Gunman kills 2 in missionary center

[Larkinn]

Sure thing, but if you agree with something then any poll, questionaire or report is just right.

Try adressing the issue instead of your misperceptions about me. Ad hominems will get you nothing but laughter. By the way the criticisms of the numbers come straight from M14s link.

You are aware of course that it is estimated that only a fraction of rapes and attempted rapes are reported?

Yes well in only a small fraction do they use it in self defense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It doesn't dismiss them, it provides reasons why the number makes no sense.

All of which amount to 'it just can't be!'

It says this after acknowledging that the 1.5M number is in line with other surveys, and while the the DOJ number is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference [between that and the 1.5m number] is due to sampling error.

 

[Larkinn]

All of which amount to 'it just can't be!'

Right, the DOJ really doesn't want to more Americans to own guns...it wants to discourage it as much as possible, right?

Its less "it just can't be" and more "this is wildly different than all other numbers". Think that might cause it to be wrong? Naah. Because you want to believe it.

It says this after acknowledging that the 1.5M number is in line with other surveys, and while the the DOJ number is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference [between that and the 1.5m number] is due to sampling error.

You think other surveys might *gasp* suffer the same problems?

I'm still curious as to when you "scare someone off" from doing something, how you knew what their intent was? And if you do it early enough whether you know if their intent was criminal or not?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Right, the DOJ really doesn't want to more Americans to own guns...it wants to discourage it as much as possible, right?

The DOJ under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno?
Absolutely.

Its less "it just can't be" and more "this is wildly different than all other numbers".

But, it isnt. They say so themselves.
They say it is in line with the survery they cited.

You think other surveys might *gasp* suffer the same problems?

You can argue that if you want. You'll have to cite the survey.

I'm still curious as to when you "scare someone off" from doing something, how you knew what their intent was?

You can't imagine how this can be the case? Really?

 

[midcan5]

It is the sign of the times, the breakdown in fundamental shared values, the results of 'me first' and 'if it feels good, do it' and 'it isn't my fault' and 'we have to understand people, not hold them accountable' mentality that some of us were able to avoid growing up. I was blessed to grow up during a time when gun ownership was much higher than it is now, but nobody even thought about kids not being safe at school, churches remained mostly unlocked and undisturbed as were our houses and cars, and kids could roam the neighborhood at will with no worries that somebody would snatch, molest, or otherwise do violence to them.

I don't agree with most of that. Crime has actually gone down in the past 40-50 years. Most crime stats today come from the inner city and drug use and maybe poverty. I would agree the problems have much to do with family but personal alienation and depression may have as much to do with parents who are too busy earning a living as with a more liberal live and let live attitude. Shooting by teens has gone up, why? Why is the solution to the complexity of modern life shooting people today. Probably we have always had these people but increased population and stress seem to create a crazy mix.

 

[Larkinn]

The DOJ under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno?
Absolutely.

So your claim is that the numbers YOU cite are skewed?

But, it isnt. They say so themselves.
They say it is in line with the survery they cited.

Ah, of course you only want to look at the numbers that support your side. How about the numbers that, when correlated to the general crime rate, show those to be ridiculous?

You can argue that if you want. You'll have to cite the survey.

Citing the survey won't do anything unless I can see the questions asked.

You can't imagine how this can be the case? Really?

Oh I can see how it CAN be the case, I don't see how its likely to be the case in a large enough number of reported DGU's to make the numbers correspond with reality in any significant sense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So your claim is that the numbers YOU cite are skewed?

If they are skewed, they are skewed downwards. The fact that the report was from the Clinton/Reno DOJ -- the Clinton administration being the most anti-gun administration ever -- easily explains why they were so quick to dismiss the 1.5M number.

Ah, of course you only want to look at the numbers that support your side.

And you want to ignore numbers that conflict with yours.

How about the numbers that, when correlated to the general crime rate, show those to be ridiculous?

How are they ridiculous? Because they exceed the crime rates?
The crime rate is based on the number of crimes reported to and investigated by police. Why do you immediately suppose that for every crime reported (aside from murder) there isnt at least one that's not?

Citing the survey won't do anything unless I can see the questions asked

Well then, if you want to argue that "other surveys might *gasp* suffer the same problems", then you'll have to find the questions asked.
Until you do, you cannot make that argument.

Oh I can see how it CAN be the case, I don't see how its likely to be the case in a large enough number of reported DGU's to make the numbers correspond with reality in any significant sense.

Why not?

 

[Larkinn]

If they are skewed, they are skewed downwards. The fact that the report was from the Clinton/Reno DOJ -- the Clinton administration being the most anti-gun administration ever -- easily explains why they were so quick to dismiss the 1.5M number.

Actually they didn't dismiss it.

And you want to ignore numbers that conflict with yours.

If by ignoring it you mean addressing it, then I have done that, yes.

How are they ridiculous? Because they exceed the crime rates?
The crime rate is based on the number of crimes reported to and investigated by police. Why do you immediately suppose that for every crime reported (aside from murder) there isnt at least one that's not?

Because only 25% of households have guns, thats why not.

Well then, if you want to argue that "other surveys might *gasp* suffer the same problems", then you'll have to find the questions asked.
Until you do, you cannot make that argument.

Just as you cannot make the argument that they don't suffer from those same problems. So I guess we can just throw them out as evidence, yes?

Why not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

Imagine the cases where someone is "trespassing with criminal intent", gets shown a gun and runs away. Well Rodney, you just saved yourself from a criminal! Well no, you just scared away a Japanese exchange student. Close enough I guess, though.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually they didn't dismiss it.

OK, so the 1.5M number stands. Right?
And thus, the rest of the discussion is meaningless.

If by ignoring it you mean addressing it, then I have done that, yes.

No you havent. You addresed, half-assed, the DOJ number. You havent addressed any of the other sources that show a similar number.

Because only 25% of households have guns, thats why not.

And that's relevant, because...?
How does the numnber of households that have/do not have a gun relate in any way to the ration of crimes reported/not reported?

Just as you cannot make the argument that they don't suffer from those same problems. So I guess we can just throw them out as evidence, yes?

YOU brought up the idea that they arent valid vecause of a specific reason.
Its up to you to show that this specidic reason applies; its NOT up to me to show that it doesnt.

Imagine the cases where someone is "trespassing with criminal intent", gets shown a gun and runs away. Well Rodney, you just saved yourself from a criminal! Well no, you just scared away a Japanese exchange student.

And for this to have any relevance, you have to show that it happens often enough to invaliadate the responses.

 

[Larkinn]

OK, so the 1.5M number stands. Right?
And thus, the rest of the discussion is meaningless.

No, they questioned it, they did not dismiss it. Nuances are important.

No you havent. You addresed, half-assed, the DOJ number. You havent addressed any of the other sources that show a similar number.

Sure I have. I've said there is no reason to think that they don't suffer from the same flaws in the DOJ report.

And that's relevant, because...?
How does the numnber of households that have/do not have a gun relate in any way to the ration of crimes reported/not reported?

Because it wouldn't be a 1-1 difference, it would be more of a 3-1 difference. That is 3 crimes committed for every one reported. Since we can assume only 25% of crime victims have a gun (at the very MOST...which is probably way too generous), then that means that they scare off perpetrators at the same rate that the rest of the non gun-toting population gets attacked.

YOU brought up the idea that they arent valid vecause of a specific reason.
Its up to you to show that this specidic reason applies; its NOT up to me to show that it doesnt.

You cited them as valid. If you want to include them as evidence, provide them so I can look at them. Actually you really should look at them yourself before citing them as evidence, but I'll do some of your work for you.

And for this to have any relevance, you have to show that it happens often enough to invaliadate the responses.

Umm, no, actually I don't. The point is that the numbers are unreliable and should not be trusted. Why? Because there isn't a way of screening out when this happens and when it doesn't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, they questioned it, they did not dismiss it. Nuances are important.

Seems to me, they said it was consistient with oither surveys, and their own lower number might be wrong.

Sure I have. I've said there is no reason to think that they don't suffer from the same flaws in the DOJ report.

Aside from the fact that youhavent mentioned ANY of them...
You havent shown any reason to believe that they do.
You're simply pre-disposed to the notion, completely ignoring the fact that you dont have any actual information to support the idea.

Because it wouldn't be a 1-1 difference, it would be more of a 3-1 difference. That is 3 crimes committed for every one reported.

And why do you dismiss that idea?

You cited them as valid.

I cited them. YOU discredit them without any information that supports you doing so.

Umm, no, actually I don't.

Sure you do -- otherwise your response to that end has no meaning whatsoever.

 

[Larkinn]

Seems to me, they said it was consistient with oither surveys, and their own lower number might be wrong.

Yes, they also said that it was wildly disproportionate with reported crime rates. Funny you keep forgetting to mention that.

Aside from the fact that youhavent mentioned ANY of them...
You havent shown any reason to believe that they do.
You're simply pre-disposed to the notion, completely ignoring the fact that you dont have any actual information to support the idea.

*sigh*.

Lets go over this real slow.

You want to use the 1.5 number. It is consistent with other studies (which YOU are claiming are valid). I am challenging that claim. I'd like more than your word that they are valid to go on. If you don't want to show they are valid, or even provide them, thats alright. But then kindly don't cite them as evidence.

And why do you dismiss that idea?

Because its not a 3-1 differential between number of crimes reported and actual number of crimes. Its a 3-1 differential between number of crimes that seem to occurr from other studies similar to this one, and the number of crimes that occur according to this study.

I cited them. YOU discredit them without any information that supports you doing so.

If you cite them, then provide them here so your claims can be examined.

Sure you do -- otherwise your response to that end has no meaning whatsoever.

Way to ignore the substance of my claim and just attack the claim itself. This seems to be a pattern with you. I'll explain again for your enlightenment, do try and pay attention this time.

So first of all, you are asking a ridiculous claim because there is no way I, or anyone, can prove the difference without finding all those people who were scared off and asking their intent. This is absurd.

Secondly you are posting this as an accurate survey. If I can point to a reason NOT to think that its accurate, that questions the credibility of it. It is much harder to get something right than to get something wrong.

Please prove to me that the question would have accurate results. Otherwise there is no reason for me, or anyone, to trust it. Oh well except for you because you like things that agree with your preconceived notions.

 

[Waterrescuedude]

They have concealed carry in North Carolina. But any business can put up a sign telling you you can not carry there, effectively nullifying concealed carry. Further the State has no Constitutional or legal edict allowing self defense. You shoot someone and no matter the reason it is up to the local DA to charge you even if totally provable to be self defense.

I mean here even on your own property there is still a state law in effect that says that if someone is even on your property and you are in fear for your livestock property or family then you can shoot his ass. Got to love Nevada. That law was actually written in the 1800's but it is still in effect here.
And if you are in fear of your life or the life of others here you can use lethal force to defend yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please prove to me that the question would have accurate results.

Its pretty clear that you simply dont WANT to believe anythng that you don't like, and so there's no sense in wasting any more time here.

 

[Larkinn]

Its pretty clear that you simply dont WANT to believe anythng that you don't like, and so there's no sense in wasting any more time here.

No I'd rather not believe surveys which have large gaping holes in them, while you seem to prefer them when they fit your preconceived views.

These results being accurate would require the amount of crimes reported in other surveys to be massively massively under-represented. Care to give an explanation for that? Or does that fact not matter to you?