Can you debate gun control using only logical arguments...

[Rich2018]

I'm not wasting my time scrolling through a thread trying to piece together your thought process. Cite a post.

A common tactic

When asked to cite evidence, they'll say they already have and "couldn't be bothered" to repeat themselves.

 

[poppopfox]

Guns are used defensively 500,000 to 3 million times per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes.

That old study done by Gary Kleck has been revised -

A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use

His (Kleck's) new report was based on surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey in the years 1996-98. This finding was touted by many outlets—including Reason—as evidence in support of the utility of private gun ownership.

(Note: Data used was from the last century )

As the adjustments work, for example, as spelled out for me initially by VerBruggen, had Kleck/Gertz found just two more DGUs in their surveys over the four 1998 states, the adjustments downward for the ratio of total U.S. DGUs over that group of states would be from 1.7 to 1.1, meaning that the national extrapolation for the BRFSS based on the NSDS for that year would be a whole number around 600,000 DGUs lower, and for that three-year average around 200,000 lower. That seems a lot of weight to place on such a tiny initial count. (There is also the wrinkle, as drawn out by economist Alex Tabarrok when discussing Kleck's first version of this paper, that with surveys regarding rare events, even a small percentage of liars, if the lies are distributed without any particular bias one way or the other, can very much overstate the phenomenon.)

CDC study, 2013.

A CDC representative, when asked about why no study using or publicizing the raw data on this DGU survey was ever issued, a matter Kleck speculates on quite a bit, wrote merely that "Data from the optional module data [asking the questions for those years' BRFSS were optional to the states, which is why only a few did] were made available to the public to analyze via the BRFSS public use dataset online" which is where Kleck eventually found them, though CDC never otherwise drew any conclusions from them in any publication nor drew anyone's attention to them.

I'll gift you a link to kleck's latest piece of work - What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Prevalence of Defensive Gun Use? Gary Kleck Received: 1 June 2020 / Accepted: 12 August 2020/

Scroll down to the Conclusion to get an idea on whose behalf he is working.

 

[JMB1911A1]

That old study done by Gary Kleck has been revised -

A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use

His (Kleck's) new report was based on surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey in the years 1996-98. This finding was touted by many outlets—including Reason—as evidence in support of the utility of private gun ownership.

(Note: Data used was from the last century )

As the adjustments work, for example, as spelled out for me initially by VerBruggen, had Kleck/Gertz found just two more DGUs in their surveys over the four 1998 states, the adjustments downward for the ratio of total U.S. DGUs over that group of states would be from 1.7 to 1.1, meaning that the national extrapolation for the BRFSS based on the NSDS for that year would be a whole number around 600,000 DGUs lower, and for that three-year average around 200,000 lower. That seems a lot of weight to place on such a tiny initial count. (There is also the wrinkle, as drawn out by economist Alex Tabarrok when discussing Kleck's first version of this paper, that with surveys regarding rare events, even a small percentage of liars, if the lies are distributed without any particular bias one way or the other, can very much overstate the phenomenon.)



A CDC representative, when asked about why no study using or publicizing the raw data on this DGU survey was ever issued, a matter Kleck speculates on quite a bit, wrote merely that "Data from the optional module data [asking the questions for those years' BRFSS were optional to the states, which is why only a few did] were made available to the public to analyze via the BRFSS public use dataset online" which is where Kleck eventually found them, though CDC never otherwise drew any conclusions from them in any publication nor drew anyone's attention to them.

I'll gift you a link to kleck's latest piece of work - What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Prevalence of Defensive Gun Use? Gary Kleck Received: 1 June 2020 / Accepted: 12 August 2020/

Scroll down to the Conclusion to get an idea on whose behalf he is working.

 

[Rich2018]

View attachment 67562841

Yeah the same CDC that the right treats as gospel when it comes to gun, but derides and ridicules what it says about COVID.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Yeah the same CDC that the right treats as gospel when it comes to gun, but derides and ridicules what it says about COVID.

Being right on guns and wrong on COVID is not improbable. But I see that you actually failed to address the data posted by poppopfox. As usual, you run when facts aren’t going your way.

 

[Rich2018]

Being right on guns and wrong on COVID is not improbable. But I see that you actually failed to address the data posted by poppopfox. As usual, you run when facts aren’t going your way.

What's weird is how you treat one assertion from the CDC as gospel, whilst another is derided

Kina undermines your using the CDC as a credible source doesn't it ?

 

[RF667799]

What's weird is how you treat one assertion from the CDC as gospel, whilst another is derided

Kina undermines your using the CDC as a credible source doesn't it ?

Everything is either black or white.

What a dreary outlook.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Everything is either black or white.

What a dreary outlook.

Or portable or non-portable. Or “well administered” or not.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

A common tactic

When asked to cite evidence, they'll say they already have and "couldn't be bothered" to repeat themselves.

I agree. Don't bother citing a source? Don't bother posting.

 

[Cosmo]

That doesn't do anything to what I said. Please address the point I made.

Is this what you write when you can't respond to a good, on-target retort?

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Is this what you write when you can't respond to a good, on-target retort?

You cite cops. Who have rules about when they can hurt people with said guns. So that's gun regulation. Which is the argument I put forth. You made my argument for me.

 

[Cosmo]

You cite cops. Who have rules about when they can hurt people with said guns. So that's gun regulation. Which is the argument I put forth. You made my argument for me.

So then gun regulation should be limited to whom you can hurt with guns and when, agreed?

 

[Rich2018]

Or portable or non-portable. Or “well administered” or not.

Or someone under 21 can't buy alcoholic drink, from a public bar, in the USA

So confusing this can versus can't isn't it ?

 

[Scatty Kitty]

So then gun regulation should be limited to whom you can hurt with guns and when, agreed?

Doesn't matter. That's still gun regulation. I don't see this thread as arguing shades of gray, but simply whether they need to be regulated.

 

[Rich2018]

Doesn't matter. That's still gun regulation. I don't see this thread as arguing shades of gray, but simply whether they need to be regulated.

Yeah, because you can harm anyone, with pretty much any firearm.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Or someone under 21 can't buy alcoholic drink, from a public bar, in the USA

So confusing this can versus can't isn't it ?

Wow, I went to reply to your post and you had deleted it, only to repost it three minutes later. That is a pathetic technique.

And you are confusing an action (buying alcohol) with a physical characteristic (portable).

More and more, I am convinced that English is not your first language.

 

[Cosmo]

Doesn't matter. That's still gun regulation.

So if I'm not allowed to kill people by bludgeoning them with a phone book, that's a book regulation?

I don't see this thread as arguing shades of gray, but simply whether they need to be regulated.

 

[Rich2018]

Wow, I went to reply to your post and you had deleted it, only to repost it three minutes later. That is a pathetic technique.

And you are confusing an action (buying alcohol) with a physical characteristic (portable).

More and more, I am convinced that English is not your first language.

Wow - you found the edited version anyway

Really? How is your assertion that someone under 21 can't buy alcoholic drink, from a public bar, in the USA - confusing in any way ?

 

[JMB1911A1]

Wow - you found the edited version anyway

You don’t have to delete a post to edit it. Pathetic deflection noted.

Really? How is your assertion that someone under 21 can't buy alcoholic drink, from a public bar, in the USA - confusing in any way ?

 

[RF667799]

Or someone under 21 can't buy alcoholic drink, from a public bar, in the USA

So confusing this can versus can't isn't it ?

No, but you wish it was.

 

[RF667799]

Doesn't matter. That's still gun regulation. I don't see this thread as arguing shades of gray, but simply whether they need to be regulated.

They are.

/ Scatty Kitty Complaint #214

 

[RF667799]

So if I'm not allowed to kill people by bludgeoning them with a phone book, that's a book regulation?

If the authorities won't let you keep it after, it might even be book banning.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Yeah, because you can harm anyone, with pretty much any firearm.

Yup. So that is why we have to have rules to limit firearms to prevent that. Which is the definition of gun control.

 

[RF667799]

Yup. So that is why we have to have rules to limit firearms to prevent that. Which is the definition of gun control.

We don't limit firearms, nor should we. There are probably 400 million and the number growing daily. 100 million people use their guns more safely than school teachers use their credentials.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

We don't limit firearms, nor should we. There are probably 400 million and the number growing daily. 100 million people use their guns more safely than school teachers use their credentials.

That's kinda a low number. Are you saying 1/4 gun owners use their guns safer than a teacher staples something? Doesn't that mea 3/4 gun owners don't use their guns safely?