Mass Shootings

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, MoJames said:

Cool, a thread about analogies.

Oh they're cool as long as they work for you...or you know what an actual analogous comparison is.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, Aqua Buddha said:

How do we do that with guns?

Oh OK on to the next item ?  As I've posted several times, there should be stricter gun laws (this speaks directly to the least common denominator in our society), and some weapons have no business in a civilian population.  

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

12 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No I'm not, and Nit picking ? Oh I'm sorry maybe the whole being off base with his comparison off a traffic law to gun confiscation was a trivial thing....  I'm sure Aqua can defend himself.

And your analogy ?  Jesus are you really trying to say that's the same thing ?  Constructing a road and removing  traffic while you contract it is not in the same realm as confiscating guns.  

And for the record, I'm not opposed to stricter gun laws, or certain weapons being illegal to own.

An analogy is a comparison between things for the purpose of explanation. An analogy that is made between two things does not mean that those two things are exactly the same and that there are no differences between those two things.  

Society was dealing with an untenable rate of vehicle deaths. This was a complex, multi-faceted problem. Society took a complex, multi-faceted approach at minimizing and mitigating the problem , which included inspections, licensing, registration, etc. etc. etc. and successfully culminated in lowering the rate of vehicle deaths. This is how society addresses complex problems. See also how we successfully minimized Islamic violent extremism. These are analogies to help understand how society should minimize and mitigate the untenable rate of firearm-related deaths (i.e., take a multi-faceted approach).

Edited May 29, 2018 by GW Hayduke

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

An analogy is a comparison between things for the purpose of explanation. An analogy that is made between two things does not mean that those two things are exactly the same and that there are no differences between those two things.  

Society was dealing with an untenable rate of vehicle deaths. This was a complex, multi-faceted problem. Society took a complex, multi-faceted approach at minimizing and mitigating the problem , which included inspections, licensing, registration, etc. etc. etc. and successfully culminated in lowering the rate of vehicle deaths. This is how society addresses complex problems. See also how we successfully minimized Islamic violent extremism. These are analogies on how to understand society should minimize and mitigate the untenable rate of firearm-related deaths (i.e., take a multi-faceted approach).

Restricting traffic laws is not analogous to confiscation of guns.   One takes the gun away while the other leaves you your car with specific restrictions in it's use.

[Aqua Buddha 14,653]

What about the violation of my 4th amendment rights by the TSA at the airport?  Are you against those or do you admit they're a necessary evil to prevent hijackings?

[MoJames 8,256]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Restricting traffic laws is not analogous to confiscation of guns.   One takes the gun away while the other leaves you your car with specific restrictions in it's use.

Putting a ban on high capacity clips is analogous to banning certain tires, no?

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

8 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Restricting traffic laws is not analogous to confiscation of guns.   One takes the gun away while the other leaves you your car with specific restrictions in it's use.

You are equating gun reform with confiscation - that's a strawman. BTW we do remove cars from certain roads by constructing bypasses or implementing tolls. We also do take steps to remove cars off the road when they no longer pass inspection.  But that is all just tedious nitpicking.  Is then when I restate the definition of an analogy?

[MoJames 8,256]

Maybe we just take Onboard's guns away.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

11 minutes ago, MoJames said:

Putting a ban on high capacity clips is analogous to banning certain tires, no?

Yeah but its not banning  cars or confiscating cars. Those are different things that may have the same result. 

[R2D2 91]

Remember when the NRA killed Trayvon Martin, and they said he deserved it on account of his Facebook page ...

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

9 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

You are equating gun reform with confiscation - that's a strawman. BTW we do remove cars from certain roads by constructing bypasses or implementing tolls. We also do take steps to remove cars off the road when they no longer pass inspection.  But that is all just tedious nitpicking.  Is then when I restate the definition of an analogy?

I'm directly responding to Aquas post comparing traffic laws with gun confiscation.  They are in no way analogous comparisons. Like I said he's a big boy and can defend his own posts.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

We need to address our high rate of firearm violence the same way they addressed Chet in Weird Science.

 

https://giphy.com/gifs/weird-science-bill-paxton-chet-xTiN0x3AUqjDOrdxhm

 

https://tenor.com/view/weirdscience-chet-poop-gif-8059441

Edited May 29, 2018 by GW Hayduke

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

We need to address our high rate of firearm violence the same way they addressed Chet in Weird Science.

Turn people into piles of dung ?

[Mo Horn 8,899]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Pretty sure one way to guarantee more mass shooters is to outlaw porn.

[BabaYaga 15,371]

17 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

“The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our December 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A January 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey.”

Now layer these dates with the polling dates for ownership rates and the decline in participation and you just might see something.  Fewer and fewer people are openly admitting they have a gun in their house.  Yet gun sales are in the tens of millions, and CCW rates have gone up by more than 500%.  Maybe, just maybe, you are missing something....something that conveniently challenges the point you are desperately trying to shoot down:  that homicide and gun related crimes are declining while ownership rates are peaking. Between '99 and '07 - CCW applications rose slowly from 2.7M to 4.6M Between '08 and '11 they rose to 8M Between '12 and '13 they rose to 11.1M Then in 2016 it hit 14.5M And today, there are 16.4M And what is it with auto analogies?  This is as bad an analogy as when the attempt was made to compare the ACA individual mandate to auto insurance.  Nobody is claiming this is a light-switch solve.  Nobody.  What is being proposed, is that as we did when terrorist attacks happened, we harden the point of attack first, as we did - and then work our way out from there (as many nations facing attacks on their schools have done in the past).    We have hundreds of existing gun laws on the books right now.  Many of which are also underfunded and inadequate or unable to enforce.  Then you have Federal laws on top of state laws.  There are hundreds of federal regulations covering guns, their sales, import/export, the CMP, distribution of military arms, the manufacturing of ammo, the shipping of ammo and components, etc.  So actually enforce them.  The FBI ignored repeated warnings @ Parkland.  As did local LE dozens of times.  Local LE screwed up in the SC church massacre.  As it did with the Texas church massacre.  Same with San Bernadino.  Ramp up GVRO's.  Provide more transparency for background checks regarding mental health records.    You want a 'multi-faceted approach'.  After you secure the point of attack, start here.  Are these bad laws?  If so, why are they still siphoning off resources?  You can't reconcile new laws when you are unable to enforce the ones you have.  I keep hearing about "gun control" - what is that?  A piece of legislation, or a slogan?  Where are the specifics?    I agree the NRA has been to intransigent in terms of leading the cause for more research.  I've already mentioned straw borrowers.  The NRA has actually backed ideas for keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (now we get to define mentally ill and how it relates to rights and due process).

Edited May 30, 2018 by BabaYaga

[scottsins 1,992]

Jesus, the cost would bankrupt some school districts, that's how much of a bit large it could be.  Turning our schools into hardened facilities isn't the answer anyway.

Fed $ can subsidize it.

[Mapache 1,117]

Edited May 30, 2018 by Mapache

[jimmyjazz 46,470]

This is a silly argument.  We already have restrictions on gun ownership.  The debate is about where to draw the line.

[Dr. Teeth 5,863]

Pretty sure the hour I spend looking for the right video for one minute of pleasure keeps me off the streets to shoot and kill people.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

19 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Now layer these dates with the polling dates for ownership rates and the decline in participation and you just might see something.  Fewer and fewer people are openly admitting they have a gun in their house.  Yet gun sales are in the tens of millions, and CCW rates have gone up by more than 500%.  Maybe, just maybe, you are missing something....something that conveniently challenges the point you are desperately trying to shoot down:  that homicide and gun related crimes are declining while ownership rates are peaking. Between '99 and '07 - CCW applications rose slowly from 2.7M to 4.6M Between '08 and '11 they rose to 8M Between '12 and '13 they rose to 11.1M Then in 2016 it hit 14.5M And today, there are 16.4M And what is it with auto analogies?  This is as bad an analogy as when the attempt was made to compare the ACA individual mandate to auto insurance.  Nobody is claiming this is a light-switch solve.  Nobody.  What is being proposed, is that as we did when terrorist attacks happened, we harden the point of attack first, as we did - and then work our way out from there (as many nations facing attacks on their schools have done in the past).    We have hundreds of existing gun laws on the books right now.  Many of which are also underfunded and inadequate or unable to enforce.  Then you have Federal laws on top of state laws.  There are hundreds of federal regulations covering guns, their sales, import/export, the CMP, distribution of military arms, the manufacturing of ammo, the shipping of ammo and components, etc.  So actually enforce them.  The FBI ignored repeated warnings @ Parkland.  As did local LE dozens of times.  Local LE screwed up in the SC church massacre.  As it did with the Texas church massacre.  Same with San Bernadino.  Ramp up GVRO's.  Provide more transparency for background checks regarding mental health records.    You want a 'multi-faceted approach'.  After you secure the point of attack, start here.  Are these bad laws?  If so, why are they still siphoning off resources?  You can't reconcile new laws when you are unable to enforce the ones you have.  I keep hearing about "gun control" - what is that?  A piece of legislation, or a slogan?  Where are the specifics?    I agree the NRA has been to intransigent in terms of leading the cause for more research.  I've already mentioned straw borrowers.  The NRA has actually backed ideas for keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (now we get to define mentally ill and how it relates to rights and due process).

"Homicide and gun related crimes are declining while ownership rates are peaking."  I understand that seems to be your central pieces of evidence, which then leads to the position that the availability of firearms in a population is not correlated to violence.  Please confirm.  If that isn't your position, please state the relevance of CC permits to the issue of gun violence.  I believe this is the same or similar position of bernorange; however, for some reason he isn't able to engage or confirm.

First, you've got to source your data.  This isn't elementary school.  It is almost like you pasted this from a pro-gun website or something.  Your concealed carry numbers mean nothing unless we know where they came from. It is also important to understand which state's the numbers came from, are they nationwide, how changes in concealed carry laws affect applications, do all state's require permits, how do CC applications link ownership rates, do applications apply to all firearm purchases, and are they just a measure of the number of potential citizens that carry firearms?  There is an obvious leap from carry a concealed handgun to ownership rates. I get that you trust CC permits over; however, that leap is important if you want to establish that firearm ownership rates are increasing, which is counter to all surveys on ownership thus far.

Second, the statement that "the homicide and gun related crimes are declining" is not accurate. Where have you been?  A surge in violence occurred in the 80s and 90s with a relatively flat trend after that.  See the below article from Pew, “Gun homicides steady after decline in 90s.” 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/%3famp=1

Another option, rather than haggling over CC permits or ignoring trends in homicides, is to look at research that has been done related to whether increased ownership correlates to increased violence.

Peer-reviewed article in the American Journal of Public Health: "We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

Peer-reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine: "The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

The above information is to assist in the framing the gun violence problem in America. That problem IMO can be stated as the US has an untenable rate of overall firearm-related violence and an untenable frequency and magnitude of mass shootings.  Establishing and under the problem IMO is important before taking the next step in developing strategies that would reduce those rates.

I understand analogies are complicated and can be extremely controversial. I get it.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

44 minutes ago, scottsins said:

 

Fed $ can subsidize it.

 

Yeah, what's a few more trillion dollars on our already gargantuan deficit.  Do you realize just how much money you're talking ??  Throwing money at this problem will not solve it.

[BabaYaga 15,371]

11 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

"Homicide and gun related crimes are declining while ownership rates are peaking."  I understand that seems to be your central pieces of evidence, which then leads to the position that the availability of firearms in a population is not correlated to violence.  Please confirm.  If that isn't your position, please state the relevance of CC permits to the issue of gun violence.  I believe this is the same or similar position of bernorange; however, for some reason he isn't able to engage or confirm.

First, you've got to source your data.  This isn't elementary school.  It is almost like you pasted this from a pro-gun website or something.  Your concealed carry numbers mean nothing unless we know where they came from. It is also important to understand which state's the numbers came from, are they nationwide, how changes in concealed carry laws affect applications, do all state's require permits, how do CC applications link ownership rates, do applications apply to all firearm purchases, and are they just a measure of the number of potential citizens that carry firearms?  There is an obvious leap from carry a concealed handgun to ownership rates. I get that you trust CC permits over; however, that leap is important if you want to establish that firearm ownership rates are increasing, which is counter to all surveys on ownership thus far.

Second, the statement that "the homicide and gun related crimes are declining" is not accurate. Where have you been?  A surge in violence occurred in the 80s and 90s with a relatively flat trend after that.  See the below article from Pew, “Gun homicides steady after decline in 90s.” 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/%3famp=1

Another option, rather than haggling over CC permits or ignoring trends in homicides, is to look at research that has been done related to whether increased ownership correlates to increased violence.

Peer-reviewed article in the American Journal of Public Health: "We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

Peer-reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine: "The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

The above information is to assist in the framing the gun violence problem in America. That problem IMO can be stated as the US has an untenable rate of overall firearm-related violence and an untenable frequency and magnitude of mass shootings.  Establishing and under the problem IMO is important before taking the next step in developing strategies that would reduce those rates.

I understand analogies are complicated and can be extremely controversial. I get it.

Study referenced from CPRC.  This isn’t hard.  Single largest increase ever. 

Proceed with your source attacks rather than referencing the results

During President Obama’s administration, the number of concealed handgun permits soared to over 16.36 million – a 256% increase since 2007. Unlike surveys that may be affected by people’s unwillingness to answer some personal questions, concealed handgun permit data is the only really “hard data” that we have on gun ownership across the United States. 

• Last year, the number of permit holders grew by a record 1.83 million. This is more than the previous record increase of 1.73 million, set just the year before. Each of the last four years that we have been recording this data has set a new record. Despite expectations that permits were primarily driven by fears of Democratic presidencies, the growth in permits has continued at a similar pace after the November 2016 election.
• 6.53% of American adults have permits. Outside the restrictive states of California and New York, about 8% of the adult population has a permit.
• In eleven states, more than 10% of adults have permits. Alabama has the highest rate — 20%. Indiana is second with 15.8%.
• There are four counties in Pennsylvania that have between 30% and 50% of their adult populations with concealed handgun permits: Potter (50.3%), McKean (34.6%), Warren (34.6%), Cameron (31.3%), and Armstrong (30.1%).
• Florida, Pennsylvania, and Texas each have over 1.2 million residents who are active permit holders.
• Another 14 states have adopted constitutional carry in all or virtually all of their state, meaning that a permit is no longer required. Some people in these states still choose to obtain permits so that they can carry in other states that have reciprocity agreements with their states. However, because of these constitutional carry states, the nationwide growth in permits does not paint a full picture of the overall increase in concealed carry.
• In 2016, women made up 36% of permit holders in the 14 states that provide data by gender. Eight states had data from 2012 to 2016 and they saw a 326% faster increase in permits among women than among men.
• From 2012 to 2016, in the five states that provide data by race over that time period, the number of black people with permits increased 30% faster than the number of whites with permits. Asians appear to be the group that has experienced the largest increase in permitted concealed carry.
• Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at one-sixth of the rate at which police officers are convicted. . . .

 

[BabaYaga 15,371]

18 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

"We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation,

Next thing you're going to tell me, since you are so fond of these auto analogies, is that owners of cars are involved in more vehicle crashes than those that do not....

[bernorange 8,374]

20 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

... I believe this is the same or similar position of bernorange; however, for some reason he isn't able to engage or confirm. ...

lulz.  Your reading comprehension and issue partisanship isn't my responsibility. 

I've posted a lot of material in this thread relating to several facets that are worth pursuing to reduce mass shootings (and school shootings in particular).  None of it got any play.  Folks in this thread are only interested in pushing a single agenda and it's quite tiresome.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Study referenced from CPRC.  This isn’t hard.  Single largest increase ever. 

Proceed with your source attacks rather than referencing the results

During President Obama’s administration, the number of concealed handgun permits soared to over 16.36 million – a 256% increase since 2007. Unlike surveys that may be affected by people’s unwillingness to answer some personal questions, concealed handgun permit data is the only really “hard data” that we have on gun ownership across the United States. 

• Last year, the number of permit holders grew by a record 1.83 million. This is more than the previous record increase of 1.73 million, set just the year before. Each of the last four years that we have been recording this data has set a new record. Despite expectations that permits were primarily driven by fears of Democratic presidencies, the growth in permits has continued at a similar pace after the November 2016 election.
• 6.53% of American adults have permits. Outside the restrictive states of California and New York, about 8% of the adult population has a permit.
• In eleven states, more than 10% of adults have permits. Alabama has the highest rate — 20%. Indiana is second with 15.8%.
• There are four counties in Pennsylvania that have between 30% and 50% of their adult populations with concealed handgun permits: Potter (50.3%), McKean (34.6%), Warren (34.6%), Cameron (31.3%), and Armstrong (30.1%).
• Florida, Pennsylvania, and Texas each have over 1.2 million residents who are active permit holders.
• Another 14 states have adopted constitutional carry in all or virtually all of their state, meaning that a permit is no longer required. Some people in these states still choose to obtain permits so that they can carry in other states that have reciprocity agreements with their states. However, because of these constitutional carry states, the nationwide growth in permits does not paint a full picture of the overall increase in concealed carry.
• In 2016, women made up 36% of permit holders in the 14 states that provide data by gender. Eight states had data from 2012 to 2016 and they saw a 326% faster increase in permits among women than among men.
• From 2012 to 2016, in the five states that provide data by race over that time period, the number of black people with permits increased 30% faster than the number of whites with permits. Asians appear to be the group that has experienced the largest increase in permitted concealed carry.
• Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at one-sixth of the rate at which police officers are convicted. . . .

 

Hmmmm..... The Crime Prevention Research Center? I understand why you were hesitant to share your source.  I get that Lott thinks the CC information is "hard data" on ownership in the US. "Hard data" is the best data! 

There is a reason why none of Lott's studies are peer reviewed or published in reputable journals. The oil and tobacco industry are other industries that pushed misleading and fake science.

"The Crime Prevention Research Center is a nonprofit founded in 2013 by John Lott, author of the book “More Guns, Less Crime.”  He is best known as an advocate in the gun rights debate, particularly his arguments against restrictions on owning and carrying guns.  Lott’s work has been called “junk science” as he has been accused of accepting funding from the National Rifle Association. Lott denies this claim."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/crime-prevention-research-center/

Lets go ahead and concede for the sake of argument that "ownership of firearms is directly linked to CC permits" (ignoring the tenuous if any link between CC permits and ownership rates and ignoring all surveys). How are you going to deal with the lack of a decline in firearm violence and with the established correlation between between levels of violence and levels of firearms? 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

19 minutes ago, bernorange said:

lulz.  Your reading comprehension and issue partisanship isn't my responsibility. 

I've posted a lot of material in this thread relating to several facets that are worth pursuing to reduce mass shootings (and school shootings in particular).  None of it got any play.  Folks in this thread are only interested in pushing a single agenda and it's quite tiresome.

Ok. The last we heard from you - you were falsely accusing me of ad hominem and strawmen. I've asked you three times to establish your position. Below is a fourth time. At least babyyaga is engaging on honest terms.  

I understand this to be your position.  "Homicide and gun related crimes are declining while ownership rates are peaking."  I understand that seems to be your central pieces of evidence, which then leads to the position that the availability of firearms in a population is not correlated to violence.  Please confirm.  

[bernorange 8,374]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

.. How are you going to deal with the lack of a decline in firearm violence ...

You've already admitted that the rate of firearm violence has been declining for years.  Is this (the quoted bit) fake news, willful disinformation or just trolling?

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

Ok. The last we heard from you - you were falsely accusing me of ad hominem and strawmen. I've asked you three times to establish your position. Below is a fourth time. At least babyyaga is engaging on honest terms.  

Let me clarify that for you.  I accurately described your logical fallacies and you deflected.  You are requesting me to respond to your strawman rather than just asking me to clarify what of the things I actually wrote were, as you declared, "jumbled, unclear" or "seemingly random".  You are the one who is not engaging honestly.

[BabaYaga 15,371]

19 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Hmmmm..... The Crime Prevention Research Center? I understand why you were hesitant to share your source.  I get that Lott thinks the CC information is "hard data" on ownership in the US. "Hard data" is the best data! 

There is a reason why none of Lott's studies are peer reviewed or published in reputable journals. The oil and tobacco industry are other industries that pushed misleading and fake science.

"The Crime Prevention Research Center is a nonprofit founded in 2013 by John Lott, author of the book “More Guns, Less Crime.”  He is best known as an advocate in the gun rights debate, particularly his arguments against restrictions on owning and carrying guns.  Lott’s work has been called “junk science” as he has been accused of accepting funding from the National Rifle Association. Lott denies this claim."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/crime-prevention-research-center/

Lets go ahead and concede for the sake of argument that "ownership of firearms is directly linked to CC permits" (ignoring the tenuous if any link between CC permits and ownership rates and ignoring all surveys). How are you going to deal with the lack of a decline in firearm violence and with the established correlation between between levels of violence and levels of firearms? 

Annnnnnnnd, there’s the ad hominem attack on the source.  No, you definitely have no agenda.  None at all.  You could set your watch to it.  These are State and Federal applications.  Not Costco memberships.  They can be sourced from any number of publications. 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

6 minutes ago, bernorange said:

You've already admitted that the rate of firearm violence has been declining for years.  Is this (the quoted bit) fake news, willful disinformation or just trolling?

Let me clarify that for you.  I accurately described your logical fallacies and you deflected.  You are requesting me to respond to your strawman rather than just asking me to clarify what of the things I actually wrote were, as you declared, "jumbled, unclear" or "seemingly random".  You are the one who is not engaging honestly.

 I did ask you to clarify your position four times. I understand your approach is too not establish a position but rather falsely accuse of strawmen.

 I did address your ammoland.com source.  I understand your approach is to not strengthen your evidence or address counter evidence but rather to falsely accuse of ad hominem.

My recommendation is that you ponder why you are having to resort to these approaches. 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

9 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Annnnnnnnd, there’s the ad hominem attack on the source.  No, you definitely have no agenda.  None at all.  You could set your watch to it.  These are State and Federal applications.  Not Costco memberships.  They can be sourced from any number of publications. 

Annnnnnnnd, I conceded the source for the sake of argument. Industry misleading science is a real thing. In case you didn't read my comment. See below.

"Lets go ahead and concede for the sake of argument that "ownership of firearms is directly linked to CC permits" (ignoring the tenuous if any link between CC permits and ownership rates and ignoring all surveys). How are you going to deal with the lack of a decline in firearm violence and with the established correlation between between levels of violence and levels of firearms? "

Edited May 30, 2018 by GW Hayduke

[jimmyjazz 46,470]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Annnnnnnnd, there’s the ad hominem attack on the source.  No, you definitely have no agenda.  None at all.  You could set your watch to it.  These are State and Federal applications.  Not Costco memberships.  They can be sourced from any number of publications. 

I don't think that's really an ad hominem argument.  It's perfectly legitimate to criticize a person for their studies not being peer reviewed or even respected in that world.

[bernorange 8,374]

Just now, GW Hayduke said:

 I did ask you to clarify your position four times. I understand your approach is too not establish a position but rather falsely accuse of strawmen.

 I did address your ammoland.com source.  I understand your approach is to not strengthen your evidence or address counter evidence but rather to falsely accuse of ad hominem.

My recommendation is that you ponder why you are having to resort to these approaches. 

Quote something I wrote and ask for clarification if it was unclear.  Don't put words in my mouth and then ask me to rewrite them for you.

I quoted ammoland as  a supporting reference for my statement on increasing amount of NICS requests.  It's a "hard fact".  You attacked ammoland and accused it of promulgating fake science.  I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence that ammoland was incorrect in their reporting on NICS requests.  It's fine if you want to argue the interpretation of what the NICS requests mean, but it's dishonest to leave your ad hominem out there or otherwise recognize that your attempt to discredit them and the NICS data was complete bullshit.

Seriously, attempting discourse with you is akin to taking crazy pills.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think that's really an ad hominem argument.  It's perfectly legitimate to criticize a person for their studies not being peer reviewed or even respected in that world.

I'm beginning to see a pattern within the gun debate. Any criticism of a source is Ad hOmiNEm!!!!

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Quote something I wrote and ask for clarification if it was unclear.  Don't put words in my mouth and then ask me to rewrite them for you.

I quoted ammoland as  a supporting reference for my statement on increasing amount of NICS requests.  It's a "hard fact".  You attacked ammoland and accused it of promulgating fake science.  I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence that ammoland was incorrect in their reporting on NICS requests.  It's fine if you want to argue the interpretation of what the NICS requests mean, but it's dishonest to leave your ad hominem out there or otherwise recognize that your attempt to discredit them and the NICS data was complete bullshit.

Seriously, attempting discourse with you is akin to taking crazy pills.

Hard Facts are the Best Facts!!!

Sure. Ammoland is a pro-gun website. There is a tremendous amount of fake and misleading science being pushed by the pro-gun side. I addressed your source a long time ago. See below pasted again, again, again.

"Finally, concerning your ammoland website source, I’m not sure the relevance of “gun sales in recent years.” The issue is ownership trends. The issue of gun ownership in the US has been tracked by two surveys and they both do not agree. One source shows that rates of gun ownership have stayed the same since the 70s, while the second source shows a stark decline in ownership since the 70s. No one is under the belief that gun ownership rates are trending up. The section “Gun Ownership” on the below Wikipedia page does a good job explaining the issue.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States"

 

[bernorange 8,374]

You really do have an issue with reading comprehension.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

1 minute ago, bernorange said:

You really do have an issue with reading comprehension.

Gotcha.

For clarity on how to debate honestly when it comes to ad hominem. Ad hominem is the tactic of NOT addressing an argument BUT RATHER simply attacking the source. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

It is completely acceptable to note the bias and strength of a source/evidence/position (Your honor, the eyewitness is legally blind!). However, you must also address the source/position/evidence (Your honor, the defendant was in another city at the time of the crime).  This is basic A, B, and C of debate.   Objection, Ad Hominem!! lol

[fattyflattie 4,639]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is a silly argument.  We already have restrictions on gun ownership.  The debate is about where to draw the line.

Correctomundo. 

Also, the schools needing to harden up slightly, at the very least, was driven home today when I went to my kindergarteners “graduation” (I know, there’s a thread for that too). Wife and I entered amongst the crowd, handed a sticker, and joined another few hundred people in a cafeteria with 100 students in it.  It didn’t dawn on me until the booth and women working it were gone, but no ID?  Just walk up and smile and have access to the school. I know it’s typivally to be buzzed into the front, ID, on the list blah blah. But these special events are soft soft soft. 

[JBJ 3,684]

Polls are believed to be a stronger measure of gun prevalence than sales or license applications, for what that is worth.

Any study that doesn't adjust for reverse-causation you can immediately reject as junk (and this is the majority of studies). Increased violent crime leading to increased gun ownership is consistently shown (when accounted for that is), and not the reverse.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Polls are believed to be a stronger measure of gun prevalence than sales or license applications, for what that is worth.

Any study that doesn't adjust for reverse-causation you can immediately reject as junk (and this is the majority of studies). Increased violent crime leading to increased gun ownership is consistently shown (when accounted for that is), and not the reverse.

Interesting. I wonder how many groups have just reversed the narrative to make the argument that increased gun sales increase crime.  

We should be getting rid of semi auto large magazine weapons in civilians hands IMO.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

15 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Polls are believed to be a stronger measure of gun prevalence than sales or license applications, for what that is worth.

Any study that doesn't adjust for reverse-causation you can immediately reject as junk (and this is the majority of studies). Increased violent crime leading to increased gun ownership is consistently shown (when accounted for that is), and not the reverse.

Yes, polls/surveys are relied upon concerning ownership.

I'll argue that a study that establishes a correlation isn't junk, it's just a study that establishes correlation. Obviously correlation and causation are different. As you have probably noticed, there appears to be folks here that seem to be arguing against a correlation (i.e., firearms ownership going up while violence is going down.)

Reverse-causation is real. The NEJM article linked earlier that found, "Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance." Aaddressed reverse-causation with...

"It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide -- i.e., in a limited number of cases, people may have acquired a gun in response to a specific threat. If the source of that threat subsequently caused the homicide, the link between guns in the home and homicide may be due at least in part to the failure of these weapons to provide adequate protection from the assailants."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

Ideally, the CDC will again start exploring these firearm-related questions by continuing research. These are important questions.

[bernorange 8,374]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

.. However, you must also address the source/position/evidence ...

Still waiting for you to validate your attempt to discredit ammoland.com by showing where their reporting on NICS numbers were wrong.

Hint (and this goes to the heart of my reading comprehension comment):  Arguing the merits of NICS numbers vis a vis gun ownership does not validate your ad hominem.

[bad_teammate 13,299]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Correctomundo. 

Also, the schools needing to harden up slightly, at the very least, was driven home today when I went to my kindergarteners “graduation” (I know, there’s a thread for that too). Wife and I entered amongst the crowd, handed a sticker, and joined another few hundred people in a cafeteria with 100 students in it.  It didn’t dawn on me until the booth and women working it were gone, but no ID?  Just walk up and smile and have access to the school. I know it’s typivally to be buzzed into the front, ID, on the list blah blah. But these special events are soft soft soft. 

This is exactly how schools should work and if you want anything different you're deranged.

The solution to this problem is not turning our society into a prison.

 

Fuck

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Still waiting for you to validate your attempt to discredit ammoland.com by showing where their reporting on NICS numbers were wrong.

Hint (and this goes to the heart of my reading comprehension comment):  Arguing the merits of NICS numbers vis a vis gun ownership does not validate your ad hominem.

And here is the rub. Just because you don't agree with my evaluation and evidence concerning ownership (which was addressing your position and ammoland evidence) does not mean that the result is ad hominem. The result is that we disagree on the issue of firearm ownership trends. It is ok to disagree. This happens from time to time. A disagreement doesn't mean a logical fallacy occurred. Your position is that ammoland.com and there use of NICS information is evidence to support a position that ownership of firearms is increasing. My position is that "I’m not sure the relevance of “gun sales in recent years.” The issue is ownership trends. The issue of gun ownership in the US has been tracked by two surveys and they both do not agree. One source shows that rates of gun ownership have stayed the same since the 70s, while the second source shows a stark decline in ownership since the 70s. No one is under the belief that gun ownership rates are trending up." We have competing positions with competing evidence. A mature conversation would conclude by agreeing to disagree. 

[BabaYaga 15,371]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

Annnnnnnnd, I conceded the source for the sake of argument. Industry misleading science is a real thing. In case you didn't read my comment. See below.

"Lets go ahead and concede for the sake of argument that "ownership of firearms is directly linked to CC permits" (ignoring the tenuous if any link between CC permits and ownership rates and ignoring all surveys). How are you going to deal with the lack of a decline in firearm violence and with the established correlation between between levels of violence and levels of firearms? "

Misleading "science" is thrown from both sides of the isle.  But application numbers are not one of them.  Nor is there a need to peer review a binary issue.  No more than they peer review the number of drivers licenses issued or marriage licenses.  State's either issue them or they don't.  I can also tell you Politifact and hyper-partisan WaPo cite the numbers. Further, there is no correlation.  That is your point, and it doesn't hold up.  Yes, crime levels have been declining slightly - your own posts even validate this.  They are not precipitous drops, but they are trending lower while state and federal applications levels are skyrocketing along with gun sales.  Further, if you isolate for select regions of the country, the levels drop off the map.    Example - Jeff Asher (New Orleans based crime analyst.  Feel free to attack him) concluded that .75% of the cities population accounted for more than a quarter of all gun related crimes.  In Chicago, Andrew Papachristos found than 70% of the cities gun-shot victims were from less than 6% of the population.    Nationwide, a grand total of 1,200 census tracts containing 1.5% of the total population account for more than a quarter of all instances nationwide.    Translation:  gang-related crimes.   Take those away and the US has levels close to Europe.  Now these weapons utilized in these crimes.  Take a wild guess.  Do yo think the majority were obtained legally?  How many do you think were committed by CCW carriers?   Harvard's Thomas Abt and Chris Winship thus suggested concentrated policing of these hot-spots reduced crime by over a 3rd.  See the previous NY "broken window" policy.  And even this only works with the before mentioned actions of background checks, vetting, and GRVO's, and even red flagging stalking convictions who try to purchase guns.

[BabaYaga 15,371]

12 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

No one is under the belief that gun ownership rates are trending up.

This is flat wrong, and the point you keep trying to hammer home despite a glaring an obvious flaw in the polling methods.  Nor does it correlate with spiking gun sales and CCW application numbers nationwide. It's anecdotal, but how about a real-world example.  I know dozens and dozens of gun owners.  When I compete, I meet hundreds.  At  certain classes, shows, and competitions, there can be thousands over the course of 3 days.  These "polls" are a recurring joke.  NOBODY answers them.  Nobody.  They laugh at them.  "Guns, what guns...fell in the lake.  Sorry".     You can directly track the response rates to when this topic really became politicized.  To ignore these trends is laughable.

 

[atomheartbevo 90,041]

Is the average amount per gun owner going up?  Is that in any of those fancy polls above?  Because that's one thing I have definitely noticed among many of my friends who have firearms.  20 years ago, most of us seemed to have a sidearm or two, a shotgun or two, a rifle or two, and it wasn't uncommon for one or more of those to have either been inherited or bought for hunting.  Now a lot of them have quite a few firearms and they spend quite a bit on accessories.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This is flat wrong, and the point you keep trying to hammer home despite a glaring an obvious flaw in the polling methods.  Nor does it correlate with spiking gun sales and CCW application numbers nationwide. It's anecdotal, but how about a real-world example.  I know dozens and dozens of gun owners.  When I compete, I meet hundreds.  At  certain classes, shows, and competitions, there can be thousands over the course of 3 days.  These "polls" are a recurring joke.  NOBODY answers them.  Nobody.  They laugh at them.  "Guns, what guns...fell in the lake.  Sorry".     You can directly track the response rates to when this topic really became politicized.  To ignore these trends is laughable.

 

I’ll correct my statement: No one, other than pro-gun websites or pro-gun researchers (i.e., Lott), is under the belief that gun ownership is trending up.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

31 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Misleading "science" is thrown from both sides of the isle.  But application numbers are not one of them.  Nor is there a need to peer review a binary issue.  No more than they peer review the number of drivers licenses issued or marriage licenses.  State's either issue them or they don't.  I can also tell you Politifact and hyper-partisan WaPo cite the numbers. Further, there is no correlation.  That is your point, and it doesn't hold up.  Yes, crime levels have been declining slightly - your own posts even validate this.  They are not precipitous drops, but they are trending lower while state and federal applications levels are skyrocketing along with gun sales.  Further, if you isolate for select regions of the country, the levels drop off the map.    Example - Jeff Asher (New Orleans based crime analyst.  Feel free to attack him) concluded that .75% of the cities population accounted for more than a quarter of all gun related crimes.  In Chicago, Andrew Papachristos found than 70% of the cities gun-shot victims were from less than 6% of the population.    Nationwide, a grand total of 1,200 census tracts containing 1.5% of the total population account for more than a quarter of all instances nationwide.    Translation:  gang-related crimes.   Take those away and the US has levels close to Europe.  Now these weapons utilized in these crimes.  Take a wild guess.  Do yo think the majority were obtained legally?  How many do you think were committed by CCW carriers?   Harvard's Thomas Abt and Chris Winship thus suggested concentrated policing of these hot-spots reduced crime by over a 3rd.  See the previous NY "broken window" policy.  And even this only works with the before mentioned actions of background checks, vetting, and GRVO's, and even red flagging stalking convictions who try to purchase guns.

I understand you feel there isn’t a correlation. You describe a lot of different things. Do you care to provide a source for anything?

Information I shared earlier to shed light on the question.

Peer-reviewed article in the American Journal of Public Health: "We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

Peer-reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine: "The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

[atomheartbevo 90,041]

2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Correctomundo. 

Also, the schools needing to harden up slightly, at the very least, was driven home today when I went to my kindergarteners “graduation” (I know, there’s a thread for that too). Wife and I entered amongst the crowd, handed a sticker, and joined another few hundred people in a cafeteria with 100 students in it.  It didn’t dawn on me until the booth and women working it were gone, but no ID?  Just walk up and smile and have access to the school. I know it’s typivally to be buzzed into the front, ID, on the list blah blah. But these special events are soft soft soft. 

When I go up to my 5 year-old's school, if it's after 8am and before dismissal, I have to be buzzed in, and I have to identify myself.  That's perfectly fine for me.

Trying to implement anything beyond that at special events or in the mornings creates a security nightmare.  A would-be shooter would love nothing more than to know exactly where there are chokepoints of several dozen kids (if not more) waiting to go through some kind of TSA-style checkpoint.  Those kids would be easy targets.

Harden the doors of the classrooms, have a cop (who isn't a chickenshit coward) at the school in a central location, somebody who is in decent shape and can actually move/respond quickly.  That would have stopped or lessened most of these shootings substantially.