Re: A serious discussion about the need for more gun control

<pbamvv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:86d90db3-9fe8-45d5-9985-b3236591bd7a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 19 jan, 01:13, "Scout" <me4g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<pba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


> On 17 jan, 11:12, "Scout" <me4g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> <pba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


>> > On 13 jan, 23:02, "Scout" <me4g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Jim Yanik" <jya...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

>> >>news:Xns9A24AB3C881A2jyanikkuanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> >> > "pba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> >> >news:ab82c38f-9c74-44cf-a7dc-3074cf3a7012@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

>> >> >> On 12 jan, 18:54, Jim Bianchi <ji...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >>> > "pba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> >> >>> >news:7de0b8d8-1973-4353-9502-20a7a2333cfb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >>> >m:
>> >> >>> >> I do not attribute criminal violence with gun ownership.
>> >> >>> >> I do believe there is some correlation between gun-ownership
>> >> >>> >> and
>> >> >>> >> being shot.

>> >> >>> Huh? If you look at what you're saying, these two sentence
>> >> >> s are
>> >> >>> mutually contradictory. The second sentence is totally >> >> >>> incorrect.
>> >> >>> There is

>> >> >>> (and has never been) any correlation between firearm ownership >> >> >>> and
>> >> >>> 'being shot' (except that, before firearms existed, there was no
>> >> >>> danger of being shot -- stabbed, choked, beheaded, beaten, >> >> >>> yes --
>> >> >>> shot no). I'll take your

>> >> >>> use of 'being shot' as meaning 'becoming a victim of violent
>> >> >>> crime,'
>> >> >>> and point out that both the number of firearms existing as well >> >> >>> as
>> >> >>> the estimat
>> >> >> ed
>> >> >>> annual sales figures do not track in any way with the amount of
>> >> >>> violent crime (or the possibility of 'being shot').

>> >> >> That part of your respons was intended for me I guess.
>> >> >> I meant to say that violence involves beatings, stabbings and >> >> >> other
>> >> >> kinds of violence, for which no gun is required.

>> >> >> So that is the part if JIm Yanik's claim I acknowledge without
>> >> >> hesitation.
>> >> >> However for shooting a gun is required. I remember someone >> >> >> arguing
>> >> >> some thirty years ago, that people who own a gun, statistically
>> >> >> have a
>> >> >> higher chance of getting shot.

>> >> > the old Kellerman "study".
>> >> > see

>> >> > And even Kellerman now admits his study was "flawed".

>> >> Heck for that matter, those people that have dead bolts have a
>> >> statistically
>> >> higher chance as well, and those that rent instead of own their >> >> homes
>> >> and
>> >> so
>> >> on. Interesting that he didn't bring those up.- Tekst uit
>> >> oorspronkelijk
>> >> bericht niet weergeven -

>> >> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

>> > Were we talking about dead bolts control
>> > or rent control?
>> > I am a bit confused here.

>> Just noting that a statistical link doesn't mean anything. If you had >> any
>> intelligence you would have understood that.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk
>> bericht niet weergeven -

>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

> I think it matters when the mechanism behind the link is understood.

Understood? Understood by whom, and by what means do you establish this
"understanding" is true and factual. I mean it has been "understood" that
the earth is flat, the Sun goes around the Earth and space ships can't
travel outside the atmosphere.

Just because you think you "understand' it doesn't mean you really do.

> Too many people come up with an incident and want (not) to change the
> law because of the incidents.

Well, generally such events are a poor basis for law since they are driven
not by objective need but raw emotionalism.

> However if there are many incidents, they become statistically
> significant.

Like how if I check to see how many people drown against the amount of ice
cream sold I can establish a statistically significant link?

So when do we ban the sale of ice cream in order to stop people from

>And some action might become usefull.

or it might as easily be utterly useless.

>Of course you are
> right that statistical significance as such cannot be used as an
> argument. The link(s) between the statistical entities should be
> understood.

Yea, they happen to correlate. Big whoop.

> I do not understand the connection between lving in a rented house and
> shootings, and I suppose it will be hard to find out.
> (maybe not, has somebody tried it already?)

Why am I not surprised you don't understand the connection?

> However the link between owning a gun and getting shot will not be so
> hard to find out. The mechanism could be
> (I admit I am just going by known incidents here, not by statistics)

> 1. Someone gets shot with his/her own gun.
> (that would be utterly impossible for non-gun owners.)

> 2. Somebody gets shot because another gun-carrier
> thinks (s)he points a gun at him/her.
> (that has in fact happened to none gun-owners
> but chances for gun-owners should be higher)

You've left out a whole lot, like the fact that the person was already being
threatened and attempted to provide for their defense. Thus their ownership
of their gun had NOTHING to do with their being shot.

oh, but that's right, it's the victim's fault for what happens to them. I
wonder if you would care to go to a rape crisis support group and suggest to
the ladies there that the reason they were raped was because they were
asking for it?

> As mentioned the correlation between getting shot and illegal
> activities (especially with regards to drugs) may be much higher.

Try orders of magnitude.

> But maybe nobody really worries about those people:-)

> I actually do.
> I like criminals to become long living decent citizens,
> rather than seeing them die.

Fine, then turn them into decent law abiding citizens. Until then, if they
die because of self defense, then it was a reasonable hazard of their chosen

> But now I am getting really off-topic.

That's putting it mildly.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
# What are you trying to say ?
# We seem to be mostly in perfect agreement:--)
# Only your assumption that if somebody draws a gun in self-defense and
# is shot thereafter, the fact that the gun was there to draw in the
# first place, is irrelevant I disagree with. You can't draw a gun in
# self-defense if you don't have one.

Your premise that having a gun for self-defense will get you shot with it is UNSUPPORTED by the data
It's a gun-controller myth
Just like the other nonsense, such as road rage leading to a shootout, etc., you've spouted so far

# O can you?
# I never stop being surprised!

Yes, ignorance can do that