Gun Violence
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
http://amp.dailycaller.com/2018/04/...c-never-publicized/?__twitter_impression=true
Here's a nice little analysis done to prove what many already know. Take away guns and more crime will happen.
Here's a nice little analysis done to prove what many already know. Take away guns and more crime will happen.
sturg33
I
But see your issue here is the use of data... The left cannot compute
My question for our leftist friends is what do you make of this data? Do you care? Do you not believe it? Do you believe it but still think the random shooting should take away 2.5m Americans right to defend themselves annually?
Just curious.
I suspect there won't be much dialogue on this though
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Well, if you're framing it as preventing "random shootings," you're not really looking for a debate.
This is a recurring theme with you now Julio.
You are skeptical at any argument up front because it doesn't jive with your personal beliefs. You mock the person proposing the argument saying you need to see some data or facts. Those facts and/or data is shown and yet you still dismiss.
It should be common sense that firearms deter violence.
sturg33
I
I didn't ask for a debate.
I asked your opinion of the data.
Unsurprisingly, nobody has stepped up the plate, yet
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I'm not sure that what I said was so offensive. It was based on a simple, and IMO noncontroversial idea: that the point of so-called gun control legislation is not stopping "random shootings." I was commenting on the peculiarity of sturg's framing it that way.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
My opinion of Kleck's 1993 data is the same as it has always been, given the obvious problems with the research. I am not sure what to make of the CDC information other than that it's based on a bigger sample (good) but I don't know if the questioning methodology is any more valid. Keck MAY have a point in his contention for undercounting--'cause it's really hard to know--but the fact is that his numbers don't align with extrapolated figures of certain types of crimes committed, ownership rates in certain demographics, etc. So people, intentionally or not, appear to be misreporting either the timing or the facts of their "defensive gun uses."
Counting these incidents is difficult, and I think a relatively shallow self-reporting survey is likely to overstate them, whereas methodology purely depending on documentation of crimes, etc., is going to understate them.
Last edited:
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Ok, I assume you can show me some numbers that show declining rates of sexual assault in places that have looser C&C restrictions and more gun ownership?
This should be a layup, right?
edit: relative to other places that do not, I mean
Last edited:
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
You guys can make an argument for gun ownership that's predicated on individual rights, and that's fine. But you can't simultaneously claim that you want to support that position with data that indicates that it correlates with a safer society, because a fairly robust body of research performed over decades suggests the opposite. I'm not sure I understand the desire to have a data-driven discussion that ignores the wealth of available data.
sturg33
I
That's not true.
There was plenty of data in the other thread.
Don't confuse violent crime with gun deaths
sturg33
I
Is your contention that the guy wouldn't have been better off with a gun?
And is it also your contention that cops would be better off without guns?
I'm certain a real answer won't be forthcoming
sturg33
I
This logic is the equivalent to me saying,
"How did the guy in Toronto manage to kill a bunch of people when he didn't use a gun?"