of course.

I never knew golf was about killing people. Did the Scots invent it to drive off the English?

 

[T-Rexx]

Firearms are designed to deliver a projectile to a target with a particular amount of force -- period.

Exactly. And what is the sole reason you would want to deliver a projectile to a target? To kill something, of course.

I never knew golf was about killing people. Did the Scots invent it to drive off the English?

My mistake.

When you said "firearm," I assumed you were talking about a firearm and not golf clubs.

 

[Kulindahr]

My mistake.

When you said "firearm," I assumed you were talking about a firearm and not golf clubs.

You've been making a lot of mistakes.

You don't understand statistics. You see emotion in boring clinical language. And you think that the only reason to deliver a projectile somewhere is to kill something -- mentioning golf was to point out how ludicrous that is.

Oh -- and not even close to a plurality of firearms are purchased for hunting. And since hunting hasn't been of interest to this discussion, what you were doing was trying to distract attention.


You want emotion? The emotion I generally feel when I strap on my sidearm is a sense of duty, and a heartfelt plea that it can stay right where it is -- stuck in the holster, strapped in to make it hard for others to get. I also feel responsibility -- responsibility to make sure no one uses my firearm but me, and responsibility to come to the aid of anyone who might need it.

And when I shoot with the Pink Pistols, it is just exactly the same set of emotions that go with golf -- the biggest differences being that no alcoholic beverages are cracked until every last firearm is put away, and we don't walk from place to place to do our ballistic sport. We even warn participants off heavy sugar, because sugar can be a mood-changer.


The fact is that gun owners are more law-abiding than the rest of America by far.


And another fact is that this has nothing to do with the article. If you applied your reasoning to the gay side of it, you'd be calling for registration of gays because we're dangerous to the public.
How does it feel, to think exactly like a ReligioPublican?

 

[T-Rexx]

^ All of the scientific data contradicts your claim that carrying a firearm makes one safer.

All of it.

Please explain to us why we should accept your opinion and not the data.

 

[JB3]

^ All of the scientific data contradicts your claim that carrying a firearm makes one safer.

All of it.

Please explain to us why we should accept your opinion and not the data.

Because the data you posted is flawed. He's said that already, and you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[JB3]

Exactly. And what is the sole reason you would want to deliver a projectile to a target? To kill something, of course.

No. What about sport shooting?

You could say the same thing about cars. But cars are designed for purposes other than to kill things. Guns are designed for no use other than to kill.

Incorrect. See above.

I find it fascinating that you interpret guns soley in human terms. I would have thought that the vast majority of guns sold in the USA were intended for hunting animals. And yet, such use does not appear even to have occurred to you as you wrote this post.

You mention a gun "being drawn and shown in order to get someone to back down." You describe guns as being fired to "intimidate" and "establish superiority."

It is clear that guns have a powerful, emotional hold over you. Obviously, they make you feel pretty special.

And you being an arrogant apparently makes you feel special as well.

Again, you seem to assume that the only use for guns is to threaten people. That all those guns are being sold to threaten people. I find that fascinating. I agree there is an emotional bias here, but it is not mine!

Your posts show that contention to be a lie.

In order to appreciate the emotional appeal of guns, all you have to do is look at your posts above, Kuli. It's astonishing.

It never once occurred to you that the vast majority of guns purchased were intended for hunting. All that seems to have crossed your mind was how they may be used to "intimidate," "get someone to back down" and "establish superiority" over people.

Amazing. Just amazing denial.

Or maybe he's getting emotional because you are being irrational. Emotion tends to creep in to arguments if one side (you) gets emotional first.

Rational analysis? Just look at your own posts.

Pot meet kettle. When confronted with the error of your 'studies' you threw a temper tantrum.

Yeah, there's a lot of "emotion-based speculation" going on here. But it isn't mine.

Incorrect. You are speculating on the uses for, and reasons for owning, guns, and it is all based on your irrational hatred of guns and those that own them. Kuli has been remarkably restrained in the way he's responded. He'd be well within his right to tear your head off.