The US 2nd Amendment.....

[VertOlive]

"Perhaps, but only with proper training. Otherwise the gun user, no matter what their intentions may be, is just as likely to inadvertently hit innocents as the bad guy/s. That's also ignoring gun users who, frankly, are way too trigger happy and may escalate to gun usage when the situation doesn't call for it (although this case is probably more an example of criminal excessive use of force as opposed to simply not being a good shot in a stressful situation)."

Yes you said that. Those of us who are licensed to carry our firearms take regular training seriously and it becomes a pastime. We shoot stationary targets. We seek out activities in which we must move and shoot. Then we take more training. The longer we do it, the more cautious we are, having blown it many times in practice. We lock the guns up when we get home. There will be criminals and crazies. Most people meet their end in the middle of the bell curve by illness or traffic fatality rather than on the outliers of taking a stray round at the all night drive through...my point being that there is little you can do to insulate from random chance and you will never extract every unregistered gun from every unsavory owner.

Which is why the rest of us who want them must be allowed to have them.

[dneal]

As far as guns stopping and/or preventing crazy people, that may be the case, but only with proper training. Without proper training, the good guy with a gun is just as likely to inadvertently hit innocents as the bad guy they are trying to target. A lot of people without prior experience and/or training have no idea how difficult it is to accurately use firearms in a stressful situation such as trying to target a dangerous individual in a crowd of innocents. There's also the problem of overly trigger-happy gun users who may escalate situations to the use of deadly force when it's not necessary, but this is more akin to a scenario of criminal excessive use of force instead of simply being a bad shot when stressed.

It seems there isn't a great deal of debate with the other items addressed, so I'll skip them; but I'll confess to clearly having a brain-cramp on the 24th amendment bit...

Anyway, I do have concerns with people owning guns that have no idea about basic safety or use; or who have "something to prove" / the stereotypical small genitalia joke, etc...

At first glance, thinking about these sorts of individuals leads me to support the notion of mandatory training. But, there are many anecdotal cases of "trained" individuals using guns improperly - whether it's the YouTube video of the "tactical" guy inadvertently shooting himself in the leg as he's "practicing" some sort of quick-draw technique, the overzealous policeman with "guns blazing", etc... Statistically, how often does this happen? I don't think any studies have been conducted, but I don't think it's particularly common, and even less so for bystanders to be affected. What does seem to be the case (based on Gary Kleck's research) is that the simple introduction of a gun into a scenario de-escalates the situation with no shots being fired. In cases of defensive gun use where shots are fired, bystanders don't seem to be injured (and again, I don't think the research has been done but am thinking about why we never hear about it...).

The flip side is perhaps the stereotypical "drive-by", where many rounds are fired at a person/car/house and bystanders are injured or killed. Again, I doubt it's a statistically significant cause of death or injury, and it's isolated to certain metropolitan areas. Those types of individuals are not obtaining guns legally, and they're not concerned with safety; so it is doubtful that any law is going to reduce those types of instances.

Training is required for concealed carry, but it is basic legal considerations and a proficiency test. Perhaps ironically, firearms training was once part of school curriculum. Although the intent was to establish fundamentals of marksmanship for future possible military service, it did teach gun safety. Should we reintroduce something like this?

[FredRydr]

First, there is no "gun" problem.... ...Have the balls to just say it, instead of creating smug pseudo-intellectual sideshows. Second, there is no "crazy people getting their hands on guns" problem. This is because there is no gun problem....

(emphasis added)

Comment isn't even necessary; the foregoing speaks for itself.

Fred

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Motor vehicle traffic deaths in the US.

Number of deaths: 33,804
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths in the US.

Number of deaths: 33,636
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6



Vehicle use is, I would imagine, a great deal more common than gun use. Correct me if you have evidence to show this is not the case.


So, those who are talking about the numbers of gun deaths being insignificant should be cautious in making such statements, as they are no less significant than vehicle related deaths.


For the record, these statistics were extracted from data collected and analysed by the CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a body that is considered to be somewhat authoritative when it comes to epidemiological studies.

Edit: this is data from 2013. I cannot at this time find more up to date data.

[dneal]

Motor vehicle traffic deaths in the US.

Number of deaths: 33,804
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths in the US.

Number of deaths: 33,636
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6



Vehicle use is, I would imagine, a great deal more common than gun use. Correct me if you have evidence to show this is not the case.


So, those who are talking about the numbers of gun deaths being insignificant should be cautious in making such statements, as they are no less significant than vehicle related deaths.


For the record, these statistics were extracted from data collected and analysed by the CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a body that is considered to be somewhat authoritative when it comes to epidemiological studies.

Edit: this is data from 2013. I cannot at this time find more up to date data.

Now remove suicides from gun deaths. It's a BS way of inflating the number to prove an irrelevant point. Japan has a higher suicide rate but essentially no guns.

Don't want to do that, because it's about saving lives? Fine, ban cars too then and let's prevent all those unnecessary deaths. Heck, we don't even need a Constitutional amendment to do it.

But... Cars are useful! Well, then your argument isn't about saving lives. It's about getting rid of something that you don't like.

But... The benefit of cars outweighs the deaths! Fine. Then factor in the 800k-2.5M defensive gun uses per year. Those are assaults, homicides, robberies, rapes and other crime that didn't happen because of guns.

Stop searching for 'facts' that support your opinion, and look at the issue objectively.

[Crazyorange]

Stop searching for 'facts' that support your opinion, and look at the issue objectively.[/QUOTE]

Hummmm...I do believe you've been quoting stats as well. What's good for goose isn't good for the gander?

Let's face it, looking "objectively" only depends what YOU want to hear.

[dneal]

Stop searching for 'facts' that support your opinion, and look at the issue objectively.

Hummmm...I do believe you've been quoting stats as well. What's good for goose isn't good for the gander?

Let's face it, looking "objectively" only depends what YOU want to hear.

Go back and read the thread. Read the links. I approached it objectively. I read the old CDC studies (before they were forbidden from spending money on any more). I searched for the academic critiques of them. Most of them fell apart. I found John Lott and Gary Kleck on the 'pro' side of the issue, read their work, and then looked for the academic critiques. I'm talking true academic publications submitted for peer review. Their work still stands, after 20 years. The CDC's last study, authorized by the current president, confirms Lott's work.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The way you present your arguments suggest that you are cherry picking among the reports for those that support your view. I'm sorry but that is how it reads on this thread.

I would suggest you provide links for the academic critiques. Bear in mind that I would prefer systematic reviews, or even better a meta analysis, rather than your personal opinion. Also, I work in academic research and have been a peer reviewer. I don't mention this as a point to authority - as I do not claim to be such - more to highlight that I have some familiarity with the process and know how to assess papers. I have no doubt that I am as subject to various biases as anyone else in a research field, maybe more so as I am relatively new to it.

However, as you have raised the point about academic critiques I believe it is incumbent upon you to provide the links rather than expecting me to go and find them.


Whether gun deaths are third party or suicides is an irrelevant point with regard to numbers of deaths by method. Your point seeks only to distract from this. The CDC data simply provides the numbers, it does not seek to interpret or find meaning in it. There are two questions here: one, is the number of deaths associated with firearm use high enough to be a cause for concern, and two, if the numbers are high enough what are the significant risk factors and predictors?

[dneal]

The way you present your arguments suggest that you are cherry picking among the reports for those that support your view. I'm sorry but that is how it reads on this thread.

That explains why I haven't posted opinion pieces - Right? Look, I've done the homework and come to a conclusion. Of course my arguments support the conclusion I've been convinced of. Feel free to post the CDC study that shows family members are more likely to be killed than bad guys. Then, I'll post the many academic critiques of it and its methodology. That's the way debate works. You seem to have come to the party with a view, and are now scrambling for data that supports it.

I allowed for the "opposition's" position. 800k defensive gun uses instead of Kleck's 2.5M. I've allowed for the inflated 30k number of gun deaths that include suicides. Even when I factor the worst case, I come to the conclusion that 30k deaths is preferable to 800k rapes, robberies, assaults, murders, or whatever those prevented crimes might have been. 30k is .01% of the population.

I would suggest you provide links for the academic critiques. Bear in mind that I would prefer systematic reviews, or even better a meta analysis, rather than your personal opinion. Also, I work in academic research and have been a peer reviewer. I don't mention this as a point to authority - as I do not claim to be such - more to highlight that I have some familiarity with the process and know how to assess papers. I have no doubt that I am as subject to various biases as anyone else in a research field, maybe more so as I am relatively new to it.

However, as you have raised the point about academic critiques I believe it is incumbent upon you to provide the links rather than expecting me to go and find them.

You think it's incumbent upon me to provide you the links to any critique? Seriously? Then you should also post all the critiques of your position. I shouldn't be expected to go find those, after all. I'm sorry, but that's absurd. My discipline is Philosophy, with a focus on sentential logic.

Did you bother to read the paper by Kleck that I did post the link to? Did you bother to watch the entirety of the debate I posted? While you were searching for CDC data, did you bother to read the 2013 study ordered by President Obama?

What about Lott's work? Have you read More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott? Did you even bother to browse the Amazon reviews? I'm not going to provide you Donohue's argument against it, or Lott's rebuttal of Donohue, if you're not going to bother with reading the source material.

Whether gun deaths are third party or suicides is an irrelevant point with regard to numbers of deaths by method. Your point seeks only to distract from this. The CDC data simply provides the numbers, it does not seek to interpret or find meaning in it. There are two questions here: one, is the number of deaths associated with firearm use high enough to be a cause for concern, and two, if the numbers are high enough what are the significant risk factors and predictors?

Actually, this pseudo-argument seeks to distract from the fact that you can't or won't argue the facts of the point that I made. Why did you bother to post the data in the first place, unless you were attempting to make an implication? Asserting that you did not intend to have it interpreted or imply meaning is disingenuous. Furthermore, I offered each permutation of argument that can be derived from it. Feel free to add one I missed. I will wager that the answers to your "new" questions are in my previous commentary, but I'll go ahead and answer them specifically.

No, the numbers of firearm deaths are not high enough to be cause for concern. Furthermore, it is a meaningless metric because it does not look at the root cause(s), which your second point begins to. There is a distinct difference between evaluating suicides, and the method by which they are done; and "firearm deaths", and the circumstances involved.

It is the intellectual equivalent of evaluating death by doctor; without bothering to distinguish between high-risk complications, low survivability rates categorized by type of medical issue, and simple doctor negligence. The correct approach is to examine how to reduce doctor negligence, or how to improve survivability for specific illnesses.

[FredRydr]

Actually, this pseudo-argument seeks to distract from the fact that you can't or won't argue the facts of the point that I made.

You need to learn the definition of "fact."

Since your method of debate starts from a premise that something "is" as a tautological thing (e.g., "First, there is no gun problem...") and then treat that as a "fact" to support your remaining argument (e.g., "...[t]his is because there is no gun problem...") is specious at best, and intellectual vacuity at its worst. Therefore, it's a waste of time to engage in an exchange with you. The use of gun would likely resolve the issue just as well. Many Americans prefer the latter, since we make it extremely convenient.

Fred

[Crazyorange]

I did ask if Lott was pro guns....which you never replied. So did a quick google....Lott is pro guns and has strong NRA connections. "Objectively" pro gun.

Without banning guns, what would you recommend to change to lessen the negative impact of improper gun usage? Jail time? Financial penalties? Or am I correct, you want nothing to change?

That said I did get a good laugh from last nights Saturday night live....if you're pro gun don't watch.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-li...1-of-2/3039812

[dneal]

Actually, this pseudo-argument seeks to distract from the fact that you can't or won't argue the facts of the point that I made.

You need to learn the definition of "fact."

Since your method of debate starts from a premise that something "is" as a tautological thing (e.g., "First, there is no gun problem...") and then treat that as a "fact" to support your remaining argument (e.g., "...[t]his is because there is no gun problem...") is specious at best, and intellectual vacuity at its worst. Therefore, it's a waste of time to engage in an exchange with you. The use of gun would likely resolve the issue just as well. Many Americans prefer the latter, since we make it extremely convenient.

Fred

If we're going to be pedantic, you're wrongly claiming that I called my opinion or assertion a "fact". There are also multiple uses of words, depending on the vernacular or context. You have the option of trying to understand my point, and offer commentary; or you have the option to focus on semantics and waste electrons. If you're going to do the latter, then yes, it probably is a waste of time having an exchange (which you did anyway, despite your protest...).

[dneal]

I did ask if Lott was pro guns....which you never replied. So did a quick google....Lott is pro guns and has strong NRA connections. "Objectively" pro gun.

Without banning guns, what would you recommend to change to lessen the negative impact of improper gun usage? Jail time? Financial penalties? Or am I correct, you want nothing to change?

That said I did get a good laugh from last nights Saturday night live....if you're pro gun don't watch.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-li...1-of-2/3039812

He, like Kleck, are indeed "pro-gun". If you look at their history, they were neither before their studies. Their research led them to being "pro-gun". Examine their data, their arguments, and their oppositions' arguments and come to a conclusion. I find it convincing, and I've looked at the arguments against.

I'm "pro-truth". If you want to influence my world-view, do it with a comprehensive argument. "They're pro-gun" isn't a very strong argument, and neither is "John Donohue is anti-gun". I don't pay any attention to propaganda from either side, and lord knows there is a lot of it.

For the last part, I don't really know. Most "improper gun usage" is already illegal. What specifically are you wanting to change? The 2013 CDC report concludes that "mass shootings", for example, account for a very small portion of gun deaths, and are declining. Is it already in the realm of acceptable? There is no way to mitigate all risk to human life. Toddlers still drown in toilets, tubs and swimming pools. It's tragic, especially to the families; but at what point does the cost outweigh the benefit? We could prevent toddler drowning in toilets, tubs and swimming pools by outlawing and eliminating them. We could replace all western style toilets with the "hole in the floor" style found in other parts of the world. Why not just outlaw tubs and require showers only? Who really needs a swimming pool?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Fred, you are quite correct. Further argument is without point.

[dneal]

Fred, you are quite correct. Further argument is without point.

This passive-aggressiveness is ridiculous, and a poor substitute for vigorous debate. I'll take your post as your concession of your position though.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

No surprises there then!

[dneal]

No surprises there then!

Based on all the hand-wringing you do about pens, no it doesn't surprise me in the least.

It's disappointing that you and others have chosen to turn this thread nasty though. I can play at that too.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Unrelated argument - scores no points, sorry.


Okay, I've got to go to work but I am going to leave you with this.

I would like to know what tools you used to assess the papers you read. I don't know how you do research in Philosophy, but in the sciences there are methods of study quality assessment. Personal opinion of papers doesn't really count for much.

Did the papers examine the right cohort? Did they ask the right questions? Was their statistical analysis methodology appropriate? How did they eliminate various biases? How was the cohort chosen, what were the controls and comparison groups? What were the limitations on the studies? And so on. If you cannot answer these questions it means you didn't actually assess the papers. You only formed an opinion.

Peer review doesn't just happen at the point of publication. It is sometimes alarmingly easy for stuff to slip through the gaps. Take Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent research paper on vaccines and mmr that got published in one of the most prestigious medical journals around. I'm not saying the papers you have read are like that, only that vigilance is key when interpreting these documents.

[dneal]

John Lott's work and data have been available for testing since the late 90's. This is a 20+ year fight between data nerds. This paper probably best summarizes the issue in a fair manner, and it's 8 years old. This paper is a little more recent, and covers the most recent developments.

I would be interested in your thoughts after reading them. Lott is involved with the writing of the second paper, and Moody does tend to support Lott's position.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

You didn't answer my questions. If you cannot support your opinion on the quality of the papers with a good rigorous methodology then you should say so. I will look at the papers when I get more time.

Also, to note, in my citing of the CDC data (not report) I was looking at the raw numbers of deaths caused by method. I haven't even begun to delve into possible risk factors. As epidemiology is a 'thing' for me and my work I don't approach it lightly or casually.

As a further aside I am a little interested in how any of the studies managed to measure non-events, i.e. something not happening due to a cause, and how you would apply that rationale to (in my cited example) motor vehicles. That is a very difficult question.


EDIT: For the lay person looking at statistics and epidemiology I would recommend reading the book Freakonomics to get a flavour of how counter-intuitive statistics can often seem, and how tricky they can be to interpret - even for experts.