Mass shootings

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I believe it was in this thread that I introduced you guys to the CA "approved handgun roster".  Here's an excellent article on the subject for those interested.

http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/opinion/tn-dpt-me-harper-commentary-20180405-story.html

[fredtoast]

(04-09-2018, 12:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I pointed out an undeniable fact.  The number of guns in private hands has exploded while the crime rate decreased.  What one could logically infer from this is that the vast majority of gun owners are exceptionally law abiding citizens. 

Actually there is no logical inference there at all.  There is no connection at all between the number of guns gunowners possess and the crime rate among gunowners.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-10-2018, 08:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually there is no logical inference there at all.  There is no connection at all between the number of guns gunowners possess and the crime rate among gunowners.

Only if you assume that not a single gun among the millions purchased in that time period was bought by a new gun owner.  The crime statistics are rather telling, lawful gun owners account for a minuscule amount of gun related crime.  Maybe targeting them with new laws and regulations is not the answer?

[fredtoast]

(04-10-2018, 08:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually there is no logical inference there at all.  There is no connection at all between the number of guns gunowners possess and the crime rate among gunowners.

(04-10-2018, 10:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Only if you assume that not a single gun among the millions purchased in that time period was bought by a new gun owner.

Even if I assume that a lot of guns were bought by new gun owners there is still no connection between the nnumber of guns owned and the crime rate among gunowners.

(04-10-2018, 10:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  lawful gun owners account for a minuscule amount of gun related crime.  Maybe targeting them with new laws and regulations is not the answer?

Not one lawful gun owner will be punished by laws requiring registration or licensing.  The laws will only punish the ones who break the law.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-11-2018, 05:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Even if I assume that a lot of guns were bought by new gun owners there is still no connection between the nnumber of guns owned and the crime rate among gunowners.

You don't see the inherent contradictions in this statement?  I can only assume, no.

Quote:Not one lawful gun owner will be punished by laws requiring registration or licensing.  The laws will only punish the ones who break the law.

You say this with the obvious assumption that all newly enacted laws are good laws that deserve to be followed.  You have already seen a perfect example of this in Colorado with their "high capacity" magazine ban.  The citizenry largely refused to follow this law.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html

Just because a bunch of politicians pass a law does not mean only a criminal will refuse to follow said law.  For a defense attorney you put a lot of faith in the power of the state.  Wait, I should rephrase that, you only appear to do so in regards to gun laws, certainly not in regards to the actions of law enforcement officers.

[fredtoast]

(04-11-2018, 06:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You say this with the obvious assumption that all newly enacted laws are good laws that deserve to be followed.

No I did not.  I simply used the same exact phrase you did.  "Law Abiding Citizen".

You can defend criminal behavior all you want.  But you are not allowed to use the term "law abiding" for people who break the law.

Who do you give the authority to decide which laws are proper to follow and which are proper to break?

[fredtoast]

(04-11-2018, 06:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You don't see the inherent contradictions in this statement?  I can only assume, no.

You do not have to assume.  I will admit that I do not.  Please explain it to me.

[Belsnickel]

Sometimes, when people talk about statistics that don't know how to talk about statistics, it gives me a headache.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-11-2018, 07:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No I did not.  I simply used the same exact phrase you did.  "Law Abiding Citizen".

Don't mealy mouth with us, Fred.  It's pointless as no one buys it.

Quote:You can defend criminal behavior all you want.  But you are not allowed to use the term "law abiding" for people who break the law.

Sure I am.  When a previously law abiding citizen refuses to follow an unjust law they don't become a criminal by dint of refusal.  Who knew you were such a bootlicker to those in authority?

Quote:Who do you give the authority to decide which laws are proper to follow and which are proper to break?

I rather think that an unjust law is rather obvious.  The Framers thought the same way, so I feel I'm in good company.  Let's put it this way, would you follow a law that stated you must turn in anyone suspected of homosexuality or face criminal consequences?  Would a failure to follow this law would make you criminal in any moral sense?

(04-11-2018, 07:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You do not have to assume.  I will admit that I do not.  Please explain it to me.

More guns legally owned by more people with less crime.  The math is rather simple.

(04-11-2018, 07:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sometimes, when people talk about statistics that don't know how to talk about statistics, it gives me a headache.

Oh, do please just state your point instead of tap dancing around it.  I do like your posts in general, but your general reluctance to flat out state a point is annoying at times.

[fredtoast]

(04-11-2018, 09:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: More guns legally owned by more people with less crime.  The math is rather simple.

Except there are not more people owning guns.  That was my original point.

The percentage of people owning guns has remained the same or dropped over the last 25 years.  The NRA claim that gun ownership has "exploded" is based on the fact that the people who already own guns are buying a lot more.

[fredtoast]

(04-11-2018, 09:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I rather think that an unjust law is rather obvious.  The Framers thought the same way, so I feel I'm in good company. 

The framers of the Constitution designed a system where laws would be created by elected legislators.  They never said anything about individuals being able to decide which laws were "unjust".

And your answer just begs the question "Obvious to who?"  If it is obvious to everyone then it would never become a law in the firstplace.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-12-2018, 01:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except there are not more people owning guns.  That was my original point.

The percentage of people owning guns has remained the same or dropped over the last 25 years.  The NRA claim that gun ownership has "exploded" is based on the fact that the people who already own guns are buying a lot more.

There are new people owning guns, which is what I said.  When the statement, "more people own guns" is made it means that people who did not previously own a gun decided to purchase one.  Unless your argument is that every single firearm purchased since 1992 was bought by a person who already owned a gun then your position is demonstrably false. Are you making that claim?  I'll be interested in seeing you tap dance around this question.

(04-12-2018, 01:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The framers of the Constitution designed a system where laws would be created by elected legislators.  They never said anything about individuals being able to decide which laws were "unjust".

Odd, as the founded the very country based on rebellion against unjust laws.  Google founding fathers and tyranny for a choice set of quotes on the subject.

Quote:And your answer just begs the question "Obvious to who?"  If it is obvious to everyone then it would never become a law in the firstplace.

So, based on your position, segregation was fine when it was the law of the land simply because it was the law?  How strange it must be to need legislators to inform you as to what is moral and immoral. 

[*PhilHos*]

(04-12-2018, 05:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, based on your position, segregation was fine when it was the law of the land simply because it was the law?  How strange it must be to need legislators to inform you as to what is moral and immoral. 

Allow me to interject here that slavery was upheld by the Supreme Court, as well. 

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2018, 05:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There are new people owning guns, which is what I said.  When the statement, "more people own guns" is made it means that people who did not previously own a gun decided to purchase one.  Unless your argument is that every single firearm purchased since 1992 was bought by a person who already owned a gun then your position is demonstrably false. Are you making that claim?  I'll be interested in seeing you tap dance around this question.

The "fact" is that the percentage of people owning guns has either dropped or stayed the same.

I agreed that probably some new people had bought guns because I assume some other gun owners had either died or gotten rid of their guns.

There can be "new" gunowners without there being "more" gunowners.

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2018, 05:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Odd, as the founded the very country based on rebellion against unjust laws.  Google founding fathers and tyranny for a choice set of quotes on the subject.

Actually their main complaint was that the laws were being made without them having representation.  They never once said that each individual would be allowed to decide which laws he followed.

They made this pretty clear when they wrote a Constitution that created a representative system to make laws that EVERYONE had to follow.

They did not think all laws were bad.  Just the ones that were created without representation of the citizens.

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2018, 05:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, based on your position, segregation was fine when it was the law of the land simply because it was the law?  How strange it must be to need legislators to inform you as to what is moral and immoral. 

No.  Never said anything like that.

If segregation was still the law today I would be fighting to change it through the process of our elected representatives or a challenge in the courts.  I would never suggest that individuals should be allowed to make their own laws instead of the laws created by our elected officials.

If there is a law passed requiring registration of guns then anyone opposed to that law should be allowed to fight to change the law.  However they should not be allowed to just say "I don't have to follow any law I do not agree with."

And if there was a law that I violated because it was against my morals I would not try to claim that I was a "law abiding" citizen.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-12-2018, 06:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The "fact" is that the percentage of people owning guns has either dropped or stayed the same.

I agreed that probably some new people had bought guns because I assume some other gun owners had either died or gotten rid of their guns.

There can be "new" gunowners without there being "more" gunowners.

What is the actual NUMBER of people who own guns? The percentage  of gun owners may have gone down, but if the total population of America has increased during that time span, more people may actually own guns than before even if the percentage has gone down. I don't know if this is true or not, just pointing out an alternative. If I wasn't on my work computer, I could try to find the answer, but I can't. Sorry.

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2018, 06:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What is the actual NUMBER of people who own guns? The percentage  of gun owners may have gone down, but if the total population of America has increased during that time span, more people may actually own guns than before even if the percentage has gone down. I don't know if this is true or not, just pointing out an alternative. If I wasn't on my work computer, I could try to find the answer, but I can't. Sorry.

Well when we discuss "crime" we discuss "crime rate" not total number of crimes.  The total number of crimes can go up but if the population increases the "crime rate" can still go down.

But going back to the original point even if the number of crimes has dercresed while the nuber of gunowners has increased you can not claim this proves that a vast majority of gunowners are law abiding citizens.  The connection is not there.  the crime rate among gunowners is not dependent on the total population crime rate or the total number of guns owned.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-12-2018, 07:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well when we discuss "crime" we discuss "crime rate" not total number of crimes.  The total number of crimes can go up but if the population increases the "crime rate" can still go down.

But going back to the original point even if the number of crimes has dercresed while the nuber of gunowners has increased you can not claim this proves that a vast majority of gunowners are law abiding citizens.  The connection is not there.  the crime rate among gunowners is not dependent on the total population crime rate or the total number of guns owned.

I'm not talking about the correlation between gun ownership and crime, i was just curious as to the ACTUAL number of gun owners. Are more people owning guns even if the percentage of gun ownership has gone down?

I'll leave it to you and SSF to discuss if the level of gun ownership has an impact on crime.

[Bengalzona]

Interesting article:

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180413

Quote:How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense?

Quote:The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

It's a common refrain touted by gun rights advocates, who argue that using guns in self-defense can help save lives. But what is the actual number of defensive gun uses?

According to the Pew Research Center, 48 percent of gun owners say they own a gun mainly for protection. But for years, experts have been divided over how often people actually use guns in self-defense. The numbers range from the millions to hundreds of thousands, depending on whom you ask.

The latest data show that people use guns for self-defense only rarely. According to a Harvard University analysis of figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly 0.9 percent of crimes from 2007 to 2011.

David Hemenway, who led the Harvard research, argues that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself.

"The average person ... has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense," he tells Here & Now's Robin Young. "But ... every day, they have a chance to use the gun inappropriately. They have a chance, they get angry. They get scared."

But the research spread by the gun lobby paints a drastically different picture of self-defense gun uses. One of the most commonly cited estimates of defensive gun uses, published in 1995 by criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, concluded there are between 2.2 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually.

One of the main criticisms of this estimate is that researchers can't seem to find the people who are shot by civilians defending themselves because they don't show up in hospital records.

"The Kleck-Gertz survey suggests that the number of DGU respondents who reported shooting their assailant was over 200,000, over twice the number of those killed or treated [for gunshots] in emergency departments," crime prevention researcher Philip Cook wrote in the book Envisioning Criminology.

Kleck says there is no record of these gunshot victims because most instances of self-defense gun use are not reported.

"If you tell the police, I just wielded a gun pointing a deadly weapon at another human being and claimed it was in self-defense, the police are going to investigate that," he tells Young, "and they may well in the short run arrest you and treat you as a criminal until and unless you are cleared."

On the flipside, Kleck says, criminals who were wounded after a gun was used in self-defense also have no incentive to go to the emergency room because medical professionals have an obligation to report it to the police. But Hemenway points out that if people don't go to the hospital to treat the original gunshot wound, they will inevitably end up there "with sepsis or other major problems."

He also notes that part of the reason experts are so divided on the number is the difficulty in obtaining reliable survey data on the issue.

"The researchers who look at [Kleck's study] say this is just bad science," Hemenway says. "It's a well-known problem in epidemiology that if something's a rare event, and you just try to ask how many people have done this, you will get incredible overestimates."

In fact, Cook told The Washington Post that the percentage of people who told Kleck they used a gun in self-defense is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens. The Post notes that "a more reasonable estimate" of self-defense gun uses equals about 100,000 annually, according to the NCVS data.

Another problem is that there is no consensus on the definition of defensive gun use. Some incidents could involve illegal carrying or possession, or they could amount to aggravated assault, the Rand Corp. writes:

Perceptions about the incident and an individual's role are important because much of the literature relies on self-reports: The respondent must have perceived there to have been a crime (or, in some surveys, a suspected or averted crime) and must consider himself or herself a victim rather than a mutual combatant. Even such stringent definitions, however, may not be sufficient to determine whether the event was lawful, legitimate, or desirable from a social perspective.

Even if someone wanted to use a gun in self-defense, they probably wouldn't be very successful, says Mike Weisser, firearms instructor and author of the blog "Mike The Gun Guy." He says many people who carry a gun aren't properly trained to use it in this way, and there is no performance validation standard for police officers.

"If we don't even have a minimum standard, not for training, but for performance validation for our law enforcement," he says, "how in God's name is anybody going to say, 'Well, just because you have a gun in your pocket, you know how to use it in self-defense?' You don't."