I'm carrying a gun - Am I looking for trouble?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

More people in the US are killed each year in auto accidents than by firearms. Let's take away the automobiles first.

More people are killed by knives and beatings than by assault weapons, that still does not stop the ban the assault weapon hysteria

When the left wing anti gun nutters get serious about reasonable gun reform we will to

Does not make for "lets have a sensible debate" when the other side leads with idiotic measures like magazine capacity bans and banning weapons based on how they look

[Sousuke 1,214]

A bit of convoluted thinking there to try to fuzzy the line between something that is a quantifiable risk and something that simply isn't.

Statistics are only as good as the data they are compiled from but you would have to be pretty obtuse to argue that the data produced to support the favourable outcomes for seatbelt wearers in car accidents or that the chances of being involved in car accidents are merely a matter of opinion in order to support the argument that carrying a gun is anything more than a 'feel good' action.

I can't even be bothered to answer why no one will ever study something so inane.

Robbery is a quantifiable risk...I'm not trying to "fuzzy the line" or whatever that means. You made a risk assessment earlier which was an opinion not an empirical fact. My guess was that you were confusing the notion of "statistical significance" with making an assessment of a statistical risk. Statistical significance is the notion of determining whether a result in data is a pattern or if its background noise ie. random chance.

Does spray, tasers, or firearms help to mitigate the risk? The only study I am aware of is the gun use stat which has two assessments from Kleck - the low end being 800,000 uses to stop crime and the high end being 2.4 millon per year. However, I'm also aware the DOJ rates successful defensive use at a much lower number of 80k per year.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Brown Dwarf

[spookyturtle 9,465]

More people are killed by knives and beatings than by assault weapons, that still does not stop the ban the assault weapon hysteria

When the left wing anti gun nutters get serious about reasonable gun reform we will to

Does not make for "lets have a sensible debate" when the other side leads with idiotic measures like magazine capacity bans and banning weapons based on how they look

I wonder how many people were beaten to death by assault weapons?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I wonder how many people were beaten to death by assault weapons?

all of them. Any weapon used to beat someone to death is

[Peikko 1,575]

How many assaults were there in the US last year? How many forcible rapes? Murders? Robberies? Violent crimes? Tell the 14,000+ women who got raped that it is not a measurable risk.

There you go again, this is not relevant in any way at all to the point I am making. The fact that you think it is...well, there's nothing more to say.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

There you go again, this is not relevant in any way at all to the point I am making. The fact that you think it is...well, there's nothing more to say.

The mistress of circle talk is at it again, just like the old days! Nothing is ever relevant to the point you make, is it?

[Sousuke 1,214]

Robbery is a quantifiable risk...I'm not trying to "fuzzy the line" or whatever that means. You made a risk assessment earlier which was an opinion not an empirical fact. My guess was that you were confusing the notion of "statistical significance" with making an assessment of a statistical risk. Statistical significance is the notion of determining whether a result in data is a pattern or if its background noise ie. random chance.

Does spray, tasers, or firearms help to mitigate the risk? The only study I am aware of is the gun use stat which has two assessments from Kleck - the low end being 800,000 uses to stop crime and the high end being 2.4 millon per year. However, I'm also aware the DOJ rates successful defensive use at a much lower number of 80k per year.

I did notice that a recent report related to the President's exe order on the study of gun violence, did note that defensive use of a firearm statistically lowered the risk of injury to its owner...so there you go.

The mistress of circle talk is at it again, just like the old days! Nothing is ever relevant to the point you make, is it?

She is slightly confused as she lists herself as male.

[Peikko 1,575]

Robbery is a quantifiable risk...I'm not trying to "fuzzy the line" or whatever that means. You made a risk assessment earlier which was an opinion not an empirical fact. My guess was that you were confusing the notion of "statistical significance" with making an assessment of a statistical risk. Statistical significance is the notion of determining whether a result in data is a pattern or if its background noise ie. random chance.

Does spray, tasers, or firearms help to mitigate the risk? The only study I am aware of is the gun use stat which has two assessments from Kleck - the low end being 800,000 uses to stop crime and the high end being 2.4 millon per year. However, I'm also aware the DOJ rates successful defensive use at a much lower number of 80k per year.

As I suspected, that is a self assessment of 'successful' defensive use. That's hardly persuasive. If you discharge a weapon because you feel threatened and you are not assaulted that doesn't prove that you defended yourself successfully against a viable threat. Nor does it prove that if you didn't have a gun you couldn't have defended yourself against the same threat

I have a link to a fairly old set of data but I think it makes the point fairly clear. Even if you were being generous, this does not lend any credence at all to the theory that by carrying a gun as you go about your day to day business you are making yourself safer. In fact, I think it tends to support what I am saying, that people who carry guns do so because they feel better, but not because they can prove it has any positive effect.

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

If that's the basis of the self defense argument, it's completely pants.

Edited August 3, 2013 by The Truth™

[Sousuke 1,214]

As I suspected, that is a self assessment of 'successful' defensive use. That's hardly persuasive. If you discharge a weapon because you feel threatened and you are not assaulted that doesn't prove that you defended yourself successfully against a viable threat. I have a link to a fairly old set of data but I think it makes the point fairly clear. Even if you were being generous, this does not lend any credence at all that carrying a gun as you go about your day to day business you are making yourself safer.

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

If that's the basis of the self defense argument, it's completely pants.

We'll have to disagree then, as we have a completely different interpretations of the population. I cannot believe that the majority of successful defensive uses were misguided or lies.

What does "completely pants" mean?

Edited August 3, 2013 by Brown Dwarf

[Peikko 1,575]

We'll have to disagree then, as we have a completely different interpretations of the population. I cannot believe that the majority of successful defensive uses were misguided or lies.

What does "completely pants" mean?

Interpretation of the population? I do not understand that.

I didn't say that any one in the survey lied, or that they were misguided. Clearly some people do exaggerate, but that's neither here or there really. Nothing in the data proves that only the fact that these people had guns that they threatened to, or actually discharged prevented them from being assaulted. The worst ommision that I can see is that there is no attempt to assess the reality of the risk, it's merely people's personal accounts of discharging or threatening to discharge a gun because they felt themselves to be threatened. I do not see how anyone can use that as a basis for anything meaningful.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Interpretation of the population? I do not understand that.

I didn't say that any one in the survey lied, or that they were misguided. Clearly some people do exaggerate, but that's neither here or there really. Nothing in the data proves that only the fact that these people had guns that they threatened to, or actually discharged prevented them from being assaulted. The worst ommision that I can see is that there is no attempt to assess the reality of the risk, it's merely people's personal accounts of discharging or threatening to discharge a gun because they felt themselves to be threatened. I do not see how anyone can use that as a basis for anything meaningful.

Very well lets assume per the NCJRS that 108k is the more accurate number. That still indicates a statistical reduction in injury. The IOM and the NRC concluded this year that defensive use results in a reduction of injury in their report on Firearm related violence.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Brown Dwarf

[Peikko 1,575]

Very well lets assume per the NCJRS that 108k is the more accurate number. That still indicates a statistical reduction in injury. The IOM and the NRC concluded this year that defensive use results in a reduction of injury in their report on Firearm related violence.

I don't mind which number is chosen, although the 2.5 million or whatever is funny when you look at what that means, my point is, how can this be used to establish anything meaningful if the data is not able to stand up to any form of reasonable scrutiny? Put it another way, do you think seat belt use would be mandatory today had the data used came solely from people who after the event reported that they believed they were in an accident and that using the seat belt saved them from horrific injuries but no one actually examined the accident to see if the person was at any risk of injury or indeed if there had even been an accident at all?

[Sousuke 1,214]

I don't mind which number is chosen, although the 2.5 million or whatever is funny when you look at what that means, my point is, how can this be used to establish anything meaningful if the data is not able to stand up to any form of reasonable scrutiny? Put it another way, do you think seat belt use would be mandatory today had the data used came solely from people who after the event reported that they believed they were in an accident and that using the seat belt saved them from horrific injuries but no one actually examined the accident to see if the person was at any risk of injury or indeed if there had even been an accident at all?

Its true that automobile data is much easier to come by, I simply don't understand why your not able to look at the data available for firearms and make reasonable conclusions.

Frankly, I think we are just looking at this differently. Automobile data is a bit like collecting information about the earth whereas firearm data is closer to collecting information about Europa. Clearly there is more data on the former, but conclusions can still be made from the latter.

[LoveExile 27]

Carrying a gun at all times is about as rational as wearing a parachute at all times. Yes, there is a theoretical possibility that you may need a gun (or a parachute) "someday," but it is so unlikely as to make the precaution not worth the cost. In the case of the parachute, the only real cost would be the inconvenience of the person wearing it. However, the cost of legal gun ownership is the staggering amount of innocent people who are killed by legally, civilly-owned guns. Often times the children of the owner are the ones who pay the price.

Going back to the parachute analogy, someone wearing a parachute is much more likely to take risks that would require its use. They will stand closer to the edge of a cliff, they will walk on that balcony ledge, they will climb that scaffolding. The same principle applies to guns. It's human nature when someone takes an extraordinary precaution to want to be "right" about having taken it. They want to say "Ah ha! See! I wasn't silly/stupid/crazy!" So they will either consciously or unconsciously put themselves in situations (or not avoid situations) in which they could possibly need to use their gun. One time when I was driving to pick up a friend for school in Montana, I drove too far, so I pulled into a driveway in order to turn around. The guy who owned the driveway jumped out of his house like a shot, waving his gun and screaming profanities. If he had waited 5 more seconds I would have been gone, but since he had a gun, he was hoping I was some kind of threat so that he could use it. Imagine his disappointment that I was just some 16-year-old kid who was lost.

The simple truth is, guns kill people more often than they save them. If there was a medication that killed people more often that it saved them, it would not be used. If airplanes crashed more often than they landed, no one would use them. Why should this principle not also apply to guns? It's perversely simple.

Edited August 3, 2013 by LoveExile

[Peikko 1,575]

Its true that automobile data is much easier to come by, I simply don't understand why your not able to look at the data available for firearms and make reasonable conclusions.

Frankly, I think we are just looking at this differently. Automobile data is a bit like collecting information about the earth whereas firearm data is closer to collecting information about Europa. Clearly there is more data on the former, but conclusions can still be made from the latter.

I think I explained why. I do not have an issue with sane people owning guns, clearly having more than 80,000,000 guns in circulation doesn't pose a significant risk or it would be gun fight at OK coral every day, I just do not understand why anyone would feel threatened simply stepping outside their frond door. It doesn't make any sense given that most people never, ever encounter situations where having a gun would assist them in any way. I would imagine that there are very few people that in reality feel like that or carry gun on every and any occasion but obviously there are some.