Another Gun Free Zone = Victim Zone

[Richard G]

Despite all kinds of laws preventing anyone from carrying a weapon within 1000 feet of a school zone, I think you will agree with me that laws do nothing to prevent what has just happened in my home state, Cleveland, Ohio. Someone walked in and started shooting at a school. None of the law abiding individuals there are allowed to be arrmed for fear of the state branding them felons. The police did not prevent this from happening (how could they, they cannot be everywhere at once). The end result are helpless, dead victims.

One armed individual would have made all the difference.

To think that some man can tell this man if, where or when I may be able to defend myself is absolutely repugnant to me. ... I find that spiritually, intellectually and constitutionally offensive. I will fight with all my might to rectify this.

[Bentspoon]

So, had you been there, how would you have addressed the situation.

Bentspoon

[Torment]

Are you trying to say people would be safer if we allowed people to carry guns near schools?!?! :rolleyes:

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by Torment
Are you trying to say people would be safer if we allowed people to carry guns near schools?!?! :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure he was trying to make that point. There was a case in Mississippi where a principal with a gun stopped a kid with a gun. It was under reported in the media because it was a positive gun story. If law-abiding-peace-loving-crime-hating people were more free to carry guns, then criminals with guns would have less power over people that choose not to carry guns because they would have to worry about someone that shoots back.




edited shoot to shoots

[OutAtTheEdge]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713


I'm pretty sure he was trying to make that point. There was a case in Mississippi where a principal with a gun stopped a kid with a gun. It was under reported in the media because it was a positive gun story. If law-abiding-peace-loving-crime-hating people were more free to carry guns, then criminals with guns would have less power over people that choose not to carry guns because they would have to worry about someone that shoot back.

It is very rare that law enforcement officers happen to be present at the outset of a violent criminal attack. If irresponsible legislation effectively disarms all the law-abiding citizens in that area, then who does that leave on the scene with with all the weapons? The criminals. The law fails, and innocent people pay the price for it, perhaps with their lives.

Jeffrey R. Snyder, Esq. has written an essay that addresses this subject far more eloquently that I could hope to. Please take a few minutes to read it at :http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-noc1.html

Steve Gyldenvand

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Richard G
Despite all kinds of laws preventing anyone from carrying a weapon within 1000 feet of a school zone, I think you will agree with me that laws do nothing to prevent what has just happened in my home state, Cleveland, Ohio. Someone walked in and started shooting at a school. None of the law abiding individuals there are allowed to be arrmed for fear of the state branding them felons. The police did not prevent this from happening (how could they, they cannot be everywhere at once). The end result are helpless, dead victims.

One armed individual would have made all the difference.

To think that some man can tell this man if, where or when I may be able to defend myself is absolutely repugnant to me. ... I find that spiritually, intellectually and constitutionally offensive. I will fight with all my might to rectify this.

Are you saying the children should be armed?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Are you saying the children should be armed?

I don't see any reason why an adult with a permit to carry a firearm shouldn't be allowed to carry one near a school. Children are everywhere, not just schools. The guy with the permit isn't the one to be afraid of.

Gun-free zones are just feelgood laws.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Richard G

To think that some man can tell this man if, where or when I may be able to defend myself is absolutely repugnant to me. ... I find that spiritually, intellectually and constitutionally offensive. I will fight with all my might to rectify this.

I don't want to be around people with guns. I hope handgun free zones keep being expanded to eventually cover all public places. In fact, I would be happier if handguns were banned entirely.

Sounds like you need to recall Charleton Heston to active duty.

[Pyrrho]

More info on the story:

http://www.cleveland.com/news/index.ssf?/focuson/more/cwrustandoff.html

The "alleged" gunman was a 62-year-old man who had been angry over hacking of his website and some other matters. He was wearing body armor. He smashed through a door with a sledgehammer and fatally shot one man, wounded two others, then fired randomy for several hours before surrendering.

Being armed would not have made one bit of difference to the dead man, nor would it have saved his life. One cannot walk through daily life in constant preparedness for gunfire.

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/105256056331680.xml

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Richard G
Despite all kinds of laws preventing anyone from carrying a weapon within 1000 feet of a school zone, I think you will agree with me that laws do nothing to prevent what has just happened in my home state, Cleveland, Ohio. Someone walked in and started shooting at a school. None of the law abiding individuals there are allowed to be arrmed for fear of the state branding them felons. The police did not prevent this from happening (how could they, they cannot be everywhere at once). The end result are helpless, dead victims.

One armed individual would have made all the difference.

To think that some man can tell this man if, where or when I may be able to defend myself is absolutely repugnant to me. ... I find that spiritually, intellectually and constitutionally offensive. I will fight with all my might to rectify this.

Do the laws count for universities? I thought it was just for k-12 public education.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
More info on the story:

http://www.cleveland.com/news/index.ssf?/focuson/more/cwrustandoff.html

The "alleged" gunman was a 62-year-old man who had been angry over hacking of his website and some other matters. He was wearing body armor. He smashed through a door with a sledgehammer and fatally shot one man, wounded two others, then fired randomy for several hours before surrendering.

Being armed would not have made one bit of difference to the dead man, nor would it have saved his life. One cannot walk through daily life in constant preparedness for gunfire.

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/105256056331680.xml

From reading the web, some people do exactly that. I'm not talking about those in the law enforcement business, who get shot at occasionally.

You just have to read these web sites out there. People with a gun in the shoulder holster, the back holster, the sock. One a 30 shot glock, one .45 magnum. You get the feeling they are just itching for an excuse.

I also wonder about the stats that justify guns, in the sense that 250,000 crimes are prevented each year with a gun. A criminal such as this guy isn't going to give you any warning, and wave his hand say, "here I am, I'm a criminal, have you got a gun on you?". If you really are going to commit a crime against someone, you 'get the drop' on them.

I have stopped a crime where two guys I could never have beaten up were kicking someone on the ground. All I did was make it clear someone was watching and coming up behind them. They took off, as they were beating up a drunk, (they make easy targets). I didn't have to wave a gun, beat someone up or anything like that. Many people who are going to commit a crime are either going to do it in secret, to avoid trouble, in which case as soon as you show them they are being watched will take off to avoid trouble, or are serious about getting you, in which case they are not going to give you any warning.

[Tricky]

Living in Houston, I can pick up a paper any Monday and read how many people were killed with guns during the weekend. Sometimes we get a "double header" where two people kill each other with guns. Usually though, it is the same old "drug deal", or "family argument" or other such situations that if a gun were not present, probably nobody would be dead. Only very rarely do you read of someone successfully defending themselves with a gun. I am quite sure the NRA scours the news for such occurrances.

I realize that this is strictly anecdotal, but I'd be willing to bet that others can give similar "testimonials":

I personally know at least half a dozen people (including two family members) who have had their guns stolen by criminals. I don't personally know a single person who has defended their family or their property with a gun. It appears to me that the main consequence of gun ownership is to put guns in the hands of criminals. So tell me honestly, you gun lovers, do you know any of your brethren who have had their guns stolen? Does that bother you at all?

As an aside, I am also a victim of an armed robbery. I was jumped by three men who pointed a gun at me and took my money. Had I been carrying a gun, I would have never have had a chance to draw it. I would have simply been giving another gun to criminals, plus it is possible I would have been dead if I had tried to defend myself. Frankly, there is no amount of money I consider more valuable than my life, and I will surrender it (again) if faced with a gun-toting robber. I would prefer that we tried to make it difficult for robbers to get guns, but as long as robbery victims have guns, then that is unlikely.

[GrapeJ713]

Gun control has been proven not to work time and time again. The more gun control you have in a particular city or state the more crime you have. Every state that has passed concealed carry has seen a drop in crime. When only police and criminals have guns, the criminals just have to be where the police aren't to have a big advantage over thier victims. If the victims might have a gun, the criminals are more likely to look for an easier target.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
Gun control has been proven not to work time and time again. The more gun control you have in a particular city or state the more crime you have. Every state that has passed concealed carry has seen a drop in crime. When only police and criminals have guns, the criminals just have to be where the police aren't to have a big advantage over thier victims. If the victims might have a gun, the criminals are more likely to look for an easier target.
Like all sweeping statements such as the above, it depends on whose statistics (http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/articles/archives/statsrefute.htm) you believe.

[CFLarsen]

Ah...here we go again.... :)

Originally posted by Richard G
Despite all kinds of laws preventing anyone from carrying a weapon within 1000 feet of a school zone, I think you will agree with me that laws do nothing to prevent what has just happened in my home state, Cleveland, Ohio. Someone walked in and started shooting at a school. None of the law abiding individuals there are allowed to be arrmed for fear of the state branding them felons. The police did not prevent this from happening (how could they, they cannot be everywhere at once). The end result are helpless, dead victims.

Because of...what? Somebody else not armed? No. Because this guy had a gun. The shooting did not occur because he was the only one with a gun, but because he had a gun.

Originally posted by Richard G
One armed individual would have made all the difference.

Oh, he did make all the difference. He started shooting.

Originally posted by Richard G
To think that some man can tell this man if, where or when I may be able to defend myself is absolutely repugnant to me. ... I find that spiritually, intellectually and constitutionally offensive. I will fight with all my might to rectify this.

I find it quite interesting that some skeptics seem to throw their skeptical thinking to the wind when it comes to guns. The idea that people with guns prevent shootings is a highly hypothetical one, while it is a sad fact that people with guns cause shootings.

Critical thinking, folks: Do we work from what we know to be true or what we wish to be true?

Why so many "gun-woo-woos" among skeptics?


A bit o' data:

A REVIEW OF FIREARM STATISTICS AND REGULATIONS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES (http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/research/publications/reports/1990-95/reports/siter_rpt_en.html#FINDINGS)
Research, Statistics and Evaluation
Directorate Department of Justice Canada
April 25, 1995

Excerpts:

Homicides with firearms (per 100,000 capita)

Canada 0.67
Australia 0.36
New Zealand 0.49
Japan 0.06
Switzerland 1.4
Britain 0.14
France 2.32
United States 6.4

Another in the same league:

US Census Bureau, Death rates from injuries by mechanism and country (Bookmark No. 1356) (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/statab/sec30.pdf)

Excerpts:

Average annual injury deaths per 100,000 population for time period indicated

Murders:
USA, 1995: 13,7
Australia, 1993-95: 2,9
Canada, 1994-95: 3,9
Denmark, 1994-95: 2,1

The US Census Bureau and the FBI has some interesting data showing how people get murdered in the USA:

US Census Bureau, Murder Victims, 1990-1998 (Bookmark No. 333) (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/statab/sec05.pdf)

Excerpts:

Murders, type of weapon
Guns 1) Handguns
1990: 64,3% 49,8%
1995: 68,2% 55,8%%
1997: 67,7% 53,3%
1998: 64,9% 52,1%
1999: 65,3% 78,7%

1) Guns, total

Note: Numbers from 1999 is from: The crime rate FBI, Crime in the United States - 1999 Table 2.13 Circumstances, by weapon, 1999 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/99cius.htm)

66% of US murder victims are killed by firearms. Between 50% and 79% of these are killed by handguns. This, after almost a decade of decreasing crime and increasing gun possession?

It would seem that not only is the USA by far the most violent country in the Western world, they have far more guns than any other. They rank first in murders per capita, murders by firearms per capita, and firearms per capita.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Speaking f international gun crime stats -- if you take US (an outlier) out of the set, the correlation between gun ownership and crime rates disappears.

Conclusion -- guns don't cause crime, there is something specific about US that causes high crime rate, but it's not guns per se.

[Akots]

Making the world a more dangerous place for criminals may discourage criminals, but isn't that more like treating a symptom instead of curing the disease? All it does is make crime a more hazardous occupation. Is a responsible gun owner safer than an irresponsible one? Of course, it does. But I don't see what this does to reduce crime. (If your shooting back, the crime has already begun... your preventing precisely jack-squat)

What if somebody developed a non-lethal firearm that incapacitates a target effectively and reliably? How would such a weapon change the debate over gun laws? Surely this would be preferable as a protective sidearm for the average bystandards.

Surely lethality and intimidation can't be the only thing people want in a gun... :confused:

EDIT: I just realized what this issue reminds me of; spiking trees in a way that puts loggers lives at risk. Depending on responsible but civilian gun owners to stop crimes can't be healthy... I know that's not really the issue at all; just a thought.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Speaking f international gun crime stats -- if you take US (an outlier) out of the set, the correlation between gun ownership and crime rates disappears.

Conclusion -- guns don't cause crime, there is something specific about US that causes high crime rate, but it's not guns per se.

That's called "selecting your data". Highly unskeptical, Captain.

You're as bad as Dean Radin, Gary Schwartz and other believers in woowoo.

Look at the data. Not how you want the data to look.

[Tmy]

A quick serach and I found that states with looser gun laws had more per capita "gun deaths" (vauge term, I know.) So Alaska, Nevada, Luisiana had higher per cap deaths than in tougher gun control states like Mass. (which was last).

I coudnt find the stats on gun murders per capita. Anyone have them?

[Victor Danilchenko]

CFLarsen

That's called "selecting your data". Highly unskeptical, Captain.No, it's called 'removing outliers", and it's a standard procedure in statistical analysis, especially when you are dealing with small data sets, and especially when you are dealing with uncontrolled data, both of which conditions are true here.

Don't teach grandma to suck eggs, dear.

You're as bad as Dean Radin, Gary Schwartz and other believers in woowoo.No, I am as bad as someone who actually understands a bit about statistical analysis and experimental methodology. In this case, since you cannot control for cultural conditions, you can, as a substitute, simply assume that any outliers are such due to cultural issues, and remove them from the set.

Look at the data.Yes. Look at the data -- and then understand what you are looking at. Or do you believe that eating ice-cream causes drowning, since the two are correlated?

For any significant correlation or A and B, there are three possible causal models -- A causes B, B causes A, third factor C causes both b and A. Drawing causal conclusions from un-analyzed correlations is a bit like building a bomb shelter because you see a movie about asteroid impacting Earth.

Statistical data is a funny thing. It has to be understood and interpreted. You cannot simply go in and draw conclusions of causation willy-nilly.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
No, it's called 'removing outliers", and it's a standard procedure in statistical analysis, especially when you are dealing with small data sets, and especially when you are dealing with uncontrolled data, both of which conditions are true here.

But we are NOT dealing with small datasets here. We are dealing with huge numbers of crimes in many, many countries.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Don't teach grandma to suck eggs, dear.

Well, your grandma can suck on something else...dear ;)

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
No, I am as bad as someone who actually understands a bit about statistical analysis and experimental methodology. In this case, since you cannot control for cultural conditions, you can, as a substitute, simply assume that any outliers are such due to cultural issues, and remove them from the set.

So, you would also think that it would simply be impossible to compare data within the different US States as well? I could easily argue that there are different "cultural conditions" that would render any comparison between any state (or even country) invalid.

This would, of course, apply to any factor whatsoever, not just guns, but also car sales, health care, financial data. You name it.

You see the problem? By pointing to "cultural conditions" (I note that you do not quantify or qualify these), you can argue that any statistical data should be removed.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Yes. Look at the data -- and then understand what you are looking at. Or do you believe that eating ice-cream causes drowning, since the two are correlated?

They are? That's not my claim.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
For any significant correlation or A and B, there are three possible causal models -- A causes B, B causes A, third factor C causes both b and A. Drawing causal conclusions from un-analyzed correlations is a bit like building a bomb shelter because you see a movie about asteroid impacting Earth.

Why aren't guns and gun-related crime (such as murders by guns) related?

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Statistical data is a funny thing. It has to be understood and interpreted. You cannot simply go in and draw conclusions of causation willy-nilly.

I never did such a thing. I look at the data, Victor. And it's not that difficult to understand.

[Victor Danilchenko]

CFLarsen

But we are NOT dealing with small datasets here. We are dealing with huge numbers of crimes in many, many countries.We are dealing with a small dataset of cultural conditions.

So, you would also think that it would simply be impossible to compare data within the different US States as well?Not impossible, but very hard, yes. Gun-crime data comparison between NY, Californmia, Florida, and Idaho is basically impossible, since each one of those possesses a distinct set of cultural and economic conditions which affect crime independently of gun laws (that's the key point). You can compare much better different states with similar background conditions -- say, mid-western states. Even better is to compare the same state over time as gun laws change, controlling for country-wide change in gun crimes -- this is the closest this sort of data can come to an actual soundly designed controlled experiment.

I could easily argue that there are different "cultural conditions" that would render any comparison between any state (or even country) invalid.There often are; and we can't control for them perfectly -- but we often can control for them enough that the statistical trends emerge from the background noise. Removing US as an outlier is just such a control, except that it supports the hypothesis that high US crime rate is just such noise, and not directly causally related to gun ownership rates or gun control laws.

This would, of course, apply to any factor whatsoever, not just guns, but also car sales, health care, financial data. You name it.that depends on domain and the relationship between it and various other factors. In modern 1st-world countries, for example, sickness rates have very little dependence on cultural conditions, and so comparing health-care data across countries is much more sound that comparing crime data.

You have to understand your data, dude -- you cannot just grab at whatever point seems to support your contention.

You see the problem? By pointing to "cultural conditions" (I note that you do not quantify or qualify these), you can argue that any statistical data should be removed.not "any" -- that's somewhat dishonest of you. I claimed that the dependence of crime rates on cultural conditions justifies removal of outliers; that's a very specific control, and a rather normal one at that (as a basic statistics course would have taught you).

Why aren't guns and gun-related crime (such as murders by guns) related?Sure they are related -- but you cannot just assume that the relationship takes the form "A -> B". As I said, there are three possible statistical models for the correlation, and you simply assume the one that supports your contention, without justifying your selection of this model over others.

I never did such a thing. I look at the data, Victor. And it's not that difficult to understand.Yes, a common claim among those who can't or won't actually understand the data... :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Victor,

Before we go any further, I think we need to establish what "cultural conditions" we are talking about.

Or rather, what "cultural conditions" you are talking about. Because that's the whole crux of the matter, right? :)


What are the "cultural conditions" you are talking about?
Who decided on these to be decisive in what we can compare and what we cannot?


I'm all ears.

[John Harrison]

Why aren't guns and gun-related crime (such as murders by guns) related?


Maybe they are related, but not the way you think.

In this report from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics at: http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ there were 12,740,000 pre-purchase handgun checks between 1994 and 1998 of which 312,000 were rejected for all causes. This would mean that the number of handguns in circulation in the U.S. increased by 12,428,000 over that five year period. In the United States there are approx. one million firearms of all types confiscated every year of which ~65% are handguns or 3,250,000 in the five year period. That would mean that the approx. overall increase in the number of handguns in the United States would be 9,178,000 for the five year period.

It is estimated that there are ~65 million handguns in the U.S. so the net increase of handguns was 9.07%. In the same period, homicide rates dropped 2.7%. Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

1994 9.0
1995 8.2
1996 7.4
1997 6.8
1998 6.3

Accidents:

1994 1,356
1995 1,225
1996 1,134
1997 981
1998 866
Suicides:

1994 18,765
1995 18,503
1996 18.166
1997 17,566
1998 17,424

[Tricky]

Originally posted by John Harrison
between 1994 and 1998... It is estimated that there are ~65 million handguns in the U.S. so the net increase of handguns was 9.07%. In the same period, homicide rates dropped 2.7%.
You mean the boom years? Crime dropped during that time? I had no idea that the good economy was due to handgun proliferation. Wow, the stock market went up during the years when handgun ownership was increasing! Who can ignore a correlation like that. Also, we should note that during the time when handguns were increasing, employment was at it's lowest! Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give him a handgun and he'll never have to look for a job again!

Of course, the downside is that presidential bl*w jobs also increased during the years of handgun proliferation. I'm sure there's a connection somewhere.:D

[CFLarsen]

John Harrison,

Can you show some data on when gun checks were put in effect? Is there any correlation to the drop in homicides?

I note that you show a site which compares gun-related crime across the states. Victor doesn't see this as viable.

[Victor Danilchenko]

CFLarsen

Before we go any further, I think we need to establish what "cultural conditions" we are talking about.

Or rather, what "cultural conditions" you are talking about. Because that's the whole crux of the matter, right? :)take your pick: income inequality, cultural heterogeneity, racial tensions, inner-city poverty, and last but not least, violence being ingrained in the culture itself.

There is a reason why Switzerland has lower crime rate than France, but many more guns, don't you think? You have to understand the data.

I note that you show a site which compares gun-related crime across the states. Victor doesn't see this as viable.i didn't say it's unviable, I said it's hard; when making noisy comparisons like that, you have to be very careful about separating noise from data. You weren't careful about separating noise from data...

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Victor doesn't see this as viable.
Victor is quite correct when it comes to cross-cultural comparisons. If we were to conduct an experiment under laboratory-conditions, we could account for, and hope to control, all the variables which might impinge on the effect we are trying to analyse (in this case, the relationship of guns to gun crime). But as we're dealing with the real world, we can't have such certainty.

So it's intuitive to assume that, for instance, as the US has a high rate of gun ownership AND a high level of gun-related homicide, and the UK has a low rate of gun ownership, and a low rate of gun-related homicide, then guns must be the significant factor (not least because you need a gun to shoot somebody with ;) ). However, when we look at the rest of the data set (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Switzerland, Britain and France), we see different levels of gun prohibition which makes our initial assumption problematic. For instance, Switzerland has gun ownership, but still a relatively low level of gun-related homicide, especially in relation to the US. So the relationship between gun-ownership and gun-related homicide is not as straightforward; and there's some other factor which influences how gun-owning nations use their weapons.

Furthermore, the per capita rate for the US is so much greater than the other countries in the list there's clearly a whole lot of something else going on there that isn't going on in the other countries. For example, the total gun-related homicide rate for the other countries combined is only .44 greater than the US rate. This would therefore skew any statistical analysis we could attempt and therefore the US rate would have to be dumped from the sample.

Hope this explains it? Btw--I'm not a gun-rights kinda guy. The flip side is that the US situation cannot be used to advocate gun ownership in other countries, because it's kinda unique :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
take your pick: income inequality, cultural heterogeneity, racial tensions, inner-city poverty, and last but not least, violence being ingrained in the culture itself.

No, I won't take "my pick". I asked you what those "cultural conditions" you are talking about are. You cannot just throw out a bunch without any explanation and expect your point to be proven. You have to argue your point.

Don't forget to tell us who decided on those you select to be decisive in what we can compare and what we cannot.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
There is a reason why Switzerland has lower crime rate than France, but many more guns, don't you think? You have to understand the data.

Sure, but if you won't tell us exactly what those "cultural conditions" are, you cannot even begin to comprehend the data.

Isn't that your point??

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
i didn't say it's unviable, I said it's hard; when making noisy comparisons like that, you have to be very careful about separating noise from data. You weren't careful about separating noise from data...

Maybe not. You have a li'l job to do first....

I'm still all ears. ;)

[Victor Danilchenko]

CFLarsen

No, I won't take "my pick". I asked you what those "cultural conditions" you are talking about are. You cannot just throw out a bunch without any explanation and expect your point to be proven. You have to argue your point.No, excuse me, you are theone who made the assertion -- you asserted that available data support your conclusion. it's your job to demonstrate that your analysis of the data is sound. My job, as a critic of your analysis, is to simply show that your analysis didn't properly control for the auxilliary variables; which it didn't, since your "analysis' wasn't even an analysis of any sort, much less one that accounted for various population anomalies.

Sure, but if you won't tell us exactly what those "cultural conditions" are, you cannot even begin to comprehend the data.

Isn't that your point??No, dude, my point is that you cannot simply point at a correlation and claim that is supports your causal interpretation, without doing a great deal of analysis of the data first. Perhaps not even then -- it depends on the data set -- but the hatchet-job you did on the international crime data is totally unconscionable.

Maybe not. You have a li'l job to do first....

I'm still all ears. ;)Sarcasm is no substitute for knowledge and understanding, dude; and you don't get out of jail free by simply shifting th eburden of proof. You claim a conclusion -- it's your job to demonstrate that it follows from your premises.

And yoou had the cojones to accuse your opposition of lacking in skepticism... :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
No, excuse me, you are theone who made the assertion -- you asserted that available data support your conclusion. it's your job to demonstrate that your analysis of the data is sound. My job, as a critic of your analysis, is to simply show that your analysis didn't properly control for the auxilliary variables; which it didn't, since your "analysis' wasn't even an analysis of any sort, much less one that accounted for various population anomalies.

Oh, you mean this assertion:

"The idea that people with guns prevent shootings is a highly hypothetical one, while it is a sad fact that people with guns cause shootings."

You are not going to say that shootings are not caused by people with guns? Guns waltz around, doing all the killings by themselves? :)

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
No, dude, my point is that you cannot simply point at a correlation and claim that is supports your causal interpretation, without doing a great deal of analysis of the data first. Perhaps not even then -- it depends on the data set -- but the hatchet-job you did on the international crime data is totally unconscionable.

Excuse me, but what "causal" interpretation did I make? I presented facts (which I have not heard you dispute in any way).

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Sarcasm is no substitute for knowledge and understanding, dude; and you don't get out of jail free by simply shifting th eburden of proof. You claim a conclusion -- it's your job to demonstrate that it follows from your premises.

You have used sarcasm as well..."dude", so don't come crying to me. What conclusion have I made that is wrong?

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
And yoou had the cojones to accuse your opposition of lacking in skepticism... :rolleyes:

Yes..."dude", you are right. I do have cojones. I have showed some facts. And I am still waiting for those "cultural conditions" you base your whole argument on. :rolleyes:

[Victor Danilchenko]

CFLarsen

Oh, you mean this assertion:No. I didn't make that assertion, and I will thank yuo to not try and change the subject. When you are being grilled, submit to it in a civilized manner. :D

You are not going to say that shootings are not caused by people with guns? Guns waltz around, doing all the killings by themselves? :)Now this is plain dishonest.

We don't blame cars for traffic accidents -- we blame drivers; we don't blame money for fraud, we blame scammers. Cheap rhetoric such as what you offered above does nothing but expose your inability to buttress yur position with something that's actually relevant and meaningful.

Excuse me, but what "causal" interpretation did I make?You implied that the international crime data supports the direct causal link from gun ownership to crime rate.

I presented facts (which I have not heard you dispute in any way).Yes, and it's also a fact that there is a strong correlation between ice-cream eating and drowning rate.

You have used sarcasm as well..."dude", so don't come crying to me. What conclusion have I made that is wrong?That high gun ownership causes high crime rate, I imagine.

Yes..."dude", you are right. I do have cojones. I have showed some facts.You have the balls to show facts, but not to actually examine them.

And I am still waiting for those "cultural conditions" you base your whole argument on. :rolleyes:No, you have to show that your conclusion is supported by your premises. I merely point out the variables you didn't account for.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
No. I didn't make that assertion, and I will thank yuo to not try and change the subject. When you are being grilled, submit to it in a civilized manner. :D

I never said you make that assertion. I said I made it. I quoted myself, Victor.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Now this is plain dishonest.

We don't blame cars for traffic accidents -- we blame drivers; we don't blame money for fraud, we blame scammers. Cheap rhetoric such as what you offered above does nothing but expose your inability to buttress yur position with something that's actually relevant and meaningful.

Why is this "dishonest"? You agree that we should blame the killers for the shootings? Then we are in agreement.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
You implied that the international crime data supports the direct causal link from gun ownership to crime rate.

No, I implied that the data supports a causal link from gun ownership to murder rates by firearms. I don't speak of any crime rates. I speak of murder rates.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Yes, and it's also a fact that there is a strong correlation between ice-cream eating and drowning rate.

That may be, but that is not my contention. You cannot pick something obviously ridiculous and try to use that against me. Who's dishonest now? ;)

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
That high gun ownership causes high crime rate, I imagine.

You imagine, Victor? You spend all this time argueing something you don't know for sure?

I argue - with facts - that high gun ownership is a cause for a high murder rate by firearms.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
You have the balls to show facts, but not to actually examine them.

Maybe you should examine your own points. Start with those two questions I posed to you.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
No, you have to show that your conclusion is supported by your premises. I merely point out the variables you didn't account for.

What variables? Oh, those I could pick and choose from? Any will do, Victor? I can even make some up myself? Because that's what it seems what you have done.

[Victor Danilchenko]

CFLarsen

That may be, but that is not my contention. You cannot pick something obviously ridiculous and try to use that against me.I can use it to show that you cannot simply infer your favorite causal model from un-dissected correaltion.

I argue - with facts - that high gun ownership is a cause for a high murder rate by firearms.And your argument is completely utterly unsound, because your facts don't support your conclusion -- not the way you connected them at least, if you want the facts to support your conclusion, you first have to make a case for your conclusion still being valid after the variables I mentioned are controlled for. Until you offer a useful way of controlling for those variables, you have no case.

You "argue with facts" in the same way i could argue 'with facts' for banning ice-cream -- because obviously the icecream/drowning correlation means that icecream causes drowning! That would be the same sort of "argument with facts" as what you are doing.

Reams of data are no substitute for intelligence, nor for actual knowledge and understanding.

Maybe you should examine your own points. Start with those two questions I posed to you.You asked many questions. Which two did yu have in mind?

What variables? Oh, those I could pick and choose from? Any will do, Victor? I can even make some up myself? Because that's what it seems what you have done.I gave you a small sample of specific problems that are known to affect murder rates, and which aren't causally linked to gun ownership rates. For starters, try to account for at least some of them; then, if you make headway, account for all -- or at least account enough that you can actually separate noise from data reliably.

Until you do that, my suggested method of controlling for vast cultural differences -- culling the outliers -- stands, and unfortunately for you, yields the result you would find unpleasant. It's a rough and imprecise method, but unless you can do better, it's the best you have.

[CFLarsen]

Victor,

Let's recap. It's late here, and I need to sleep. Big day ahead tomorrow.

I show that there is a clear correlation between gun ownership and murder by firearms.

The numbers are there. And, as always, we have to work with what we know.

You then make the point that, unless I take "cultural conditions" into consideration, my point is invalid.

I do not claim there is a correlation between icecream and drowning. That is your claim.

We do, however, agree that gun owners cause murders by firearms. It would be a little weird if we disagreed on that one.

I hope I got that right! :)

I had these two questions in mind:


What are the "cultural conditions" you are talking about?
Who decided on these to be decisive in what we can compare and what we cannot?


As for the first question, you did mention some. However, you haven't shown all of them (which means you are fumbling in the dark), and you have not even begun to answer the second one.

I could also ask you this:


If the list of those "cultural conditions" is unknown, how can we ever compare anything with anything?
If those you do list are "known" to affect murder rates, how do they affect murder rates by firearms?


Man, they sure pile up! :)

[John Harrison]

No, I implied that the data supports a causal link from gun ownership to murder rates by firearms.

If this were true wouldn't the gun homicide rate increase with the gun supply?

Gun homicide rate from my numbers above:

1994 6.73
1995 5.92
1996 5.29
1997 4.95
1998 4.37

John Harrison,

Can you show some data on when gun checks were put in effect? Is there any correlation to the drop in homicides?

There is some correlation, although no one seems to agree how much, especially when it comes to actually prosecuting Brady law violaters. This page (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_brady_bill.html) has some interesting information.

[Victor Danilchenko]

CFLarsen

Let's recap.I'm all for recapping.

I show that there is a clear correlation between gun ownership and murder by firearms.And that correlation is indisputable; but you further claim that the correlation is explained by a specific causal model of the gun ownership/murder rate relationship. In your own words; "high gun ownership is a cause for a high murder rate by firearms".

The numbers are there. And, as always, we have to work with what we know.Yes; but that includes understanding what the numbers tell us, and what they don't tell us.

I do not claim there is a correlation between icecream and drowning. That is your claim.No, it's not my claim. My claim is that your concluding that high gun ownership causes high firearm murder rate is as statistically unsound as the claim that ice-cream eating causes drowning.

What are the "cultural conditions" you are talking about?I already gave yu the commonly used list. Here it is again: income inequality cultural heterogeneity racial tensions inner-city poverty violence being ingrained in the culture itself.Who decided on these to be decisive in what we can compare and what we cannot?Data has shown in the past that all of these affect murder rates in their own right; it's therefore incumbent upon you to either demonstrate that these factors are irrelevant in your international comparison, or that you have devised a way to control for their influence.

As for the first question, you did mention some. However, you haven't shown all of them (which means you are fumbling in the dark),Why should I show all, when you can't even address the few I mentioned? That would be a waste of my resources.

If the list of those "cultural conditions" is unknown, how can we ever compare anything with anything?The list is known at least to some extent, and many cross-cultural studies find ways to either control for these factors experimentally or analytically. So yes, it's possible to do valid cross-cultural comparisons -- but it's difficult, and what you didn't doesn't qualify, not even as a good try. What you did was exactly the sort of thing that prompted Mark Twain to quip that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

If those you do list are "known" to affect murder rates, how do they affect murder rates by firearms?Well, if we had known that, we could devise the real table comparing gun ownership's causal effect on firearm murders internationally, eh?.. but we don't, and so we have to figure out ways to control for those factors.

Man, they sure pile up! :)Yup. Statistical analysis, especially in hairy domains like sociopolitics, is a complicated thing -- and naive demagogues who seek simplistic answers in a complex world end up only shooting themselves in the foot (or getting elected).

P.S. Do you realize that the sort of naive statistical reasoning you employed, is exactly the sort of reasoning that's used to demonstrate genetic intellectual inferiority of blacks?

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Speaking f international gun crime stats -- if you take US (an outlier) out of the set, the correlation between gun ownership and crime rates disappears.

Conclusion -- guns don't cause crime, there is something specific about US that causes high crime rate, but it's not guns per se.

Victor, a thread was started here a few months back regarding this very issue. I think Kodiak or Diezel started it.

They proposed that people in the US are just more violent. It made some interesting reading and supported your point IIRC.

[Marvel Frozen]

What I find funny is that one side of this argument will use statistics to "prove" their side, and then the other side will use different statistics to "prove" their point. I guess it's true that you can use statistics to "prove" anything.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Marvel Frozen

What I find funny is that one side of this argument will use statistics to "prove" their side, and then the other side will use different statistics to "prove" their point. I guess it's true that you can use statistics to "prove" anything.To be useful for that, statistics have to be mixed with a good dose of self-assured ignorance.

[Ralph]

Hmmm....anybody care to comment on Vermont. This state has the most liberal gun laws in the country--------------NO PERMITS required.............OPEN CARRY allowed............

It's practically like the old west up there. The residents should be getting shot to pieces yet I think I'd feel a lot safer walking the streets of Montpelier than LA...(wich has some of the toughest gun laws in the countryand only the rich & famous are allowed to own concealed weapons).................Ralph....

[Tez]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko

Yes, and it's also a fact that there is a strong correlation between ice-cream eating and drowning rate.


Aside:

Actually mate, youre quoting an example of mine that I simply made up - I've used it a couple of times on this forum, guess you read it and liked it (I do too - though I normally state that its simply a deliberately facetious example which noone will question). Either that, or you were in one of the courses I taught at the University of Toronto a few years ago, which is when I originally made this example up!!

[xouper]

Of all the howlers in this thread, this one is my favorite:

CFLarsen: The idea that people with guns prevent shootings is a highly hypothetical one, ...Now that one made me chuckle out loud. I'm sure this would come as news to the follwing people:

Clearwater, Fla.: At 1:05 a.m., a man started banging on a patio door, briefly left to beat on the family's truck, but returned and tore open the patio door. At that point, after numerous shouts not to break into the home, a 16-year-old boy fired a single rifle shot, wounding the attacker.

Columbia, S.C.: As two gas station employees left work just after midnight, two men attempted to rob them. The sheriff told a local television station: "Two men came out of the bushes, one of the men had a shovel handle that had been broken off and began to beat [the male employee] ... about the head, neck and then the arms." The male employee broke away long enough to draw a handgun from his pocket and wound his attacker, who later died. The second suspect, turned in by relatives, faces armed robbery and possible murder charges.

Detroit: A mentally disturbed man yelled that the president was going to have him killed and started firing at people in passing cars. A man at the scene, who had a permit to carry a concealed handgun, fired shots that forced the attacker to stop shooting and run away. The attacker barricaded himself in an empty apartment, fired at police and ultimately committed suicide.

West Palm Beach, Fla.: After being beaten during a robbery at his home just two days earlier, a homeowner began carrying a handgun in his pocket. When another robber attacked him, the homeowner shot and wounded his assailant.

Grand Junction, Colo.: On his way home from work, a contractor picked up three young hitchhikers. He fixed them a steak dinner at his house and was preparing to offer them jobs. Two of the men grabbed his kitchen knives and started stabbing him in the back, head and hands. The attackers stopped only when he told them that he could give them money. Instead of money, the contractor grabbed a pistol and shot one of the attackers. The contractor said, "If I'd had a trigger lock, I'd be dead."

Columbia Falls, Mont.: An ex-boyfriend is accused of entering a woman's home and sexually assaulting her. She got away long enough to get her handgun and hold her attacker at gunpoint until police arrived.

Salt Lake City: Two robbers began firing their guns as soon as they entered a pawn shop. The owner and his son returned fire. One of the robbers was shot in the arm; both were later arrested. The shop owner's statement said it all: "If we did not have our guns, we would have had several people dead here."

Baton Rouge, La.: At 5:45 a.m., a crack addict kicked in the back door of a house and entered. The attacker was fatally shot as he charged toward the homeowner.

The above examples were lifted shamelessly from Lott's book (and you all know which book I'm talking about).Here's an interesting statistic: Citizens of Florida have been able to carry concealed weapons since 1987. During that time, the murder rate in Florida has declined 21% while the national murder rate has increased 12%.

Just for grins, here's a link for Claus
http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html
but I suspect his mind is already made up, just as mine is, and further discussion is irrelevant.

Just as we don't give up our fourth amendment rights in the face of increased crime, many people are not willing to give up second amendment rights either. I agree with Benjamin Franklin that people who are willing to give up essential freedoms in return for safety deserve neither (and will get neither).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by xouper

Just as we don't give up our fourth amendment rights in the face of increased crime, many people are not willing to give up second amendment rights either. I agree with Benjamin Franklin that people who are willing to give up essential freedoms in return for safety deserve neither (and will get neither).

What is the safety? What is the Freedom?

I can walk around in safety, free from having to be burdened with having to carry a gun.

If I had to carry a gun to feel safe, I would not feel free.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tez

Actually mate, youre quoting an example of mine that I simply made upAFAIK, it's real -- another classic is the correlation between nose length and math ability, but it has less of an impact IMO.

[CFLarsen]

Victor,

I'll get back to you on the other issues, but aren't you a little bit silly here? Tez is telling you that the example you used is his invention, and you insist - AFAIK, though - that it is real?

You just have to have your way, don't you? :)

(I know Tez in person and he is just the sort of guy who would invent something like that! :D)

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


What is the safety?



Main Entry: 1safe·ty
Pronunciation: 'sAf-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural safeties
Etymology: Middle English saufte, from Middle French sauveté, from Old French, from sauve, feminine of sauf safe
Date: 14th century
1 : the condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or loss
2 : a device (as on a weapon or a machine) designed to prevent inadvertent or hazardous operation
3 a (1) : a situation in football in which a member of the offensive team is tackled behind its own goal line that counts two points for the defensive team -- compare TOUCHBACK (2) : a member of a defensive backfield in football who occupies the deepest position in order to receive a kick, defend against a forward pass, or stop a ballcarrier b : a billiard shot made with no attempt to score or so as to leave the balls in an unfavorable position for the opponent c : BASE HIT



What is the Freedom?

Main Entry: free·dom
Pronunciation: 'frE-d&m
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care> d : EASE, FACILITY <spoke the language with freedom> e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom> f : improper familiarity g : boldness of conception or execution h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>
2 a : a political right b : FRANCHISE, PRIVILEGE
synonyms FREEDOM, LIBERTY, LICENSE mean the power or condition of acting without compulsion. FREEDOM has a broad range of application from total absence of restraint to merely a sense of not being unduly hampered or frustrated <freedom of the press>. LIBERTY suggests release from former restraint or compulsion <the released prisoner had difficulty adjusting to his new liberty>. LICENSE implies freedom specially granted or conceded and may connote an abuse of freedom <freedom without responsibility may degenerate into license>.

[Victor Danilchenko]

CFLarsen

I'll get back to you on the other issues, but aren't you a little bit silly here? Tez is telling you that the example you used is his invention, and you insist - AFAIK, though - that it is real?I heard that example, and a few others, in my experimental methodology class; it's likely that Tez got it from a similar source, but forgot about it.

In fact, if you do a Goodle search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=drowning+%22ice+cream%22+correlation), you will find a few independent references to this example.

P.S. Understanding the extreme fallibility of mind and memory is another extremely important tool in any skeptic's toolbox. Reality -- it's not what you think...:D

[xouper]

xouper: Just as we don't give up our fourth amendment rights in the face of increased crime, many people are not willing to give up second amendment rights either. I agree with Benjamin Franklin that people who are willing to give up essential freedoms in return for safety deserve neither (and will get neither).

a_unique_person: If I had to carry a gun to feel safe, I would not feel free.Non-sequitur. I never made that assertion, nor does it follow logically from anything I've said.

What I said is that if the government takes away my second amendment rights, I will be less free. And less safe.

[fsol]

xouper:

I am afraid I might be missing the point somewhat. But are you suggesting that if more of the assailants in your examples had carried firearms, then they would have been able to prevent themselves from being shot by those defending themselves? Even in the two cases quoted when the assailants had guns it didn't stop them getting shot.

[xouper]

fsol: I am afraid I might be missing the point somewhat. But are you suggesting that if more of the assailants in your examples had carried firearms, then they would have been able to prevent themselves from being shot by those defending themselves? Even in the two cases quoted when the assailants had guns it didn't stop them getting shot.It's good to see a sense of humor once in a while in a thread like this. :)

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Ralph
Hmmm....anybody care to comment on Vermont. This state has the most liberal gun laws in the country--------------NO PERMITS required.............OPEN CARRY allowed............

It's practically like the old west up there. The residents should be getting shot to pieces yet I think I'd feel a lot safer walking the streets of Montpelier than LA...(wich has some of the toughest gun laws in the countryand only the rich & famous are allowed to own concealed weapons).................Ralph....


Look up the list of per capita gun deaths by state. Mass has the lowest (and soem ofteh toughest laws). States wh the highest are the likes of Alaska, Louisiana and Nevada. Your more likely to die by a gun in states wh looser gun laws. (that stat includes suicides alos)

As for Vermont...........must be all the hippes.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Tmy
Look up the list of per capita gun deaths by state. Mass has the lowest (and soem ofteh toughest laws). States wh the highest are the likes of Alaska, Louisiana and Nevada. Your more likely to die by a gun in states wh looser gun laws. (that stat includes suicides alos)

As for Vermont...........must be all the hippes.

Are you by chance quoting the study by Miller, Azrael and Hemenway titled Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988–1997?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by John Harrison


Are you by chance quoting the study by Miller, Azrael and Hemenway titled Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988–1997?

I just did a quick google looking for the "per capita gun deaths + by state". I foyuns some articles listing the states. I tried to find a list of murder deaths but alas I failed.

[John Harrison]

Just a few numbers from the states you threw out. (source CDC 1999)

Tough law: Mass Hom rate (gun) 1.15
Loose law: Utah 1.57

Loose:
Alaska 4.36
Nevada: 5.53
Louisiana 7.82

Tough:
California 4.16
Illinois 5.68
Washington DC 27.94

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
And that correlation is indisputable; but you further claim that the correlation is explained by a specific causal model of the gun ownership/murder rate relationship. In your own words; "high gun ownership is a cause for a high murder rate by firearms".

Yes.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Yes; but that includes understanding what the numbers tell us, and what they don't tell us.

Perhaps. But you are inferring something that you don't have hard data of.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
No, it's not my claim. My claim is that your concluding that high gun ownership causes high firearm murder rate is as statistically unsound as the claim that ice-cream eating causes drowning.

Why?

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I already gave yu the commonly used list. Here it is again: income inequality cultural heterogeneity racial tensions inner-city poverty violence being ingrained in the culture itself.Data has shown in the past that all of these affect murder rates in their own right; it's therefore incumbent upon you to either demonstrate that these factors are irrelevant in your international comparison, or that you have devised a way to control for their influence.

What data have shown that these affect murder rates in their own right? Before you show me that this is so, you cannot expect me to demonstrate that they are irrelevant.

And you still need to show who consider these the accepted ones - and why. Why do you hesitate to do this?

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Why should I show all, when you can't even address the few I mentioned? That would be a waste of my resources.

You have yet to show that the items on your list of cultural conditions affect murder rates. I don't necessarily doubt it (they sound quite plausible), I am merely asking for evidence that they do.

You also run into the problem of dealing with an incomplete list of reasons.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
The list is known at least to some extent, and many cross-cultural studies find ways to either control for these factors experimentally or analytically. So yes, it's possible to do valid cross-cultural comparisons -- but it's difficult, and what you didn't doesn't qualify, not even as a good try. What you did was exactly the sort of thing that prompted Mark Twain to quip that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Not at all. You left out one factor which we know is a major reason for murders: Religion. One could therefore easily argue that your whole point is invalid. ;)

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Well, if we had known that, we could devise the real table comparing gun ownership's causal effect on firearm murders internationally, eh?.. but we don't, and so we have to figure out ways to control for those factors.

Whoa, just a second! You are claiming that e.g. "racial tensions" (however you measure that) affect a broad issue like murder rates, so why can't you say if they affect a much more narrow issue like murder-by-firearms? It is much easier to investigate, isn't it?

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Yup. Statistical analysis, especially in hairy domains like sociopolitics, is a complicated thing -- and naive demagogues who seek simplistic answers in a complex world end up only shooting themselves in the foot (or getting elected).

I don't own a gun and I am not a politician, so you cannot possibly mean me! :)

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
P.S. Do you realize that the sort of naive statistical reasoning you employed, is exactly the sort of reasoning that's used to demonstrate genetic intellectual inferiority of blacks?

No.

[Victor Danilchenko]

CFLarsen

Perhaps. But you are inferring something that you don't have hard data of.You are missing the point. You are inferring something, and I am merely pointing out that your inference is unsound -- that you aren't controlling for auxilliary variables.

Why?I already explained why. There are three standard causal models for any significant correlation (those, and of course lack of causal relationship); and those models can be instantiated in countless ways and in a variety of combinations. You cannot simply pick one causal model (A->B) and assume that this is what's going on. When you do so, your conclusion is exactly as sound as the conclusion that ice-cream eating causes drowning, because the two are correlated -- or that blacks are genetically inferior intellectually, because they on average have 15 points lower IQ than whites.

What data have shown that these affect murder rates in their own right?Try a fscking Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22inner+city%22+crime+rate+poverty+correlation) .

You have yet to show that the items on your list of cultural conditions affect murder rates. I don't necessarily doubt it (they sound quite plausible), I am merely asking for evidence that they do.See above.

Not at all. You left out one factor which we know is a major reason for murders: Religion. One could therefore easily argue that your whole point is invalid. ;)That doesn't follow. Whether religion affects crime rate or not, does not negate the effect the other factors have on crime rate.

No.well, then you are clueless.

There is a strong and well-established correlation in USA between race and IQ. That fact is often used by racists to make the same sort of argument you do -- they take a correlation, and conclude that blacks are genetically inferior; they infer from the data the specific causal model they want to infer, just as you did -- and their data is as "self-evident" in supporting their conclusion, as your data is in supporting yours. It's the sort of statistical "reasoning" that's exactly as unsound as yours, and is in fact completely analytically analogous to yours.

For an editor of a skeptic magazine, your ignorance of experimental methodology is astounding.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
You are missing the point. You are inferring something, and I am merely pointing out that your inference is unsound -- that you aren't controlling for auxilliary variables.

But your "auxilliary variables" allow for anything - or, rather, nothing. From what you infer, we cannot make any comparisons whatsoever, because we haven't taken all the possible factors into consideration.

Heck, even you forgot one of the biggies: Religion! :)

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I already explained why. There are three standard causal models for any significant correlation (those, and of course lack of causal relationship); and those models can be instantiated in countless ways and in a variety of combinations. You cannot simply pick one causal model (A->B) and assume that this is what's going on. When you do so, your conclusion is exactly as sound as the conclusion that ice-cream eating causes drowning, because the two are correlated -- or that blacks are genetically inferior intellectually, because they on average have 15 points lower IQ than whites.

You misrepresent my point: I didn't merely pick one causal model, I said a causal link from gun ownership to murder rates by firearms.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Try a fscking Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22inner+city%22+crime+rate+poverty+correlation) .

You are asking me to do your homework? Victor, that is the most common woowoo cop-out! Shame on you!!

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
See above.

Yeah, yeah....so I can pick any of these hits and they will prove you right? That ain't no way to treat a skeptic.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
That doesn't follow. Whether religion affects crime rate or not, does not negate the effect the other factors have on crime rate.

I didn't say it negated them. I just said that by ignoring this (or, forgetting it), you are excluding one of the major reasons for homicide in the world.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
well, then you are clueless.

Ad hominem. Typical woowoo argument: You don't understand me, so you must be clueless. Tsk, tsk, Victor...


Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
There is a strong and well-established correlation in USA between race and IQ. That fact is often used by racists to make the same sort of argument you do -- they take a correlation, and conclude that blacks are genetically inferior; they infer from the data the specific causal model they want to infer, just as you did -- and their data is as "self-evident" in supporting their conclusion, as your data is in supporting yours. It's the sort of statistical "reasoning" that's exactly as unsound as yours, and is in fact completely analytically analogous to yours.

I resent the comparison to racists. That is way below the belt.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
For an editor of a skeptic magazine, your ignorance of experimental methodology is astounding.

Yeah, well....that may be. However, I am the editor of a skeptic magazine. What are you? ;)

I don't think we are going to get any further, Victor. You have tried to argue from unknown and unspecified data. Not very skeptical, if you ask the residing editor of SkepticReport.

Thank you for your time. :)

[Victor Danilchenko]

CFLarsen

But your "auxilliary variables" allow for anything - or, rather, nothing. From what you infer, we cannot make any comparisons whatsoever, because we haven't taken all the possible factors into consideration.This is why corroborated controlled double-blind experiment is the sole authoritative source of answers; but barring that, you can work with what you have by at least trying to control for auxilliaries. You didn't even try.

You misrepresent my point: I didn't merely pick one causal model, I said a causal link from gun ownership to murder rates by firearms.yes. You picked one causal model for the relationship between gun ownership rates and murder rates. You just described what i said, you simply don't understand it.

You are asking me to do your homework? Victor, that is the most common woowoo cop-out! Shame on you!!i did the homework -- it was trivial. Unfortunately, it seems that BB had mangled the URL in my previous post, so you will have to copy'n'paste it into your browser:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22inner+city%22+crime+rate+poverty+corre lation

Yeah, yeah....so I can pick any of these hits and they will prove you right?Not any perhaps, but at least half of the links at the first page will, yes.

I didn't say it negated them. I just said that by ignoring this (or, forgetting it), you are excluding one of the major reasons for homicide in the world.Not in the data you listed, though. it may be a major source of killing, but it's not a major source of killing in the developed world, and it was the developed world data that you cited.

And besides, having yet another noise source does nothing but weaken your case for naive interpretation of data even further; it's yet another reason why you can't simply infer correlation from causation.

Ad hominem. Typical woowoo argument: You don't understand me, so you must be clueless. Tsk, tsk, Victor...Ummm, no, you are clueless, as I think I have already demonstrated. I mean, dude, if you don't know about the crapulent arguments used to justify racism based on measured IQ discrepancy, what the fsck do you know?

I resent the comparison to racists. That is way below the belt.i didn't compare you to racists, dude -- I said that the same analytic method that you used, is also used to infer racial inferiority of blacks. I was hoping that you would spend a moment thinking about why you reject argument "blacks are genetically intellectually inferior because there is a correlation between race and IQ" but accept the arguments "gun ownership causes high murder rates because there is a correlation between gun ownership and firearm murder rates".

Yeah, well....that may be. However, I am the editor of a skeptic magazine. What are you? ;)A graduate student in AI, with degrees in CS, philosophy, and mathematics; and obviously someone who knows far more than you about statistical analysis and experimental methodology.

I don't think we are going to get any further, Victor. You have tried to argue from unknown and unspecified data.<puts on patient hat> I am not arguing from any data -- I am merely pointing out that your argument is unsound, because you simply assume, without any justification, that correlation implies a given causal model!

Do you know what it takes in science to demonstrate a causal link being the nature of the correlation? Staging and corroborating a controlled double-blind experiment. if you cannot do that -- say, if your domain is a soft science, like sociology -- then you can never get such a solid result; but you can do fairly well, by doing a lot of footwork, analyzing your data, controlling for noise, etc. You know how much of such analysis and control you did? None. Zero. Zolch. And you have the cojones to accuse me of lacking skepticism?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
And you have the cojones to accuse me of lacking skepticism?

You got that right. Dude.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Ah, a complete non-response. Your irrational faith is threatened by skeptical scrutiny, and you retreat into demagoguery and silly quipping. How surprising.

You are a fair-weather skeptic.

let me remind you how much analytical examination you had applied to the data, in order to justify your conclusion: none.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by xouper
Now that one made me chuckle out loud. I'm sure this would come as news to the follwing people:

For each example you can quote, I can quote 10 - or 20, if you like - examples where people with guns have killed people in areas where people were allowed to carry guns, concealed or not.

If you think your list of cases proves a point, what does my 10-20 fold list prove?

Originally posted by xouper
Just for grins, here's a link for Claus
http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html
but I suspect his mind is already made up, just as mine is, and further discussion is irrelevant.

Heavens, no. I'm always open to new ideas. I just need the evidence. And I sure don't get that from the Cato Institute! :)

Originally posted by xouper
Just as we don't give up our fourth amendment rights in the face of increased crime, many people are not willing to give up second amendment rights either. I agree with Benjamin Franklin that people who are willing to give up essential freedoms in return for safety deserve neither (and will get neither).

You are living in the past. Get over the fact that Bennie is dead and gone.

(And this from a guy with a fetish for history...! :))

[CFLarsen]

Victor,

Characteristically enough, I have been the one who provided hard facts.

You provided nothing but unsubstantiated rumors and personal preferences.

Ba-da-bing.

[Victor Danilchenko]

CFLarsen

Characteristically enough, I have been the one who provided hard facts.You still don't get it, do you, sport?

here are some hard facts for you:
Black have an average IQ 15 points lower than whites
There is a strong correlation between nose length and math ability
Jews dominate entertainment industryAnd here are some more facts and conclusions:
Human body is heavier than air, therefore heavier-than-air aircraft is impossible
Women have smaller brains than men and smaller brains are correlated with lower intelligence, therefore women are less intelligent than men
Foreign immigrants couldn't to English IQ tests well, therefore foreigners are less intelligent than americans

You still don't understand that facts have to be understood, you poor thing; you still don't get that data is not a substitute for knowledge and understanding.

You provided nothing but unsubstantiated rumors and personal preferences.I tried to educate you on the matter of basic statistical analysis, to no avail. Your mind is made up, don't let me confuse you with facts.

"Skeptic", indeed...

[CFLarsen]

Victor,

What "facts" have you provided?

[John Harrison]

For each example you can quote, I can quote 10 - or 20, if you like - examples where people with guns have killed people in areas where people were allowed to carry guns, concealed or not.

If you think your list of cases proves a point, what does my 10-20 fold list prove?

The benefit of firearms should be measured not by counting criminals killed, but by counting innocent lives protected.

Of course, this number is much more difficult to measure, but the US Department of Justice (http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf ) came up with 1.5 million times per year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This discussion reminds me of Arthur Kellerman's 1993 NEJM study that found "that keeping a gun in the home increased the risk of homicide by a family member or aquaintance". It was a classic example of correlation does not prove causation.

Just a few tasty bits from his study:

Counted only dead bodies (see above)

About half weren't killed with a firearm. Apparently owning a gun increases my chances of being bludgeoned to death.

But my favorite part is; The study found a stronger correlation between "living alone" and being killed, and "renting a residence" and being killed, than it did between "owning a firearm" and being killed.

[Victor Danilchenko]

CFLarsen

What "facts" have you provided?How about the ones I listed above? For the purpose of drawing hasty yet fallacious conclusions, they are exactly as good as yours. Same method of getting to a conclusion, you see -- simply taking the preferred interpretation of the data, without bothering to analyze and understand the data at all. Racists conclude that blacks are genetically inferior, you conclude that high gun ownership rate causes high firearm murder rate; yet both conclusions are equally unjustified. Since I am sure you will reject the racist's conclusion, this would mean that you interpret the data based simply on what you want the data to mean -- because there is no objective reson to conclude your way about guns, but not the racists' way about race/intelligence relationship. Same [lack of] analytical method in both cases, you see.

Or how about the fact that you didn't bother to even try analyzing the data?

or how about the numerously referenced facts (yes, that google search) that culture affects various crime rates?

or how about the obvious fact that you basically know nothing about interpreting and understanding statistical data?

What facts? take your pick.

[CFLarsen]

Victor,

If you acknowledge that your points are as good as mine, how can you say that yours are any better than mine?

How do you know that I did not analyze the data?

Why do you prefer a generic Google search to a thorough analysis? Do you consider a generic Google search a good way to investigate a dataset?

Why do you consider "Take your pick" a sound way of argueing your point?

The points you presented are not "facts", until you provide some kind of reference.

I'm sorry, Victor, but you are simply not a very good skeptic. You have a lot of fancy words, but you do not present your facts.

And that - dude - is your biggest flaw.

[CFLarsen]

John Harrison,

I'm going to have to look at your link tomorrow. It's past 10PM here, and I want to give your data the attention it deserves. So...bear with me! :)

[Marvel Frozen]

The benefit of firearms should be measured not by counting criminals killed, but by counting innocent lives protected.

That report also mentions that the 1.5 million estimate is likely an exaggeration, and it even calls it absurd. The report also says this:

The NSPOF does not provide much evidence on whether consumers who buy guns for protection against crime get their money's worth. The NSPOF based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard

[John Harrison]

OK. Here's a few more (http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html).

Maybe I should have used Gary Kleck's. (http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html).

[Victor Danilchenko]

CFLarsen

If you acknowledge that your points are as good as mine, how can you say that yours are any better than mine?they are not. Arguing that blacks are inferior based on measured IQ discrepancy, is exactly as stupid as arguing that high gun ownership causes high murder rate, based on raw international data comparison.

How do you know that I did not analyze the data?based on your responses repeatedly alluding to the data speaking for itself and being self-evident.

Why do you prefer a generic Google search to a thorough analysis? Do you consider a generic Google search a good way to investigate a dataset?I didn't suggest that you do a google search to investigate a dataset, but merely to convince yourself that yes, cultural factors do affect murder rates. Please try to keep a handle on what's going on.

The points you presented are not "facts", until you provide some kind of reference.Do you want me to provide reference for blacks having lower IQs, or women having smaller craniums? or that human body is heavier than air? That would be trivial, and I could do it, but you already know the answer, you already know that those factoids are true, don't you?

I'm sorry, Victor, but you are simply not a very good skeptic. You have a lot of fancy words, but you do not present your facts.<hit head on wall>

Repeat after me, dude:

data is no substitute for knowledge and understanding.
data is no substitute for knowledge and understanding.
data is no substitute for knowledge and understanding.
data is no substitute for knowledge and understanding.
data is no substitute for knowledge and understanding.
data is no substitute for knowledge and understanding.
data is no substitute for knowledge and understanding.
data is no substitute for knowledge and understanding.
data is no substitute for knowledge and understanding.

Repeat until enlightened.

And that - dude - is your biggest flaw.And your biggest flaw is that you are a cargo-cult skeptic (yes, in addition to being a fair-weather skeptic). It's becoming obvious that for you, skeptical scrutiny is kind of a magic ritual -- certain actions to be performed to attain a result, without the understanding of what those actions actually do.

[xouper]

CFLarsen: The idea that people with guns prevent shootings is a highly hypothetical one, ...

xouper: Now that one made me chuckle out loud. I'm sure this would come as news to the follwing people:

CFLarsen: If you think your list of cases proves a point, what does my 10-20 fold list prove?Regardless of what it proves, one thing it doesn't do is refute the point I made that your original statement is false and unsupportable. That was my primary purpose in offering the examples. You already know I disagree with you on the gun issue, so I see no point in wasting your time arguing that (again). I just wanted to comment on your one statement, especially since it struck me as odd that the editor of a skeptic magazine would say something so easily refutable.

Heavens, no. I'm always open to new ideas. I just need the evidence. And I sure don't get that from the Cato Institute! :)Agreed, there was no actual evidence (of the kind you require) at that link. Nor did I represent it as such. I just offered it as an interesting link, for grins, as I said. I didn't harbor any illusion that it would persuade you. If you found it interesting, I would simply leave it to you to follow up with your own research in whatever direction you felt suited your purposes best. But if that's not something that interests you, no big deal.

You are living in the past. Get over the fact that Bennie is dead and gone.The fact that Franklin is dead does not invalidate his observation. Nor is the Bill of Rights obsolete just because it is over 200 years old. I assume that as an editor of a skeptic magazine, you already know that to claim otherwise is a logical fallacy, so I won't presume to remind you of that. :)

[Marvel Frozen]

Maybe I should have used Gary Kleck's..

I think this article (http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/myths.pdf) effectively shows the error in that survey, and those like it.

I think this quote best sums up my opinion of these ridiculously high number of defensive gun uses:

...the Kleck-Gertz projection for the number of assailants wounded by armed citizens in 1992 is more than twice as high as the estimate from another study of the total number of people treated for gunshot wounds in a nationally representative sample of hospitals in 1994. Finally, the Kleck-Gertz survey data suggest that, in serious crimes, the victim was four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun, a highly implausible finding given the much higher rate of gun carrying among criminals compared with other citizens.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Marvel Frozen
What I find funny is that one side of this argument will use statistics to "prove" their side, and then the other side will use different statistics to "prove" their point. I guess it's true that you can use statistics to "prove" anything. This seems to be what's happening here, doesn't it??.........that's one reason I mentioned Vermont----it doesn't seem to fit in at all with the idea of "more guns"..."more gun deaths".

I tend to feel that many of the gun laws being passed today are more political than of any real value in disarming criminals. Criminals don't worry about things like gun laws.....being as they're criminals....that's not surprising.

It does tend to limit law-abiding citizens ability to protect themselves though. The weak & the elderly will be at the mercy of the strong and the lone are at the mercy of the gang. We'll be giving violent criminals a GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE that their victims will be disarmed.

Not to bring up statistics again....but I understand that since Great Britain has disarmed--violent crime has gone through the roof...............................Ralph

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by Ralph
This seems to be what's happening here, doesn't it??.........that's one reason I mentioned Vermont----it doesn't seem to fit in at all with the idea of "more guns"..."more gun deaths".
I tend to feel that many of the gun laws being passed today are more political than of any real value in disarming criminals. Criminals don't worry about things like gun laws.....being as they're criminals....that's not surprising.
It does tend to limit law-abiding citizens ability to protect themselves though. The weak & the elderly will be at the mercy of the strong and the lone are at the mercy of the gang. We'll be giving violent criminals a GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE that their victims will be disarmed.
Not to bring up statistics again....but I understand that since Great Britain has disarmed--violent crime has gone through the roof...............................Ralph

True, true, true. Why shouldn't it be a basic human right to protect yourself, your family and your property with whatever weapons you feel necessary? Of course there are limits that most reasonable people can agree on (no full auto guns, mortars, RPGs, SAMS, weapons of almost-mass distruction). Does everyone trust the government so much that they think government agents, police, soldiers should be the only ones besides criminals to have guns?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ralph
This seems to be what's happening here, doesn't it??.........that's one reason I mentioned Vermont----it doesn't seem to fit in at all with the idea of "more guns"..."more gun deaths".

I tend to feel that many of the gun laws being passed today are more political than of any real value in disarming criminals. Criminals don't worry about things like gun laws.....being as they're criminals....that's not surprising.

It does tend to limit law-abiding citizens ability to protect themselves though. The weak & the elderly will be at the mercy of the strong and the lone are at the mercy of the gang. We'll be giving violent criminals a GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE that their victims will be disarmed.

Not to bring up statistics again....but I understand that since Great Britain has disarmed--violent crime has gone through the roof...............................Ralph


Violent crime was rising before the ban. Western society is becoming more violent in general. The ban on guns does appear to have cut the death rate from shootings, however. This is also the case in Australia.

The gun ban, however, is not a blanket ban. You just have to demonstrate that you need an appropriate gun for an appropriate reason.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by John Harrison
Of course, this number is much more difficult to measure, but the US Department of Justice (http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf ) came up with 1.5 million times per year.

How many people participated in the surveys mentioned on page 8?

[BillyTK]

Ralph
Not to bring up statistics again....but I understand that since Great Britain has disarmed--violent crime has gone through the roof...............................Ralph

This is not actually correct. There seems to be perception amongst some on this board that the 1997 Firearms Act disarmed Britain with one fell swoop. It didn't. It was an amendment to a previous act, and prevented people from keeping guns in their homes for leisure purposes. The justification for the amendment is that it would restrict the supply of guns falling into the hands of those who would use them for criminal acts. The Amendment came about as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton broke into the local primary school and opened fire on a gym class with weapons from his collection.

The Amendment appeared to work (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/vo000711/text/00711w01.htm) in that the number of violent crimes involving handguns decreased since the passing of the Amendment. I say appeared because of the problem of trying to attribute a cause to an effect with limited data (in this case, three years of figures) and because generally crime figures correlate with economic cycles.

However, the first Firearms Act was passed in 1920, which introduced licensing of certain categories of firearms. The justification was to prevent criminals from acquing firearms, but the intent was to prevent any kind of armed uprising of the type which were happening in continental Europe and had been happening in Ireland.

Prior to this, whilst Britons had the right to own firearms, this right wasn't made explicit in the way, for instance, the US constitution does. Britain actually had a bill of rights (http://www.duhaime.org/uk-billr.htm) from the late 17th century, however the right to arms enumerated in that bill were only for protestants:
That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.
Despite this, the right to bear arms was held as a principle of common law. This right was not actually withdrawn, but rather allowed to atrophy as a result of licensing regulations from the various Firearms Act. As a result, the police were given the power to grant firearms licences, but at some point after the Second World War, the Home Secretary directed the police to not accept self-defence as an acceptable reason to grant a licence. If memory serves, the last licence to be granted on this basis was in 1954. So because of the way that Britain was "disarmed", in attept to correlate that with increases in violent crime is going to be problematic to say the least.

Btw, here's the source (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm) for a lot of the information I've included here. The article is authored by British Libertarians, if anyone's concerned about the bias of the article. :)

[xouper]

... You just have to demonstrate that you need an appropriate gun for an appropriate reason.This is the kind of attitude that makes me sick. This statement embodies a major philosophical difference between free societies and authoritarian societies.

In an authoritarian society, the default position is that citizens must justify why they need something before the government will allow them to own it.

In a free society, the right to own something is inherent and automatic until the government has justified why ownership of a specific thing should be prohibited.

In a free society, the default is that you can own anything unless the governement has a very good reason to say no. In an authoritarian society, the default is you can't own anything unless you can give the government a good reason to say yes.

Or another way of saying it, in an authoriitarian society, anything that is not specifically allowed is prohibited. In a free society, anything that is not specifically prohibited is allowed. It's a huge difference in philosophy.

In the case of guns, I don't agree that prohibiting ownership has been justified. Obviously many people disagree on this issue, in some cases because (or at least party because) of a difference of opinion on the deeper philosophical issue of freedom versus authoritarianism.

I prefer the philosophy of the free society and it makes me sick when people try to take that away from me. So when someone asks me, "why do you NEED a gun", it sounds a lot like they are embracing the principles of authoritarianism instead of the principles of freedom. My smart-ass question right back is "why do you NEED me not to have a gun". More specifically, "why do YOU need ME not to have a gun."

[/rant]

[CFLarsen]

xouper,

All this talk about free and authoritarian countries. Can you name a few of each and the reason(s) why they are one or the other?

[xouper]

CFLarsen: All this talk about free and authoritarian countries. Can you name a few of each and the reason(s) why they are one or the other?Please accept my apology for not being interested in discussing that particular topic. I was speaking philosophically, about ideals, not about which countries are one or the other. What I had in mind was more about how individuals embrace those ideals (freedom vs authoritarianism).

[CFLarsen]

xouper,

Oh, pardon me. I thought you were reacting to a specific topic, namely a_unique_person's reference to guns in Great Britain.

Guess I was wrong, then. :)

(I'll remember that one..."I was speaking philosophically, about ideals". That's a nice way of getting out of hot water ;))

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by xouper
This is the kind of attitude that makes me sick. This statement embodies a major philosophical difference between free societies and authoritarian societies.

In an authoritarian society, the default position is that citizens must justify why they need something before the government will allow them to own it.

In a free society, the right to own something is inherent and automatic until the government has justified why ownership of a specific thing should be prohibited.

In a free society, the default is that you can own anything unless the governement has a very good reason to say no. In an authoritarian society, the default is you can't own anything unless you can give the government a good reason to say yes.

Or another way of saying it, in an authoriitarian society, anything that is not specifically allowed is prohibited. In a free society, anything that is not specifically prohibited is allowed. It's a huge difference in philosophy.

In the case of guns, I don't agree that prohibiting ownership has been justified. Obviously many people disagree on this issue, in some cases because (or at least party because) of a difference of opinion on the deeper philosophical issue of freedom versus authoritarianism.

I prefer the philosophy of the free society and it makes me sick when people try to take that away from me. So when someone asks me, "why do you NEED a gun", it sounds a lot like they are embracing the principles of authoritarianism instead of the principles of freedom. My smart-ass question right back is "why do you NEED me not to have a gun". More specifically, "why do YOU need ME not to have a gun."

[/rant]

But that is the politically popular policy that is in effect. If it was not popular, the government would have been voted out by now. It has never been an issue that has stirred people up. And before you say that your constitution guarantees your right to bear arms, ours would too, if it was seen to have popular support. As it is, you are not allowed to own certain classes of weapons, eg nukes. Now, how is the right to carry guns going to work against a government with the most powerful armed forces in the world at it's disposal.

We also have to be licensed to drive a car on the road, we can't just get in one and drive it off.

I don't want you to have a gun, or the majority of people in this country. Gun ownership is not necessary to a free life. I would view having to own a gun to have some chance of protecting my life and family as a society that had failed in it's quest to be a civil society.

Why am I more free if I have to carry a damm gun everywhere, and use it.

[xouper]

a_unique_person: But that is the politically popular policy that is in effect.In some places, yes. But not everywhere. Just as other people choose to express their opinions on this forum, I felt like expressing how such a policy makes me sick. And the fact that other people approve of such a policy also makes me sick, for all the same reasons. I was not attempting to debate the issue, I was expressing how I feel.

Now, how is the right to carry guns going to work against a government with the most powerful armed forces in the world at it's disposal.For the moment, suffice it to say that this argument has been suifficiently refuted elsewhere on this forum. If you can't find the link, let me know.

Gun ownership is not necessary to a free life.That is a matter of opinion. In any case, if my freedom to own a gun is taken away, then I do indeed have one less freedom than before.

I would view having to own a gun to have some chance of protecting my life and family as a society that had failed in it's quest to be a civil society.Perhaps. However, the government will never be able to guarantee your safety. The police certainly can't and never will. I do not believe that you can make a society civil simply by taking away their guns. One of the effects of gun prohibition is to render citizens less able to defend themselves against crime (and an oppressive government, if it should attempt to become so, as has happened so many times in the past).

Why am I more free if I have to carry a damm gun everywhere, and use it.Perhaps you missed my comment on this earlier. So I'll say it again. The right to own a gun is not the same as the requirement to own a gun. I have not advocated that anyone be required to own a gun. What I have said is that I will be less free if the right to own a gun is taken away from me. How can you refute that statement? Additionally, I will be less safe because the government cannot guarantee my safety from others or from the government itself.

Another point that has been made previously on this forum (elsewhere) is that you don't have to actually carry a gun to benefit from the right to own guns. If a criminal knows you might be carrying, you are less attractive as a target. But when guns are outlawed, the criminal almost has a government guarantee that his targets won't be carrying a gun.

[xouper]

CFLarsen: Oh, pardon me. I thought you were reacting to a specific topic, namely a_unique_person's reference to guns in Great Britain.Sorry about that. I purposefully left any name off the quote because I was addressing the comment, not the person. How often have you seen me post unattributed quotes by accident (or otherwise)? Anyway, in hindsight, I see I should have been more clear about that, in light of some people's predisposition to assume otherwise. ;)

(I'll remember that one..."I was speaking philosophically, about ideals". That's a nice way of getting out of hot water ;))Now, now. Be nice. I was only in hot water in your dreams.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by xouper
But when guns are outlawed, the criminal almost has a government guarantee that his targets won't be carrying a gun.
Well, I agree with a lot of what you've said even though I'm not a gun rights advocate :eek: apart from this statement. Although it is logical and truthful, I'd suggest that the counter-point would be that in a society with long-standing gun prohibition the fact that a criminal's target will not be armed will not necessarily be at the forefront of that criminal's mind anyway. Unless they were from the US? ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by xouper

Perhaps. However, the government will never be able to guarantee your safety. The police certainly can't and never will. I do not believe that you can make a society civil simply by taking away their guns. One of the effects of gun prohibition is to render citizens less able to defend themselves against crime (and an oppressive government, if it should attempt to become so, as has happened so many times in the past).



I didn't think it did. That is why I am referring to the concept of a 'civil society', one in which, on the whole, people behave civily to each other. There are societies on this planet that, I believe, have achieved that state. In such a state, the notion of arming yourself to protect yourself is a nonsense.



Perhaps you missed my comment on this earlier. So I'll say it again. The right to own a gun is not the same as the requirement to own a gun. I have not advocated that anyone be required to own a gun. What I have said is that I will be less free if the right to own a gun is taken away from me. How can you refute that statement? Additionally, I will be less safe because the government cannot guarantee my safety from others or from the government itself.



But if I believed I lived in such a society such as you are describing, I would be mad if I didn't.



Another point that has been made previously on this forum (elsewhere) is that you don't have to actually carry a gun to benefit from the right to own guns. If a criminal knows you might be carrying, you are less attractive as a target. But when guns are outlawed, the criminal almost has a government guarantee that his targets won't be carrying a gun.

That is not morally ethical, like dodging your taxes.

[xouper]

xouper: If a criminal knows you might be carrying, you are less attractive as a target. But when guns are outlawed, the criminal almost has a government guarantee that his targets won't be carrying a gun.

BillyTK: ... I'd suggest that the counter-point would be that in a society with long-standing gun prohibition the fact that a criminal's target will not be armed will not necessarily be at the forefront of that criminal's mind anyway. Unless they were from the US? ;) That's a good point. What I had in mind with my comment was the scenario where the right to carry a gun was suddenly taken away. I didn't express that point clearly enough.

I don't know how one goes about conducting social experiments on these types of issues. Suppose a community that has a long tradition of guns being outlawed suddenly allowed responsible citizens to keep guns in their houses or cars or on their person. How would this change the behavior of criminals now that there was less certainty that any given victim might be armed and ready to defend themselves? We have some examples of this already, but the trick is in how one interprets the resulting statistics. Both sides of the debate seem to object to the statistical offerings of the other side. How is the ordinary voter supposed to make an informed evaluation of this controversy?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by xouper
That's a good point. What I had in mind with my comment was the scenario where the right to carry a gun was suddenly taken away. I didn't express that point clearly enough.
Dammit! We're back in agreement again! :)
I don't know how one goes about conducting social experiments on these types of issues. Suppose a community that has a long tradition of guns being outlawed suddenly allowed responsible citizens to keep guns in their houses or cars or on their person. How would this change the behavior of criminals now that there was less certainty that any given victim might be armed and ready to defend themselves? We have some examples of this already, but the trick is in how one interprets the resulting statistics. Both sides of the debate seem to object to the statistical offerings of the other side. How is the ordinary voter supposed to make an informed evaluation of this controversy?
I think you've already identified one of the big drawbacks with your first point; sudden and dramatic change will produce unintended consequences which will skew the results. For a start, introducing gun-ownership to a community with no experience of such is going to be problematic, the participants in the condition you outline will most likely have attitudes towards firearms similar to the ones that AUP has expressed (and attitudes which I have as well); which could manifest as everything from high levels of anxiety to “gung ho” behaviour and most likely result in increased in gun-related crime.

The next problem is that criminals may change their behaviour in response to the new condition, but not necessarily in the way we might expect. There’s a model of criminal behaviour which is based on the ratio between risk and reward; whilst it may be the case that the typical criminal decides that the risk of meeting an armed citizen is too great, they might also decide to mitigate that risk by obtaining their own firearms, and we may expect a sudden increase in burglary, for instance, as guns become a desirable commodity. A recent study by Manchester University in the UK identified higher rates of burglary on properties where guns were believed to be held on the premises.

The final problem is that any results we do find could simple be the result of taking part in the experiment—something called the Hawthorne Effect (http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history/hawthorne.html), which means any change in behaviour could be the result of the individual’s awareness of being studied, rather than as a result of the conditions we impose, particularly as the condition is so different to normal life. It could even be the experiment itself which makes guns a novel item and highly desirable for criminals, rather than an attempt on their part to mitigate risk.

So we could attempt to account for these factors by for instance, choosing a community with members who are familiar with firearms and their usage. But then we’d have problems drawing conclusions form the results, because we’d know that in “real life” we wouldn’t necessarily have such a concentration of “gun-responsible” people. On the other hand, what we could do is take a community in a country with a tradition of gun ownership, and disarm the community (including criminals) to match it with results from our other community, although I suspect that the cultural norms of the disarmed community would compel members to find alternate ways of arming themselves.

CLIFF NOTES VERSION: my suspicion is that, with all the complicating factors from trying to attempt such a study, we could never be sure that any results we find are the products of, and that the cultural factor (attitudes to guns) is going to be the strongest complicating factor.