• Dildos descend on UT Austin in 'Cocks Not Glocks' protest of guns on campus
    324 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Samiam22;50945224]Are you meaning the argument with me? I responded to the last thing you said and didn't get a reply. I don't understand how what I said could be interpreted as "'heh it doesnt matter because i said so lol".[/QUOTE] I stopped replying because where at first I thought you were interested in having a discussion it became clear your only concern was clinging to your irrelevant statistics and twisting them to fit your argument (when they weren't intended for that). You threw out everything I said multiple times. I'm glad you live in fucking Wonderland with the unicorns but I don't. Flash doesn't. People are attacked in the US and people die. Granted, the odds of us needing to use a weapon in self defense are exceptionally low (though it's already happened in my case) but the good thing about firearms is you can use them recreationally as well. It's not like you're spending thousands out of paranoia that you'll be attacked on things you can't use for anything else. For most people it skews the other direction - guns are bought as range toys or collectibles and self defense is just something enabled by the hobby. But you don't care about that. In your eyes anyone who owns a gun is a paranoid lunatic and guns are somehow simultaneously only good for killing innocent people and not good for killing criminals. Now the lot of you, running out of arguments, are attacking Flash for using mean words or something. Have fun.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945207]Full stop this is not what I was talking about and I don't even know why you're trying to shoehorn this shit in here. You've done it post after post and I've been saying things like "hey, I answered, tough tits" to try and kill off that irrelevant bullshit. I've clearly been trying to assert that yeah, a firearm is good for home defense and [I]in that same fucking post you quoted[/I] I say it's an "amazing survival tool" which is a far fucking cry from patrolling the neighborhood like The Zimzam which is where you seem to be going with this. Why I don't know. This made me laugh because it's an attempt to escalate your dumb point into some big argument. No. I only answered with that because you asked me what "training" I had, I said I was shot at. Some training! Evidently I'm basically in the Naby SEAL Force Recon now because you've ran with that and are asking details about my riveting encounter that didn't make the news and I have no way of substantiating so you can get the argument [I]you[/I] wanted. I brought them up because both instances had a lot of unarmed people and very armed attackers, which in hindsight was a dumb thing to do because you've all but ditched whatever I was talking about presumably because I'm the only guy in earshot right now willing to play. I'm about to kick this ball over the fence and tell you to have fun by yourself. Incredible, you took my original statement here: Then you turned it into school schootings. I'm not going to read through the first page of the thread so answer me honestly, am I right in assuming you're just taking an old argument and putting it to me and hoping it sticks?[/QUOTE] Actually I just think we've been arguing about two different but tangently related things. The original topic of the thread was students protesting against ccws on campus which I would assume gun owners would want in the event of a school shooting. When someone starts talking about a how they want to defend themselves in a thread about carrying on a campus I tend to assume the shootings you're referring to are taking place on a campus. Idgaf if you have a ccw in public, I still think it's unnecessary but that's not what I've been on about. I'm not even sure where you get half your assumptions though. I'm not in any way assuming you're prowling around ready to get into a gun fight with imaginary terrorists. I'm assuming you're just going on with the assumption that I'm some gun hating liberal. You have every right to think it's justified to carry a gun everywhere, I have every right to think guns have no place in an educational environment. Maybe I'm just colored by my experiences living with a ccw owner, who is ready to pull out his gun at the slightest provocation because he thinks every "punk" is out to get him.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50945247]I stopped replying because where at first I thought you were interested in having a discussion it became clear your only concern was clinging to your irrelevant statistics and twisting them to fit your argument (when they weren't intended for that). You threw out everything I said multiple times. I'm glad you live in fucking Wonderland with the unicorns but I don't. Flash doesn't. People are attacked in the US and people die. Granted, the odds of us needing to use a weapon in self defense are exceptionally low (though it's already happened in my case) but the good thing about firearms is you can use them recreationally as well. It's not like you're spending thousands out of paranoia that you'll be attacked on things you can't use for anything else. For most people it skews the other direction - guns are bought as range toys or collectibles and self defense is just something enabled by the hobby. But you don't care about that. In your eyes anyone who owns a gun is a paranoid lunatic and guns are somehow simultaneously only good for killing innocent people and not good for killing criminals. Have fun.[/QUOTE] My argument was about active shooters, mass shootings, and how CCers don't actually do anything from the very beginning. I have not tried to hide that and I have not made any pretensions. I used reports and statistics to back me up. I don't know what else you want me to do. I have even stated, clearly, that the problem is that people have access to guns far too easily and there's nothing to really make sure that they're actually responsible gun owners. If you want to ignore all my attempts at being reasonable just to make me look like a strawman, you can, but don't try to claim my argument is bad just because you didn't convince me. If your definition of "fucking Wonderland with the unicorns" is really any country where you don't need a gun to defend yourself in day-to-day life, then that's most of Europe, some parts of East/South East Asia, and Australia and New Zealand. That's a pretty broad wonderland, really.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;50945266]My argument was about active shooters, mass shootings, and how CCers don't actually do anything from the very beginning. I have not tried to hide that and I have not made any pretensions. I used reports and statistics to back me up. I don't know what else you want me to do. I have even stated, clearly, that the problem is that people have access to guns far too easily and there's nothing to really make sure that they're actually responsible gun owners. If your definition of "fucking Wonderland with the unicorns" is really any country where you don't need a gun to defend yourself in day-to-day life, then that's most of Europe, some parts of East/South East Asia, and Australia and New Zealand. That's a pretty broad wonderland, really.[/QUOTE] You're using statistics that are specifically about high casualty events when events involving CHL holders are not high casualty events because they are stopped by the CHL holder. Then you are using this data to conclude that CHL holders are useless and don't do anything. That's stupid. I've explained this like 4 times to you and you keep defaulting to the same bullshit. And here you go again with the "gun owners are paranoid" shit which I already addressed. I didn't address that so you could glaze over it. I'm not repeating myself anymore. Either read my posts or stop pretending to have a conversation. I don't need a gun to defend myself in day to day life in the United States. People get attacked or even killed in Europe, Australia, Asia, etc. with about the same frequency as the majority of the US (excluding particular hot spots like Flint). In the US, we are allowed to own firearms. We are allowed to use firearms to defend ourselves. If we'd like to, we're allowed to prove we aren't morons and carry a firearm around with us just in case. It's not paranoia. It's not that much trouble at all. Concealed weapons are used defensively with enough frequency that it's actually difficult to get a solid statistic, but the very lowest estimate is enough to justify having the system. The shotgun I defended my home with in the incident that I mentioned is 110 years old. I bought it because I like antiques and I enjoy taking care of antiques. I didn't figure at the time that I purchased it that I might ever have to point it at someone, because that's not why I bought it. I don't judge guns by their killing potential. Most gun owners don't. Firearms make a very rich and very fun hobby. When you aren't using them on the range, you can carry them around to defend yourself if you need to. It takes me two seconds to toss my .45 into my bag on the way to work. Will I ever need it? Doubtful. But it's possible those two seconds could save my life, so why not? What's paranoid about that? And why shouldn't I, having proven that I can use a firearm safely and responsibly, be allowed to carry that weapon, concealed, on campus? Even if your statistics were accurate (and they aren't, for the reasons I've stated), isn't a 3% chance better than 0%?
[QUOTE=SataniX;50945239]Then you're naturally overly aggressive. Hardly surprising considering how paranoid you're coming across.[/QUOTE]Fine, fair enough point that I might seem aggressive but it's shit like this that would probably make me angry if I were easily upset: [QUOTE]If you think your personal opinion is somehow more correct than peer-reviewed studies then I can't really argue with you.[/QUOTE][I]Again[/I] I said I disagreed with you. As far as the study is concerned I said this little bit:[quote]Instead I'll pass over your article because that is a lot of shit I don't want to read especially since my stance on the article's subject is, "don't care, gonna do it anyway." I realize this is going to just burn your ass but that's just how I feel about it, I have a gun in my home because it might possibly give me an edge on a home invader. Tough tits.[/quote] You posted an extremely long, probably interesting, study completely unsolicited and you're offended that because I'm not thanking you for your contribution. I realize it must have seemed like a sick zinger but having a gun in the house because somebody [I]might[/I] kick down my door is a cultural difference you're going to have to accept. Now if this is impossible for you to reconcile in your head or you are otherwise unwilling to acknowledge that we're different then I'm sorry to say but that's your problem. Not mine. I do have it in another tab and I'll make a note to read it, maybe you did look hard for it. [QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;50945241]Oh, you aren't angry. That explains the condescending attitude and constant insults. And judging from you continuing to make big ol' posts defending yourself, I can totally see how you don't care about our opinions. Okay, got it.[/QUOTE]Maybe I just don't like you but I think it's hilarious that you're [I]so angry[/I] that you're constantly saying, "heh, yeah, like yeah, you 'don't care' and stuff, right, heh, yeah, whatever buddy." I'm trying really hard not to be a dick toward you, apparently I'm coming across as hyper-aggressive so I don't want people to think I'm trying to snack on your head or something. [QUOTE]I mean, the alternative is that you're being an overly paranoid, smugly superior dickwad who just can't fathom people disagreeing with him. But that's just ludicrous.[/QUOTE]Yeah, it is. I know why you're disagreeing with me, but the thing is [I]I disagree with your point of view too.[/I] Calling people caricatures and then trying to goad them into an argument isn't exactly the behavior of a completely righteous and just guy, you know. I think I can be smug from time to time though, and I can definitely be condescending. I even admitted it in the [U]one[/U] post where I lost my cool a little bit but even then I was pretty tame. [QUOTE=Anderan;50945248]Actually I just think we've been arguing about two different but tangently related things. The original topic of the thread was students protesting against ccws on campus which I would assume gun owners would want in the event of a school shooting. When someone starts talking about a how they want to defend themselves in a thread about carrying on a campus I tend to assume the shootings you're referring to are taking place on a campus.[/QUOTE]You know what? That's a fair assumption, I didn't consider that so big "my bad!" on my part. Sorry. [QUOTE]I'm not even sure where you get half your assumptions though. I'm not in any way assuming you're prowling around ready to get into a gun fight with imaginary terrorists.[/QUOTE]I kind of feel like that's where you were going with it, but to be fair you do admit this:[QUOTE]Maybe I'm just colored by my experiences living with a ccw owner, who is ready to pull out his gun at the slightest provocation because he thinks every "punk" is out to get him.[/QUOTE] I think maybe you were letting that shithead cloud your perception a bit, I've done it, we've all done it, no harm no foul. Even though we might disagree on the necessity of firearms in everyday life you're the kind of person I worry for, I'm aware of people like you because that guy you live with is just as much as a threat as a criminal looking for an easy target. Like I said pages ago, reality is full of terrible, terrible people and I hate to say it but that aspect of the gun culture needs to go. I think it is leaving slowly but surely but at least you can be rest assured that there [I]are[/I] gun owners who tell guys like that off.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50945282]You're using statistics that are specifically about high casualty events when events involving CHL holders are not high casualty events because they are stopped by the CHL holder. Then you are using this data to conclude that CHL holders are useless and don't do anything. That's stupid. I've explained this like 4 times to you and you keep defaulting to the same bullshit.[/quote] I don't understand where you're getting the idea that the CCer is stopping the mass shootings. The FBI report was about active shooters, which are defined as someone who is shooting in a public place where a civilian can influence. In some of those cases, maybe only one person got injured, and that's it. In all 160 of those incidents, an active shooter was stopped by a regular (so not security, not off-duty cop/NG/whatever) civilian with a gun once. If you are going to mention the defensive gun use statistic, you can surely understand my skepticism when it comes to the numbers. 80,000 at the lowest and 4.7 million at the highest is a really huge margin of error, and even then, there are so many questions regarding DGU preventing gun violence that arise from this. How many of these cases was the use of a gun absolutely necessary? How many of these cases only came about because the perpetrator managed to easily acquire a gun of his own? How many of these cases did a DGUer actually prevent a mass shooting? How many of these cases were actually provably a defensive use of a gun? [quote]And here you go again with the "gun owners are paranoid" shit which I already addressed. I didn't address that so you could glaze over it. I'm not repeating myself anymore. Either read my posts or stop pretending to have a conversation.[/quote] Because it really is paranoia. I'll address this below. [quote]I don't need a gun to defend myself in day to day life in the United States.[/quote] If you don't need one, why have one? If it is because you want one, that's fine, you're probably a responsible gun owner, but there are many people who aren't. [quote]People get attacked or even killed in Europe, Australia, Asia, etc. with about the same frequency as the majority of the US (excluding particular hot spots like Flint). [/quote] I don't think this is true. The homicide rate in the US is 3.9 per 100,000. In Australia it is 1.0, Sweden has 0.9, and Japan has 0.3. I counted 61 US cities that have a higher murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate than 3.9, all the way up to a frankly scary 49.9 for St. Louis. I don't believe that people are killed at the same rate in the rest of the west compared to the States. The stats I've seen simply don't reflect that. [quote]In the US, we are allowed to own firearms. We are allowed to use firearms to defend ourselves. If we'd like to, we're allowed to prove we aren't morons and carry a firearm around with us just in case. It's not paranoia. It's not that much trouble at all. Concealed weapons are used defensively with enough frequency that it's actually difficult to get a solid statistic, but the very lowest estimate is enough to justify having the system.[/QUOTE] It is trouble, though. The way [url=http://www.deseretnews.com/top/3430/0/The-10-states-with-the-least-restrictive-gun-laws.html] some States barely even have gun laws[/url] and how [url=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/dylann-roof-background-check/398267/] the background check system is flawed[/url] and how [url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/05/barack-obama/obama-violent-felons-can-buy-guns-online-without-b/]even felons can legally buy guns[/url] all contribute to how I think the firearm ownership system in the US is flawed.
[quote]You know what? That's a fair assumption, I didn't consider that so big "my bad!" on my part. Sorry. I kind of feel like that's where you were going with it, but to be fair you do admit this: I think maybe you were letting that shithead cloud your perception a bit, I've done it, we've all done it, no harm no foul. Even though we might disagree on the necessity of firearms in everyday life you're the kind of person I worry for, I'm aware of people like you because that guy you live with is just as much as a threat as a criminal looking for an easy target. Like I said pages ago, reality is full of terrible, terrible people and I hate to say it but that aspect of the gun culture needs to go. I think it is leaving slowly but surely but at least you can be rest assured that there [I]are[/I] gun owners who tell guys like that off.[/QUOTE] In all fairness that person is similar to you, he just wants to defend himself and our family. He's just a tad paranoid and the news we get so much of on a daily basis doesn't help much. I'm all for firearms for home defense or even maybe keeping one in your car. I'm just concerned about people getting overly paranoid and doing something they can't take back and really I feel that's what these students are too. Maybe include self defense training before bringing it on campus since that's mostly what it is for anyways and training on identifying threats and responding to them is hardly a useless skill. But maybe that's too much red tape. Also for the record I do own guns and have literally no issue with them, I just don't concealed carry.
Daily reminder that licensed concealed carriers in the state of Texas are [URL="http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/"]literally dozens of times less likely than police to commit crimes[/URL]. When concealed carriers on campus are far less likely to commit crimes than the police around campus, the constantly repeated fear over concealed carry causing an eruption of gun violence at school has been conclusively shown to be bullshit. There is no demonstrable safety risk posed by having responsible concealed carriers on campus, so the opposition to concealed carry largely boils down to people being irrationally afraid of inanimate objects that [I]by the very nature of concealed carry[/I] they will never see unless absolutely necessary. Criticize our firearm laws all you want but there is no good reason to oppose concealed carry. The hoops people have to jump through to concealed carry guarantee that the only people legally doing so are law-abiding, competent people. Don't argue with me, argue with the statistics.
[QUOTE=Anderan;50945354]In all fairness that person is similar to you, he just wants to defend himself and our family. He's just a tad paranoid and the news we get so much of on a daily basis doesn't help much. I'm all for firearms for home defense or even maybe keeping one in your car. I'm just concerned about people getting overly paranoid and doing something they can't take back and really I feel that's what these students are too. Maybe include self defense training before bringing it on campus since that's mostly what it is for anyways and training on identifying threats and responding to them is hardly a useless skill. But maybe that's too much red tape.[/QUOTE] I agree with you, mostly. The reason I am focussing on untrained civilians so much is that is because that's what university students are going to be mostly composed of. There isn't a good reason to believe any given university student has the extensive firearm training of a security guard or a cop.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;50945339]I don't understand where you're getting the idea that the CCer is stopping the mass shootings. The FBI report was about active shooters, which are defined as someone who is shooting in a public place where a civilian can influence. In some of those cases, maybe only one person got injured, and that's it. In all 160 of those incidents, an active shooter was stopped by a regular (so not security, not off-duty cop/NG/whatever) civilian with a gun once.[/quote] [quote]If you are going to mention the defensive gun use statistic, you can surely understand my skepticism when it comes to the numbers. 80,000 at the lowest and 4.7 million at the highest is a really huge margin of error, and even then, there are so many questions regarding DGU preventing gun violence that arise from this. How many of these cases was the use of a gun absolutely necessary? How many of these cases only came about because the perpetrator managed to easily acquire a gun of his own? How many of these cases did a DGUer actually prevent a mass shooting? How many of these cases were actually provably a defensive use of a gun?[/quote] It's a huge margin of error, which is why I'm only looking at the 80,000 statistic. This is the lowest, most conservative estimate available. It's still plenty. 80,000 valid DGUs every year is enough for me. We could split hairs over what kind of aggression warrants the use of a firearm all day. This boils down to a matter of opinion. Probably lots of them, but that's irrelevant to licensed, verified, background checked, trained, and fully legal gun owners who are carrying responsibly. There is no way to quantify how many mass shootings were stopped since they didn't occur and therefore never became measurable. When some loon pops off and starts blasting with a stolen gun and a CCW carrier shoots him, that's it. That's the end of that. Did he stop a mass shooting? How can anyone know? I'm not clairvoyant but I do know that statistics and personal experience indicate that having a firearm to defend yourself is better than not. I don't understand the last question. [quote]Because it really is paranoia. I'll address this below.[/quote] No, it isn't. [quote]If you don't need one, why have one?[/quote] I love this argument. You don't [I]need[/I] anything but basic food and a roof over your head. And some people don't even have the second thing. [quote]If it is because you want one, that's fine, you're probably a responsible gun owner, but there are many people who aren't.[/quote] Okay. Yeah. How does this have any bearing on me or the licensed, responsible carriers at question? [quote]I don't think this is true.[/quote] The homicide rate in the US is 3.9 per 100,000. In Australia it is 1.0, Sweden has 0.9, and Japan has 0.3. I counted 61 US cities that have a higher murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate than 3.9, all the way up to a frankly scary 49.9 for St. Louis. I don't believe that people are killed at the same rate in the rest of the west compared to the States. The stats I've seen simply don't reflect that.[/quote] I specifically stated [I]excluding[/I] some of our ridiculous hotspots - places, you will note, that have often banned firearms. Controlling for high poverty low education areas, our crime rates look a lot more normal. [quote]It is trouble, though. The way [url=http://www.deseretnews.com/top/3430/0/The-10-states-with-the-least-restrictive-gun-laws.html] some States barely even have gun laws[/url] and how [url=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/dylann-roof-background-check/398267/] the background check system is flawed[/url] and how [url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/05/barack-obama/obama-violent-felons-can-buy-guns-online-without-b/]even felons can legally buy guns[/url] all contribute to how I think the firearm ownership system in the US is flawed.[/QUOTE] I said it's no trouble for me to carry. I already own the weapon. It takes no time at all to bring it with me, and it might save my life in the infinitesimally unlikely event that I should actually be the target of a violent crime. Everyone knows the system is flawed. There's nothing we can do about it. Every time we've tried to trust the government to come up with better regulations, they just arbitrarily take more things away from us. You have no idea how much red tape there is around guns in the US - and how much of it is only acknowledged by people who care about the law. Our gun laws are like shitty DRM. They only punish the people following the law.
[QUOTE=SataniX;50945239]Then you're naturally overly aggressive. Hardly surprising considering how paranoid you're coming across.[/QUOTE] Uh, have we been reading the same posts? Cause unless I missed something pretty subtle I didn't see any actual paranoia there? Also on the subject of claiming that gun owners are likely to be complete idiots with their guns as people were trying to argue earlier in the thread: If you're not American or don't have a fair amount of experience around American gun owners then you don't have much of a leg to stand on. You'd be surprised at the levels of gun safety that some normally exceptionally idiotic people actually show. My family used to know this guy who became more racist over the years and eventually became a white supremacist. Total moron. Yet despite the fact he had a fetish for guns he actually was great when it came to gun safety and using his guns. Out in rural areas guns (usually rifles for hunting or shotguns owned by farmers for dealing with pests) are really common. Some of these people go get shitfaced and go shooting for fun. Despite the fact they're total morons for getting shitfaced and going shooting they still are commonly safe with their guns, other than the fact they're shitfaced obviously. People who are legitimately unsafe and reckless with their guns are actually in the minority. [QUOTE=Samiam22;50945339]The homicide rate in the US is 3.9 per 100,000. In Australia it is 1.0, Sweden has 0.9, and Japan has 0.3. I counted 61 US cities that have a higher murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate than 3.9, all the way up to a frankly scary 49.9 for St. Louis. I don't believe that people are killed at the same rate in the rest of the west compared to the States. The stats I've seen simply don't reflect that.[/QUOTE] You should keep in mind that those cities are ones where there's going to be very significant amounts of poverty. Areas with large amounts of poverty are going to have a lot more crime issues than areas with low poverty.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50945360]Daily reminder that licensed concealed carriers in the state of Texas are [URL="http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/"]literally dozens of times less likely than police to commit crimes[/URL]. When concealed carriers on campus are far less likely to commit crimes than the police around campus, the constantly repeated fear over concealed carry causing an eruption of gun violence at school has been conclusively shown to be bullshit. There is no demonstrable safety risk posed by having responsible concealed carriers on campus, so the opposition to concealed carry largely boils down to people being irrationally afraid of inanimate objects that [I]by the very nature of concealed carry[/I] they will never see unless absolutely necessary. Criticize our firearm laws all you want but there is no good reason to oppose concealed carry. The hoops people have to jump through to concealed carry guarantee that the only people legally doing so are law-abiding, competent people. Don't argue with me, argue with the statistics.[/QUOTE] To be fair the people that carry out shootings, on campuses at least, generally aren't exactly career criminals.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;50945366]I agree with you, mostly. The reason I am focussing on untrained civilians so much is that is because that's what university students are going to be mostly composed of. There isn't a good reason to believe any given university student has the extensive firearm training of a security guard or a cop.[/QUOTE] CCW holders aren't untrained civilians though. There's been plenty of info given out about the CCW process in this thread already, you'd have to be intentionally ignoring it at this point.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;50945366]There isn't a good reason to believe any given university student has the extensive firearm training of a security guard or a cop.[/QUOTE] Other than the fact that the live-fire requirement to get a concealed carry permit in Texas is [i]more stringent[/i] than the handgun qualification police undergo. You realize cops and security guards are basically 'nominally trained amateurs' when it comes to firearm proficiency, right? Using a gun is such a small part of their job that it certainly isn't a high priority for most jurisdictions in the US. In major metropolitan centers, most cops only shoot once a year for qualification and as long as they scrape by they're fine. New York City issues special Glocks with extremely heavy triggers because they can't trust their officers not to accidentally shoot themselves or other people with a standard Glock's trigger pull. I don't for the life of me understand this mindset that cops are responsible and can be trusted with guns but concealed carriers who have undergone a training course and demonstrated competence are loose cannons. I just linked you to an article discussing the stats- cops are overwhelmingly more likely to commit firearm offenses or felonies in general than concealed carriers.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50945385]The homicide rate in the US is 3.9 per 100,000. In Australia it is 1.0, Sweden has 0.9, and Japan has 0.3. I counted 61 US cities that have a higher murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate than 3.9, all the way up to a frankly scary 49.9 for St. Louis. I don't believe that people are killed at the same rate in the rest of the west compared to the States. The stats I've seen simply don't reflect that.[/quote] I specifically stated [I]excluding[/I] some of our ridiculous hotspots - places, you will note, that have often banned firearms. Controlling for high poverty low education areas, our crime rates look a lot more normal.[/QUOTE] Kind of a flawed argument, because if you apply the same process to other countries you get the same effect. Shocker - excluding the bad parts makes the country as a whole look better :v:
[QUOTE=Anderan;50945393]To be fair the people that carry out shootings, on campuses at least, generally aren't exactly career criminals.[/QUOTE] I'm responding to the demonstrably false idea that allowing concealed carry on campus is going to make the school look like the Wild West. According to the statistics, the police pose a far greater risk to the students than concealed carriers, so there's no logical reason to be scared of concealed carry being allowed on campus. Plenty of schools already allow concealed carry and have had no major incidents as a result.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50945399] You realize cops and security guards are basically 'nominally trained amateurs' when it comes to firearm proficiency, right? Using a gun is such a small part of their job that it certainly isn't a high priority for most jurisdictions in the US. In major metropolitan centers, most cops only shoot once a year for qualification and as long as they scrape by they're fine. New York City issues special Glocks with extremely heavy triggers because they can't trust their officers not to accidentally shoot themselves or other people with a standard Glock's trigger pull. I don't for the life of me understand this mindset that cops are responsible and can be trusted with guns but concealed carriers who have undergone a training course and demonstrated competence are loose cannons.[/QUOTE] Because in most places cops are properly trained, and have actual practice handling firearms. The fact that a place with substantially more armed police and armed people doesn't have sufficient training is another major issue, IMO. [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;50945410]I'm responding to the demonstrably false idea that allowing concealed carry on campus is going to make the school look like the Wild West. According to the statistics, the police pose a far greater risk to the students than concealed carriers, so there's no logical reason to be scared of concealed carry being allowed on campus. Plenty of schools already allow concealed carry and have had no major incidents as a result.[/QUOTE] What about the stats that show CCW is more likely to lead to escalated violence than prevent it? CCW is all well and good for stopping a school shooting in very specific cases, but if it overall causes more violence is it worth it?
[QUOTE=SataniX;50945407]Kind of a flawed argument, because if you apply the same process to other countries you get the same effect. Shocker - excluding the bad parts makes the country as a whole look better :v:[/QUOTE] That isn't a flawed argument. It works perfectly: gun ownership is more or less legal nationwide, yet the whole nation doesn't look like Detroit. Those places have localized issues that they need to solve locally. In the meantime I exclude them from nationwide statistics because they don't represent the rest of the country. [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SataniX;50945412]Because in most places cops are properly trained, and have actual practice handling firearms. The fact that a place with substantially more armed police and armed people doesn't have sufficient training is another major issue, IMO.[/QUOTE] A civilian who shoots recreationally regularly has more practice handling firearms than most police officers who do not privately own firearms, full stop. I regularly see cops doing stupid amateur shit with their guns that I have [I]never[/I] seen on a civilian gun range.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50945434]That isn't a flawed argument. It works perfectly: gun ownership is more or less legal nationwide, yet the whole nation doesn't look like Detroit. Those places have localized issues that they need to solve locally. In the meantime I exclude them from nationwide statistics because they don't represent the rest of the country.[/QUOTE] You don't need to control for variables when gun ownership is legal nationwide, you can use the national statistics? The only reason to exclude places like Detroit is to make the numbers look better, or unless you're trying to compare factors like poverty that vary. [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50945434]A civilian who shoots recreationally regularly has more practice handling firearms than most police officers who do not privately own firearms, full stop. I regularly see cops doing stupid amateur shit with their guns that I have [I]never[/I] seen on a civilian gun range.[/QUOTE] I'm sure you do. That speaks to major issues with your police forces more than CCW being a good idea IMO.
[QUOTE=SataniX;50945442]You don't need to control for variables when gun ownership is legal nationwide, you can use the national statistics? The only reason to exclude places like Detroit is to make the numbers look better, or unless you're trying to compare factors like poverty that vary.[/QUOTE] I am comparing those factors. Gun ownership is a constant. Places like Detroit have disproportionately high crime rates because of other factors. You can't compare the campus of UT Austin to Detroit. However, you can compare it to the rest of the country - so you exclude the parts of the country you can't compare it to.
[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;50941656]Imagine if people constantly killed other people with those fire extinguishers. All day. Every day. Like I won't weigh in on the issue but pretending guns are just as harmless as a fire extinguisher is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Imagine that their reason for being violent had nothing to do with guns, but instead the fact that they are impoverished with little to no opportunities to improve their quality of life or they're significantly mentally unwell with no affordable healthcare available to help them. But no, let's talk about guns instead. These aren't people that need help.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50945452]I am comparing those factors. Gun ownership is a constant. Places like Detroit have disproportionately high crime rates because of other factors. You can't compare the campus of UT Austin to Detroit. However, you can compare it to the rest of the country.[/QUOTE] Yes, but those factors are irrelevant when it comes to whether CCW is effective or not. It doesn't become more effective or less effective in certain places. So like I said, the only reason to exclude places like Detroit is to fudge the numbers.
[QUOTE=SataniX;50945412]Because in most places cops are properly trained.[/QUOTE] In police work? Yes. In marksmanship and firearm use, only a tiny component of police work? Absolutely not. I've worked with law enforcement (federal logistics officer here) in force-on-force training, and most cops are barely above the general population in firearms experience. Continuum of force and basic operation are the focus of training, and marksmanship or active shooter response [I]let alone[/I] proper force-on-force training are afterthoughts that most cops end up having to do on their own time. Most cops I've met who demonstrate shooting proficiency are guys who have an interest and train with their own money at public ranges (just like normal civilian shooters), because the department won't pay for them to burn hundreds of rounds at the range each month. Anyone who goes through the Texas concealed carry system receives more formal marksmanship training, range time, and testing than the average American cop. I already linked to [URL="http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/"]an analysis[/URL] which shows that cops are, on average, 23 times more likely to commit a firearm-related violation than concealed carriers. [QUOTE=SataniX;50945412]What about the stats that show CCW is more likely to lead to escalated violence than prevent it?[/QUOTE] [citation needed] I don't put much stock in correlative arguments.
[QUOTE=SataniX;50945460]Yes, but those factors are irrelevant when it comes to whether CCW is effective or not. It doesn't become more effective or less effective in certain places. So like I said, the only reason to exclude places like Detroit is to fudge the numbers.[/QUOTE] The only reason I even mentioned excluding hotspots is that I was very specifically responding to a very narrow argument regarding the US crime rate, which, like I said, looks a lot better when you exclude places that aren't essentially lawless, possessed with ghetto culture, defined by retrograde economic growth and an utter lack of decent education. It had little to do with the CCW argument, it was just a response to an assertion that the entire United States is Detroit. If you tried to get the average weight of a group of 40 and most of them were 150-200 pounds and then there was one guy who was somehow 2000 pounds he would really warp your numbers so you'd probably say "well this guy has a medical condition and doesn't represent an average person" and exclude his weight from your calculations. Also: CCW becomes less effective in places where it isn't allowed. Those places tend to be targeted by shooters trying to maximize body count.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50945463] [citation needed] [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nber.org/papers/w18294.pdf[/url] [url]http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2240&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3D%25E2%2580%259CShooting%2BDown%2Bthe%2BMore%2BGuns%252C%2BLess%2BCrime%2BHypothesis%252C%25E2%2580%259D%2Bby%2BIan%2BAyres%2Band%2BJohn%2BJ.%2BDonohue%2BIII.%2BStanford%2BLaw%2BReview%252C%2BV%26oq%3D%25E2%2580%259CShooting%2BDown%2Bthe%2BMore%2BGuns%252C%2BLess%2BCrime%2BHypothesis%252C%25E2%2580%259D%2Bby%2BIan%2BAyres%2Band%2BJohn%2BJ.%2BDonohue%2BIII.%2BStanford%2BLaw%2BReview%252C%2BV%26sugexp%3Dchrome%2Cmod%3D4%26sourceid%3Dchrome%26ie%3DUTF-8#search=%22%E2%80%9CShooting%20Down%20More%20Guns%2C%20Less%20Crime%20Hypothesis%2C%E2%80%9D%20by%20Ian%20Ayres%20John%20J.%20Donohue%20III.%20Stanford%20Law%20Review%2C%20V%22[/url] Long sources, so.... [quote]Across the basic seven Index I crime categories, the strongest evidence of a statistically significant effect would be for aggravated assault, with 11 of 28 estimates suggesting that RTC laws increase this crime at the .10 confidence level.[/quote] [quote]In the end, we are left with a hierarchy of three conclusions that we will discuss in turn below. 1. There remains no robust, credible statistical evidence that the adoption of shall-issue laws will generally lower crime, and indeed the best, albeit admittedly imperfect, statistical evidence presented thus far points in the opposite direction: that the adoption of shall-issue laws will generally increase crime 2. While the best evidence suggests that shall-issue laws generally tend to increase crime, there is still too much uncertainty to make strong claims about their effects. 3. We should simply accept the twenty-four different jurisdiction-specific estimates and conclude that shall-issue laws increase crime in most states but reduce it in other states.[/quote].
Watch the fuck out friends another block of text incoming: [QUOTE=Samiam22;50945339]Because it really is paranoia. I'll address this below.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]If you don't need one, why have one? If it is because you want one, that's fine, you're probably a responsible gun owner, but there are many people who aren't.[/QUOTE]First off you've labeled me as paranoid [I]and[/I] a responsible gun owner, so if it's an either-or scenario am I some sort of anomaly? I know some of the most virulently anti-gun people on this board are simultaneously anti-American and can list all these different ways why the American government is so fucked up, and yet we're supposed to just surrender the constitutional check against our government overstepping it's bounds? Weren't you one of the people who was angry about PRISM and other spying programs, claiming it violated your rights? (I might be mistaken of course) That's the same government we're armed against, and while not [I]all[/I] gun owners feel this way about the 2nd Amendment there is a majority that do and for good reason. Aside from that, let's pretend it isn't important for a moment, gun owners in this country are such a large and well-armed group that if we ever did become "a threat" then we do have instances to shed light on how that would play out. Most prominently we have Timothy McVeigh, I could talk a long time about this guy but long and short is Ruby Ridge and the Waco siege are two often-cited examples of our government putting on the jackboots and going too far and he responded [I]with a bomb.[/I] Actually his bomb was somewhat of a failure, it could have been far more devastating, but truth be told the many instances of sovereign citizens shooting at cops and federal agents are more likely to be the common form of response. So far nobody with a precision rifle and an axe to grind has started shooting, because the Beltway Sniper is a phenomenal example of that and it was pure chaos. Even people here were freaking out, we're hundreds of miles away from D.C.. There isn't much incentive to chase after guns when the gains are small, basically insignificant and decreasing every year, and the costs are staggering. We lose a very, very important right and we also upset a bunch of people that are actually armed already, I'm not seeing the point here. [QUOTE]It is trouble, though. The way [url=http://www.deseretnews.com/top/3430/0/The-10-states-with-the-least-restrictive-gun-laws.html] some States barely even have gun laws[/url] and how [url=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/dylann-roof-background-check/398267/] the background check system is flawed[/url] and how [url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/05/barack-obama/obama-violent-felons-can-buy-guns-online-without-b/]even felons can legally buy guns[/url] all contribute to how I think the firearm ownership system in the US is flawed.[/QUOTE]Our system isn't flawed, it's a state's rights issue first of all and secondly felons can't buy guns online. Obama is talking out of his ass and if you look in the article it speaks clearly about straw purchases which are, themselves, a felon and already illegal. Make no mistake, the BATFE [B]will[/B] prosecute you for this and there is a lot of controversy surrounding that particular agency's zealous nature. Actually part of the reason why gun control is so vehemently opposed by gun owners is the BATFE's actions, maybe if the government agency that was supposed to regulate guns wasn't hostile to gun owners the gun community would be more receptive and less "paranoid." Also since straw purchases are illegal I have to say this once more: the law only matters if you care. People buying guns for felons (which is itself a felony) is only going to stop people like me who want nothing to do with that shit. [QUOTE=Anderan;50945354]In all fairness that person is similar to you, he just wants to defend himself and our family. He's just a tad paranoid and the news we get so much of on a daily basis doesn't help much.[/QUOTE]Getting worked up over the news and looking for a fight pretty much goes against the survivalist in me, I'm avoiding fights but I won't shy from finishing one if presented. I don't like people who seek violence because they tend to be unstable, or they're just blustering fucks who actually turn tail and run when shit goes down. [QUOTE]I'm all for firearms for home defense or even maybe keeping one in your car. I'm just concerned about people getting overly paranoid and doing something they can't take back and really I feel that's what these students are too.[/QUOTE]I can see how this is a valid concern but in actuality the psychology of carrying a weapon seems to lean the complete opposite, everything you do is ___ plus gun, so even a simple [I]argument[/I] can turn into a crime if taken in the wrong context. I think a lot of the people who carry that seem professional and polite are that way partially because they have a reminder on them. [QUOTE]Maybe include self defense training before bringing it on campus since that's mostly what it is for anyways and training on identifying threats and responding to them is hardly a useless skill. But maybe that's too much red tape.[/QUOTE]I really wish they taught safety courses in school and college campuses offered self-defense and situational awareness classes. That mindset is, as you said, hardly a useless skill and would apply elsewhere in life. Hell I'd just be thankful if they did that shit for driving, there's tons of retards on the road who think it's A-OK to let the car coast uncontrolled.
[QUOTE=SataniX;50945479][url]http://www.nber.org/papers/w18294.pdf[/url] [url]http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2240&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3D%25E2%2580%259CShooting%2BDown%2Bthe%2BMore%2BGuns%252C%2BLess%2BCrime%2BHypothesis%252C%25E2%2580%259D%2Bby%2BIan%2BAyres%2Band%2BJohn%2BJ.%2BDonohue%2BIII.%2BStanford%2BLaw%2BReview%252C%2BV%26oq%3D%25E2%2580%259CShooting%2BDown%2Bthe%2BMore%2BGuns%252C%2BLess%2BCrime%2BHypothesis%252C%25E2%2580%259D%2Bby%2BIan%2BAyres%2Band%2BJohn%2BJ.%2BDonohue%2BIII.%2BStanford%2BLaw%2BReview%252C%2BV%26sugexp%3Dchrome%2Cmod%3D4%26sourceid%3Dchrome%26ie%3DUTF-8#search=%22%E2%80%9CShooting%20Down%20More%20Guns%2C%20Less%20Crime%20Hypothesis%2C%E2%80%9D%20by%20Ian%20Ayres%20John%20J.%20Donohue%20III.%20Stanford%20Law%20Review%2C%20V%22[/url] Long sources, so.... .[/QUOTE] CHL holders can only legally respond once a crime has already been committed (or else they are committing a crime themselves). A CHL holder shooting a criminal has not undone the crime that was committed, only stopped it from getting more severe.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50945492]CHL holders can only legally respond once a crime has already been committed (or else they are committing a crime themselves). A CHL holder shooting a criminal has not undone the crime that was committed, only stopped it from getting more severe.[/QUOTE] Yeah so? You're absolutely right in the cases it works like that, but stats show that in general CCW isn't beneficial. As in, yeah you save 10 people in one situation but 30 extra people die in a different situation.
[QUOTE=SataniX;50945497]As in, yeah you save 10 people in one situation but [B]30 extra people die in a different situation.[/B][/QUOTE]When has this [I]ever[/I] happened?
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945503]When has this [I]ever[/I] happened?[/QUOTE] As far as I know, never, but even if it has, certainly less frequently than the lowest estimate of 80,000 DGUs a year. His fantasy scenario would need to occur 2,666 times to offset the very lowest estimate of DGUs and 156,666 times to offset the highest.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.