posted
Apparently underreporting defensive gun use (almost to the point of denying it entirely) isn't biased. POINTING OUT that underreporting, however, is "ultra-biased".
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boy, Lott is in an interesting twilight. It's very dangerous to cite him in any gun debate, since he presents 'facts' based on some pretty questionable methodology.
If anything, he's just sort of a yellow flag. If you see his name in a pro-gun citation, it's a preliminary indication of questionable appeal.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gun-free zones are perfect for shooting sprees, actually. Those are the places people pick to rack up high body counts.
I'm not saying everybody should have a six-shooter on their hip, mind you, but nobody ever goes on a shooting spree at an NRA convention or a gun show.
If we could have a school and restaurant equivalent of Air Marshalls, it might reduce the incidence of this kind of thing.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
what? Whose gonna air drop a platoon into every armoury? Canada? Do we even HAVE that many troops on paper?
IP: Logged |
posted
I am curious, though (as biased as the article was), how often it happens that significant details are left out.
If it is true that only 4 of 280 newspaper articles mentioned the use of a firearm to stop the aggressor, what does that say? Those 276 papers may seem outwardly unbiased - but all considered the presence of a gun in a defensive light as an insignificant detail.
Granted, I wasn't actually paying attention too closely when this happened, so I can't verify that less than 2% of the articles written mentioned the defensive gun use. But from a quick dash around google, it seems pretty agreed upon that the fact that the subduers were armed with firearms was "underreported" (though to what extent seems debatable).
I'm curious as to why, though.
Is it the individual journalists who collectively didn't find that detail relevant, or simply were deficient enough interviewers that they never learned of it to begin with? Was that detail left out by the journalists because it didn't "fit" some preconceived notion or another? Or, probably worse, was that detail edited out by editors who felt it didn't fit the paper's overall message (or didn't pander to the right consumer base)?
I don't know.
A case can be made (and has been made) that such omissions are the product of media bias. Having friends who write for newspapers (in NJ), I can anecdotally attest that they're all pretty liberal - though they try hard to keep that from bleeding into their writing.
Even so, papers sell best in densely populated areas, which are predominantly urban areas, which are predominantly more liberal - so, more liberal stories tend to sell more papers. In that light, it doesn't surprise me that certain details might get omitted.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet's post makes me think of a Chris Rock quote:
"Never go to clubs with metal detectors. Sure it feels safe inside. But what about all those ****'s waiting outside with guns? They know you ain't got one."
Also, on an unrelated note, an interesting article from Glenn Reynolds, a U of Tennessee law professor and self-proclaimed "libertarian transhumanist" columnist/blogger: linkPosts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Gun-free zones are perfect for shooting sprees, actually. Those are the places people pick to rack up high body counts.
I'm not saying everybody should have a six-shooter on their hip, mind you, but nobody ever goes on a shooting spree at an NRA convention or a gun show.
If we could have a school and restaurant equivalent of Air Marshalls, it might reduce the incidence of this kind of thing.
I have this stick in my garden that keeps blue donkeys from trampling my flowers. I know that this stick works because I have never seen a blue donkey in my garden. Everyone should have a stick like this to keep blue donkeys out of their garden.
That is how such a suggestion sounds to me, and I have no problem with gun ownership. We do not see many cases of driving deaths at car conventions. I am certain I have never heard of a stabbing death at a knife or blade convention (not that I have attended any, if they exist). I do not hear of many drunk driving deaths at beer festivals.
A gun, a knife, a car, and a beer in every home should effectively make us safer, no?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apparently underreporting defensive gun use (almost to the point of denying it entirely) isn't biased. POINTING OUT that underreporting, however, is "ultra-biased".
It is not ultra-biased because it is attempting to point out underreporting of gun use. It is ultra-biased because it does so in an entirely one-sided fashion, presenting only one pro-gun author's viewpoint, failing to offer any alternative explanations or responses from the papers they are criticizing, and assigning controversial and unprovable motivations to the newspapers as if they were fact (needlessly calling the Washington Post "liberal" and "anti-gun", for instance.) If the article reported the same issue in a less slanted fashion, I'd be much more likely to believe the facts were as the article is presenting them.
quote:If it is true that only 4 of 280 newspaper articles mentioned the use of a firearm to stop the aggressor, what does that say? Those 276 papers may seem outwardly unbiased - but all considered the presence of a gun in a defensive light as an insignificant detail.
Well, IS it a significant detail? I'm not sure it is, unless you are looking at the story strictly in terms of the firearms debate. It likely depends on how big of a role the guns played - and because of the bias of the article, I can't tell if it is very much exaggerating the role or not. Did the shooter surrender because a gun was pointed at him?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the point was that using an NRA convention as a place where no mass shooting occurs and applying that to the wider situation is pretty suspect logic.
Mass shootings are pretty rare, even in the U.S., and when they occur, the choice of location seems to be tied to other factors than availability of guns.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Most men wouldn't walk into a NOW convention and shout, "Which one o' you b___es gonna be my ol' lady!" either.
I worked in a government office that was a no gun zone. We had a persone come right in attack us. I believe this small man would not have done this had we had a security guard, even one armed only with a night stick and mace.
It has nothing to do with guns. The suppressive effect of the presence of greater force is common sense. It's why a daycare might put a two-year old who bullied the other 2 year olds in with the three year old class.
It's not specious, it's human nature.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Olivet's post makes me think of a Chris Rock quote:
"Never go to clubs with metal detectors. Sure it feels safe inside. But what about all those ****'s waiting outside with guns? They know you ain't got one."
Also, on an unrelated note, an interesting article from Glenn Reynolds, a U of Tennessee law professor and self-proclaimed "libertarian transhumanist" columnist/blogger: link
The article seems to me to be based on a false premise. It is similar to the arguments I have heard before about how the "Wild West" was eventually tamed (which would be false, since most cities and towns were gun-free zones outside of law enforcement). Whether or not the average citizen has a weapon, criminally minded individuals' primary tools are intimidation and the assumption that they will escalate beyond the scope of the law where the average citizen will not. If handguns are allowed, then what is to stop criminals from using larger weapons? In some cities this has been a problem for decades, where a continually better armed police force is met with retaliation from criminals using assault weapons or teflon coated rounds. Do we want to add armed citizens to that mix of escalation?
The problem is not citizen access to weapons, it is criminal access to weapons. Opening citizen access doesn't stem the flow of criminal access, which is where the danger lies.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that Olivet has said more than once that she doesn't want to live in the Wild West, I don't think she was applying it necessarily to the wider situation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The suppressive effect of the presence of greater force is common sense.
Right, but we're talking about crazy people, correct?
I don't see how common sense or normal human nature necessarily come into play.
edit: Actually, I feel like I'm doing what I really dislike about gun control discussions, which is present overly simplified/fantasy based arguments. I just thought I understood what Jutsa meant and was attempting to clarify. I'm going to step out now.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Edit for clarity: this was to Justa
Not at all.
Most men wouldn't walk into a NOW convention and shout, "Which one o' you b___es gonna be my ol' lady!" either.
I worked in a government office that was a no gun zone. We had a persone come right in attack us. I believe this small man would not have done this had we had a security guard, even one armed only with a night stick and mace.
It has nothing to do with guns. The suppressive effect of the presence of greater force is common sense. It's why a daycare might put a two-year old who bullied the other 2 year olds in with the three year old class.
It's not specious, it's human nature.
That is the culture of escalation, and is exactly the mentality that gives American gun ownership the extremely poor image that it has throughout the rest of the world, and I believe rightly so.
Escalating does not solve the problem. Not individually, not governmentally, not militarily. This goes right back to a previous thread I started regarding the current administration's 'cowboy diplomacy' as a tactic for facing problems. This mentality is exactly the wrong way to look at it.
Would you send your child to school with a roll of nickels to face a bully? If someone cuts you off on the highway do you run them off the road? I am not asking about a slippery slope, I'm asking about a dangerous precedent.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I would say that part of it is instintive, really. Not a product of rationality.
Edit: S'okay Mr. Squicky. I was just wondering aloud about what might be done done to reduce public risk if we accept that a person with enough determination can get around the 'No Gun Zone' thing with such ease.
I mean to say, I don't really feel that the argument is an important one, either way. So we're cool.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Given that Olivet has said more than once that she doesn't want to live in the Wild West, I don't think she was applying it necessarily to the wider situation.
The point wasn't about the Wild West. It was that no matter how well armed a population may be, the criminal element will always strive to be more well armed. This is already the case in many cities who have better armed police forces than some army platoons.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa: I'm not talking about escalation. I'm talking about security guards. Having a trained person present in a place where the populace is vulnerable.
Really, I'm surprised that you think that is equivalent to running someone off the road.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While it's certainly true that criminals will strive to be better armed than their counterparts Jutsa, the comparison is a bit weaker when made against a (potentially) armed civilian population. There's only so much lethality you can conceal in your pocket, after all. Which is what most criminals have to work with.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, Justa, I don't disagree with you. I DO think you are reading things into what I wrote that were not my intention.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Justa: I'm not talking about escalation. I'm talking about security guards. Having a trained person present in a place where the populace is vulnerable.
Really, I'm surprised that you think that is equivalent to running someone off the road.
I don't see why you are surprised. Virginia Tech, for example, already had its own police contingent, so I have a difficult time finding a basis for your statements outside of suggesting an escalation to what was already present. Most places also have security guards where civilian carrying of weapons is not allowed. I am sorry that you have experienced otherwise, but I have no evidence that such a scenario describes most places where guns are not allowed.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: While it's certainly true that criminals will strive to be better armed than their counterparts Jutsa, the comparison is a bit weaker when made against a (potentially) armed civilian population. There's only so much lethality you can conceal in your pocket, after all. Which is what most criminals have to work with.
That is a false assumption. I would counter by challenging you to state some point in the past where a potentially armed civilian population was a deterrent to crime. Such has never been the case, and even less so since the introduction of firearms.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: While it's certainly true that criminals will strive to be better armed than their counterparts Jutsa, the comparison is a bit weaker when made against a (potentially) armed civilian population. There's only so much lethality you can conceal in your pocket, after all. Which is what most criminals have to work with.
That is a false assumption. I would counter by challenging you to state some point in the past where a potentially armed civilian population was a deterrent to crime. Such has never been the case, and even less so since the introduction of firearms.
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Mph-- Kennesaw (a town not far from where I live) passed a law requiring all homeowners to have a gun on their premises. At the time, home invasions were common in the area. (Home invasions are more common in wealthy areas where homes have security systems-- so the thieves break in while people are home and bully them into shutting them off. These are generally more violent types of crimes than simple theft or burglary.)
The law was controversial and highly publicized. It did have the desired effect, though-- home invasion rates dropped like a stone. The home-invaders didn't care for the odds.
There's an example from this thread
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admit to liking Britain's ban on handguns, but not rifles or shotguns. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, however, I think it would prevent some shootings. Columbine would have happened either way, and just as badly, with or without a handgun ban, but a situation like the VA Tech shootings may not have resulted in as many deaths. Dunno. Just sayin'.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:which would be false, since most cities and towns were gun-free zones outside of law enforcement
Justa, I think you're missing the point about "gun-free zones". In a "gun-free zone" that means there is no law enforcement armed with firearms, either. It's like saying someone's a vegetarian outside of the hotdogs they eat.
Olivet's point was to have someone trained and responsible enough to respond to hostile situations. It's not escalation, and it's not the Wild West. It's actually why we pay a police force - you know, so that someone can respond when needed.
The suggestion was to increase the presence of such trained, responsible, armed people. The police cannot be everywhere, after all.
And before you get into the slippery-slope argument that soon we'll have Day Care Marshalls, and Nursery Marshalls, and Fast Food Restaurant Marshalls, no one's asking for that either.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is a false assumption. I would counter by challenging you to state some point in the past where a potentially armed civilian population was a deterrent to crime. Such has never been the case, and even less so since the introduction of firearms.
Thank you, BaoQingTan, I was thinking the same thing. And to be clear, when I used 'potentially' I only meant that this was a thing that could potentially happen (you know, in the abstract): the entire population was armed. I was speaking within that example, that while criminals try to be better armed than their counterparts, the average criminal might only carry a handgun or firearm that could be concealed in a pocket or under clothing...something which, in the hypothetical, would be equaled by what the civilian was carrying.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BaoQingTian: have the home invasions stayed low? Have other crimes been tracked for increases and decreases? Looking at only one type of crime is not indicative of the crime rate dropping overall. Typically, when one security measure is introduced, that hole stays safe for a brief time while those who used it figure out another vector to take advantage of using little effort. That anecdote provides very little detail about what I asked, only providind the information applicable for one type of crime.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a minute, you specifically said, "State some point in the past where a potentially armed civilian population was a deterrent to crime."
Olivet has already done so. She stated a point in time, she stated that there was a potentially armed civilian population, and she stated that it served as a deterrent to crime. Not all crime, but then in her example the law didn't make everyone have guns outside their home.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Thank you, BaoQingTan, I was thinking the same thing. And to be clear, when I used 'potentially' I only meant that this was a thing that could potentially happen (you know, in the abstract): the entire population was armed. I was speaking within that example, that while criminals try to be better armed than their counterparts, the average criminal might only carry a handgun or firearm that could be concealed in a pocket or under clothing...something which, in the hypothetical, would be equaled by what the civilian was carrying.
False assumption. Major cities around the country still have violent crime, even cities that have conceal carry licenses for civilians. Potentially any civilian in such cities could be armed, but that doesn't stop muggings or robberies or rapes or carjacking, among other things like gang run areas and larger groups preying on citizens.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wait a minute, you specifically said, "State some point in the past where a potentially armed civilian population was a deterrent to crime."
Olivet has already done so. She stated a point in time, she stated that there was a potentially armed civilian population, and she stated that it served as a deterrent to crime. Not all crime, but then in her example the law didn't make everyone have guns outside their home.
I would like to see the actual statistics, including whether there were increased patrols and how many arrests for that behavior were made. Using a smaller area that is not a microcosm of the larger state or nation is not a convincing example.
Also, you admit that it could very well have pushed criminal behavior to another avenue, which does not solve the problem. It only deflects it to other victims. That is, frankly, not a solution or deterrent and is a rather selfish way to approach the situation.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, since according to Olivet, the law only required handguns to be kept in the home, it probably wouldn't have a significant effect on crimes outside the home, would it?
You asked for a case in the past where a potentially armed citizen was a deterrent to crime. I quoted an example from this very thread where all citizens kept a firearm in the homes, it was public knowledge that the firearms were there, and it deterred a certain class of crimes that took place in that location. Of course it won't deter crime in general. Your questions (to me) show more of a desire to pick apart an argument than they do to really understand something. I can't figure out why else you would ask about dropping crime rates across the board.
With the attitude I've seen in response to Katarin's post, I'm really not going to try to take the time to find any studies or statistics- it really won't change anyone's mind.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As another example, Justa, after Texas passed its concealed carry laws, the carjacking crime rate dropped considerably. It simply became too risky to run up on a car if the person inside might start shooting back.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jutsa, that's fine. But you're changing the request you're making here. I just want to point out that for the original question you asked, an example already existed. I'm looking it up now, but I dispute whether or not for this case, for this application, it's not a convincing example if it works.
If home invasions dropped precipitously after a law requiring homeowners to have a firearm in the house, I'm comfortable saying that particular law works at helping to prevent home invasions. I'm looking up statistics, but would you not be comfortable saying the same thing?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Could either of you please give me an article, numbers, or something that I can look at besides taking someone's word for it that it worked?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it change your mind if we did? If said article quoted someone that you didn't like, would you write it off as biased? Would you discredit research as being improperly conducted if it didn't support your point?
It really seems that you're in the "I will not be swayed" camp on this one - in which case, it's a waste of time to try to sway you.
This is the same reason I've stopped arguing with Lisa about Israel.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
"Other criminologists dispute the 89% figure, using the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, and find instead a small, statistically insignificant increase in burglaries after the law was passed (McDowall, Wiersema and Loftin, 1989; McDowall, Lizotte and Wiersema, 1991"
It seems that the hard facts and statistics are wildly contested by both sides of the issue. It's a bit disappointing that the law and its impact does not appear to have been studied very clearly in over 20 years since its passage.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Would it change your mind if we did? If said article quoted someone that you didn't like, would you write it off as biased? Would you discredit research as being improperly conducted if it didn't support your point?
It really seems that you're in the "I will not be swayed" camp on this one - in which case, it's a waste of time to try to sway you.
This is the same reason I've stopped arguing with Lisa about Israel.
Beautiful. When faced with skepticism, question the character of the skeptic.
Now, let us examine first the example of Kennesaw from a point of view that actually looks at whether crime was deterred or not, instead of looking at it from the point of view of someone trying to make a pro or anti gun argument.
Kennesaw passed the ordinance in 1982. The following chart is something I found when looking up the town for more information. Please take note that while the burglary rate dropped significantly during the time the ordinance was passed, it was not the first time that the rate had dropped and the rate predictably came back up. According to this graph alone, the burglary rate was back up to its pre ordinance levels by 1986. So, just using that graph as an example, it would seem that the solution was not a lasting one, if at all.
The following link is a 2004 report from Kennesaw of crimes by type, the number of reports, and their average compared to the per 100,000 citizen data below the first table. While the burglary total average is lower than the state average, the violent crime average is more than 50% higher. I visited the state's official website, and their historical data by county page. Kennesaw is in Cobb County, and as you can see from the historical data the crime rate drops for the years 1982 and 1983, but spikes again in 1983, shows four more years of a dropped rate, and between 1987 and 1988 drastically shoots up and continues to climb.
That was only after a brief search, but that data alone leads me to believe that, despite Olivet's perception or what she might have heard or read, that the advent of mandatory gun ownership did not significantly or permanently affect the level of crime in that area. I was able to perform this search because I was at least given a name to work with and a specific incident which was said to motivate a lower crime rate. I cannot perform the same search on what you said, FlyingCow, because Texas is a large state and you give no specifics as to what was introduced or where there was a decrease, nor any other supporting information. The information I was easily able to find on Kennesaw, both from outside and governmental sources, is the reason why I am skeptical when I hear people use examples like you gave. When looked at from a few steps back, the advent of guns neither helped nor hindered the crime rate in Kennesaw.
As far as the Kennesaw example goes, there is no evidence to support the claim that guns actually fixed anything, and at best only provided a temporary reprieve.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It seems that the hard facts and statistics are wildly contested by both sides of the issue. It's a bit disappointing that the law and its impact does not appear to have been studied very clearly in over 20 years since its passage.
Why does it seem disappointing? The town has around 25,000 population and is, from the reports I've read, mostly suburb. The majority of Americans live in rural or urban areas, with either significantly less or significantly more population density. As the graph I linked above shows, there was no remarkable change in burgalries outside of the normal histrograph of the rate fluctuation.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to argue. I was just thinking that if word got out that there were ununiformed (maybe) people of a highly trained nature allowed to carry guns into gun-free zones, that it would add an additional element of risk to someone planning to shoot up a Luby's.
That's why I used teh Air Marshall example. Because, if you really wanted to shoot as many people as possible in a no-gun zone, you could just shoot the security guard first.
I really think you're arguing against something I didn't say.
I'm not angry or upset, and I'm not coming down on you or your position on gun control. I agree with you. escept for the part where you seem to be misinterpreting something I said.
I will try in the future to be clearer. Obviously my ability to communicate is failing me. I didn't mean to make Pronouncements of Truth. I was merely wondering aloud, sort of brainstorming.
As I avoid loud, combattive situations, I respectfully submit that, since you obviously care more about this than I do (as a confirmed apethist) one way or the other. You win Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When faced with skepticism, question the character of the skeptic.
You've done it to me before, Jutsa. You're in no position to criticize others doing it.
As for your research, criminologists themselves cannot agree on it. I do not accept your links as conclusive.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may have misunderstood what you were saying, and had mixed it in with what others were saying. I tend to agree with what you said about gun free zones, but in my own experience I have seen more often that there were armed security in such areas, including schools (in urban areas, at least). I mostly came down on the parts you were quoting from the Penn & Teller skit, I think, and then statements from Rakeesh, BaoQingTian, and FlyingCow. I certainly do not want you to feel that I am coming down hard on you, because there are obviously parts where we agree squarely.
I also want to point out that my position is not one of gun control. I am an advocate of gun ownership. What I refuse to advocate is the ownership of guns as a defense mechanism against potential threats. That is what I am saying is dangerous and sets a dangerous precedent. I apologize for seeming like I misinterpreted you. It is sometimes difficult being hit from numerous angles to completely address each individual's specific statements, and perhaps I waas speaking too generally. I was mostly speaking out about the comment quoting you regarding Kennesaw in my last few posts, and before that simply reiterating that gun free zones are typically patrolled by security or police in many cases.
How about we both win and enjoy some tea? Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When faced with skepticism, question the character of the skeptic.
You've done it to me before, Jutsa. You're in no position to criticize others doing it.
As for your research, criminologists themselves cannot agree on it. I do not accept your links as conclusive.
Can you state why? I used actual statistics, not quotes from quotes from sources. My conclusion was, in case you missed it, that the inception of guns showed no remarkable effects one way or the other.
As for your personal jab, I would prefer if you remained out of contact with me if you are going to be dismissive at me. Your opinion of me has no place here.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Beautiful. When faced with skepticism, question the character of the skeptic.
In the six years I've spent on this site, I've spent way too many hours spinning my wheels with people who have no intention at all of changing their minds even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Quite frankly, I've learned it's not worth it to argue at that point, so I was asking you directly if evidence would be accepted.
The tone I read into your posts was "show me some evidence so that I can shoot it down" not "show me some evidence so that I can use it to potentially reevaluate my worldview".
As for Texas, I cannot access most websites from work, so I'm pretty much useless for providing links to very much. (I can't technically even click on the "forums" link on hatrack's main page, but I can type in the "cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi" to get here manually)
Here is one link I painstakingly found by entering the words "texas" "crime" "concealed" and "gun" into Google, which was apparently a search you "cannot perform" on a state as large as Texas. I don't have the time or access to look further - my statement was made based on articles read and seen on television from the late 1990s.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think the part that I didn't articulate clearly was inherent to the Air Marshalls thing. Unmarked security guards, like unmarked police cars. To add an element of uncertainty to a potential criminal's mind.Just and idea. Not even one I'm particularly attached to.
I'm not a fan of *everybody* carrying a gun as a deterrent to crime. Seems like that would cause a lot more problems than it would solve (if it solved any, which I don't think it would).
About Kennesaw, I thought that was an extreme law to begin with, since it was specifically targetted to protect property owners from home -invasion (not burglary) and really only exists as a kind of grease for the tax base.
That law plays into fears of affluent suburbs becoming bread baskets for urban thieves--an idea based partly on over-reported crimes (the more brutal and scary, the more play it gets in the news) and partly on exaggerated fears and stereotypes. It's a tricky wicket, and I hate politics in general, especially the type that gives rise to these sorts of gimmick-laws.
I quoted the parts of the Penn and Teller skit that surprised me or made me laugh, not because I agreed with them. I'm just an admirer of cheek. I'm low-key about this thing, but it sure is fun to watch. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Beautiful. When faced with skepticism, question the character of the skeptic.
In the six years I've spent on this site, I've spent way too many hours spinning my wheels with people who have no intention at all of changing their minds even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Quite frankly, I've learned it's not worth it to argue at that point, so I was asking you directly if evidence would be accepted.
The tone I read into your posts was "show me some evidence so that I can shoot it down" not "show me some evidence so that I can use it to potentially reevaluate my worldview".
As for Texas, I cannot access most websites from work, so I'm pretty much useless for providing links to very much. (I can't technically even click on the "forums" link on hatrack's main page, but I can type in the "cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi" to get here manually)
Here is one link I painstakingly found by entering the words "texas" "crime" "concealed" and "gun" into Google, which was apparently a search you "cannot perform" on a state as large as Texas. I don't have the time or access to look further - my statement was made based on articles read and seen on television from the late 1990s.
Yes, apparently I don't know how to use Google. I had already read that document, as well as a few others that do the same thing as the Kennesaw example above: they point out the introduction of guns (conceal carry) as the only change (but not saying that explicitly, just inferring it), and only point out reduction in specific types of crimes without a corresponding histrograph of crime rates.
But, since I am unable to perform a Google search and you are so tired of bothering to argue against me, I guess I shouldn't point out that Texas has also been increasing its allowable convictions that are punishable by capital punishment (death penalty), right? Currently, Texas can now give the death penalty to repeat offenders of sexual crimes (ostensibly child molesters). That surely has no effect. How about population? A better case can be made than Kennesaw, considering the little experience I had in Texas consisted of seeing almost exclusively rural and urban areas, which is a better comparison overall. But very little in the way of statistical data is given with any balance, even from the document you linked. I found about eight similar documents, and all worked from the premise of allowing more guns, not from the premise of crime rates and tracing the causes. I am not skeptical because I think poorly or you or the thought of owning a weapon. I am skeptical because I have yet to see any reasonable examination of such cases that was not intentionally starting from a pro or anti gun premise and couching the facts to support their preexisting ideas. That is why I am asking for details, not because of whatever intentions you might assume I have.
I don't know how many different ways I can state that I am not advocating more gun control. I have no problem with owning guns. My only statements have been that using guns as a security measure by civilians sets a poor precedent and is dangerous. Considering your (FlyingCow) cited example and the state of origin of the current administration, I'd say there could very well be some connection there. Neither introducing nor restricting guns has historically solved the problem of crime. The only thing that solves problems of crime is removing the enablers of the crimes. Some could also say that introducing harsher consequences may deter crime.
I have yet to see any documentation that paints a line from lower crime to gun ownership, and every example that is cited tends to draw the line from an assumed premise.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet, I once heard in a discussion that the Second Amendment is what has kept this nation from becoming a dictatorship in the past. It was obviosuly joking hyperbole, though kernels of truth tend to make the best jokes, I think.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You used statistics, I used criminologists. One from FSU says it worked, one from Harvard says it doesn't.
Look at the the crime rates from the actual government source. You linked it yourself. There was no appreciable difference. The criminologists argue semantics or relevance. Instead, look at the actual numbers. I'm not arguing semantics or relavance, I am arguing the actual crime rate.
quote:Incidentally, as for "personal jabs", don't make them, and I won't make them.
First, two wrongs don't make a right. Second, I am not "making them." I am saying they have no place here. If it applies to me, then it should apply to you. Please, either stop addressing me if you cannot stop making personal jabs or expect to be whistled every time you do.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What, even the criminologists who agree with you are arguing semantics or relevance?
And as for not making them...well, I disagree. You've gone out of your way to do so at least once in the past week, with your hypocritical "why is it OK for you and not for me?" whining in another thread.
I'll stop making "personal jabs" when you stop bringing up our past disagreements, and then casting yourself in a favorable light when you do so. This is the last I'll say on that subject in this thread. Feel free to whistle me for labeling you as 'whining'.
But, to put it more simply, if you don't want me to address you with personal jabs, don't address me and reference our past disagreements in support of your judgements. Because I'm not going to "sit still" for that. I suppose it's because I'm a Fox News fan, I just can't help myself.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
FlyingCow, please see my earlier example of the stick and blue donkey. I can point out something and then point out a positive aspect (whether real or imagined), but that does not define causality. I am asking for a reasonable breakdown of causality without bias one way or the other. For instance, I am dubious of claims that a gun in the home is more dangerous, because almost any documentation out there begins from the assumption that guns are bad and don't belong in the home. Applying the same skepticism I do with that kind of argument to the example you cited is based on me not wanting biased assessments from which to base my opinion. As of this point, my opinion is based solely on evidence I have been able to gather up to this point. Instead of offering something new, you have spend at least two posts questioning my intelligence or whether I am worth your time.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The working knowledge I am operating from is memory (which could easily be flawed). I remember reading toward the end of college (1996-2000) that carjacking crime rates in Texas (and other states that had enacted concealed carry permits) had dropped considerably.
Granted carjacking is only a small piece of the criminal equation, but what I read at the time was that the knowledge that it was perfectly legal for a driver to both have a gun and use it to defend themselves was enough to drive car thieves to less violent means of stealing that property.
It's almost like The Club. It's a deterrent, but by no means guarantees the car won't still be stolen - determined thief will not be deterred by much.
Olivet's earlier point is a valid one, though. The risk/reward of armed robbery during a gun show isn't worth it, much like the risk/reward of robbing a police station's evidence room isn't worth the attempt. By the same token, if you wanted to kill a whole lot of people in a mass shooting, an army base is probably not your best choice.
While the argument was made that such evaluation takes rational thought, so does premeditated mass homicide, to a degree. Cho seemed to have chosen his location carefully.
But, just like Dr. Strangelove, a deterrent weapon is only useful if those you wish to deter are aware of it. Criminals who *know* their victims may be armed may act differently, while criminals who *don't know* if their victims may be armed are less likely to hesitate.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What, even the criminologists who agree with you are arguing semantics or relevance?
Yes. I highly doubt that any one of them agrees with me specifically, but if they are placing arguments then it is over semantics and relevance. The numbers are what they are. A criminologist would start from the numbers that are there and try to assess the factors that would be attributable and to what degree they effected the actual outcome. I don't see them doing that on either side. The only quotes I can find state either 'this proves it' or 'it doesn't prove anything'.
I am saying that the actual numbers don't support the claim that the Kennesaw example is an adequate answer to my request, since the numbers obviously did not drop in anything but a small degree for a short time. I am not arguing whether or not the gun introduction caused that or how, I am saying that the crime rate did not change noticably enough in numbers (including burglaries) to be factually significant as an example of what I asked for.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I will try in the future to be clearer. Obviously my ability to communicate is failing me. I didn't mean to make Pronouncements of Truth. I was merely wondering aloud, sort of brainstorming.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm low-key about this thing, but it sure is fun to watch. 
