Liberal arguments for supporting gun ownership rights

[Tech_Esq]

It was not refuted.

The state statistics are irrefutable and consistent over many years of time.

I love how people will deny government stats than don't fit their worldview. It's amazing.

First, practically nothing is "irrefutable."

Second, just go back 10 pages and see how they were refuted. It wasn't by me, if you recall.

We came to an accommodation. (or close enough).

 

[Chris]

First, practically nothing is "irrefutable."

Second, just go back 10 pages and see how they were refuted. It wasn't by me, if you recall.

We came to an accommodation. (or close enough).

Not on the stats but on the necessity of state background checks.

Here are the stats again.

Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 - Kaiser State Health Facts

 

[Tech_Esq]

Not on the stats but on the necessity of state background checks.

Here are the stats again.

Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 - Kaiser State Health Facts

If I posted you stats on how many deaths per 100,000 were attributed to the use of free speech, what would you say to them?

Gun ownership is a right no less guaranteed by the Constitution than free speech. What the relative costs stemming there from are matter not one whit to me. The right was placed there for several purposes, but one major one in my eyes and that is an ultimate check on government tyranny. There is no number of deaths per 100,000 that would convince me to waive or deter the exercise of the right to gun ownership. The argument, therefore is philosophical, not statistical.

We came to an agreement on what I think would be reasonable regulation of the right yesterday. That's about as far as I'm willing to go.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Who said anything about banning guns?

did not say you did,was using that as an example of what some anti-gun people firmly believe......

 

[Harry Dresden]

It was not refuted.

The state statistics are irrefutable and consistent over many years of time.

I love how people will deny government stats than don't fit their worldview. It's amazing.

Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 - Kaiser State Health Facts

Chris i see the problem now.....you think that stats from the govt are 100% right on and stats from organizations who lean towards gun registration or a ban 100% also....our wonderful govt will water down the numbers to try and hope you see it their way,the gun argument and the immigration argument are two shining examples.....and the brady people and the wash.post.....come on Chris you can do better than that....

 

[sparky]

Boy, 4, shoots babysitter

guess he slipped past that background check eh .....?

 

[KittenKoder]

Guns make it easy for people to kill themselves and others. Is that what we want to do, make it easy for people to kill?

The statistics show that sensible gun laws lower the number of gun deaths in the states that have stricter laws. What's wrong with a state background check for all gun purchases? It has already been shown to work.

Um ... yeah, but gun ban areas actually have a higher crime rate total. So which is better, that a larger percentage of the deaths are with a gun but fewer deaths, or a larger number of deaths with fewer being gun related?

 

[Chris]

Um ... yeah, but gun ban areas actually have a higher crime rate total. So which is better, that a larger percentage of the deaths are with a gun but fewer deaths, or a larger number of deaths with fewer being gun related?

That's not true.

Japan has a total ban on guns and a low crime rate.

Crime is a function of different societal factors.

 

[Chris]

Chris i see the problem now.....you think that stats from the govt are 100% right on and stats from organizations who lean towards gun registration or a ban 100% also....our wonderful govt will water down the numbers to try and hope you see it their way,the gun argument and the immigration argument are two shining examples.....and the brady people and the wash.post.....come on Chris you can do better than that....

Prove the stats wrong.

I dare you.

 

[manifold]

The argument, therefore is philosophical, not statistical.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

People have a way of distorting values and issues. Let's clear teh air here. there are many a liberal who is opposed to the progressive arguments and reasoning for many gun control laws.

Progressive and liberal are synonymous... in the end, we'll kill gun toting leftists just as quickly and just as readily as we will the unarmed... you people are a menace... being armed only makes it more of a fair fight.... and while it's more entertaining, that hardly changes the end game: You're the enemy of freedom and you'll inevitably provide the just cause for you own demise... and anything you could do expedite that would be much appreciated...

 

[Chris]

In the end there is only the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

State background checks save lives and keep the bad guys from getting guns.

It is just that simple.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Progressive and liberal are synonymous...

and this is why you get a failing grade and most normal people have contempt for you and your moronic opinions.

bye bye

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, although it carries a measure of subjectivity with it, obviously, since no one can accurately predict the future, or the future that might have been.

If it can be done I'd be fascinated to know how, really. I suppose some sort of extrapolation process?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If it can be done I'd be fascinated to know how, really. I suppose some sort of extrapolation process?

I would guess, controlling for various factors. For details, you'd have to ask someone who specializes in statistics. I just know it can be done, and it seems obvious to me that it would have to be somewhat subjective. John Lott Jr. did a study using the procedure, and cited several others done by other economists and statisticians in one of his books, but he doesn't explain the process.

 

[Diuretic]

I would guess, controlling for various factors. For details, you'd have to ask someone who specializes in statistics. I just know it can be done, and it seems obvious to me that it would have to be somewhat subjective. John Lott Jr. did a study using the procedure, and cited several others done by other economists and statisticians in one of his books, but he doesn't explain the process.

I'm sure it could be. I know next to nothing about statistics....but apparently I'm not the only one (okay bad little joke). But I did have to wrestle with some stats at uni (mainly to do with assessment of learning) and in doing some research work and I must admit I was stunned to learn what statisticians can do - I reckon they could almost foretell the future. Regression or something - funny way to label a way of prediction - regression, but that's what I remember.

I'd stay way from John Lott though.

 

[mightypeon]

Regression is fairly simple, you have a set of data, you think that you found something that can be expressed via an equation in the data (in simple cases the example would be linear). Stupid example : "Number of murders = Base crime rate* Sexual frustration factor - gun control factor * number of guns present"

Now you try to see how good your modell (basically your equation) fits both your own data and the data of others. You now start to analyse the robustness (if you change this parameter within reasonable boundaries, does the outcome stay within reasonable boundaries) of your parameters. If everything is fine (so, your modell fits your data, it fits equivalent data from someone else and your parameters are fairly robust), you can now apply your equation to the future and say things like:
"According to my modell, having lots of sex reduces violence more than gun control."

Statistics are fairly straght forward, if you are not afraid of math that is.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

and this is why you get a failing grade and most normal people have contempt for you and your moronic opinions.

bye bye

Notice friends that when a 'progressive' is faced with an oppossing position, they desperately need to avoid it; this is due to their inability to defend their own position in the slightest.

Now this tool WANTS to believe that there is a distinction between the concept 'liberal' and that of 'progressive'... she just can't explain what that distinction actually is, so she feigns a fallacious superiority and runs for the rhetorical hills...

Of course that is the nature of the idiot... now isn't it?

We have a human right to own and use firearms... that is THE DEFENSE. All liberal/progressive ideas are, with regard to firearms, is one of any number of rationalizations to prevent the ownership and use of said firearms in defense of the aforementioned RIGHT; as THAT friends, is the nature of tyranny...

 

[Chris]

Regression is fairly simple, you have a set of data, you think that you found something that can be expressed via an equation in the data (in simple cases the example would be linear). Stupid example : "Number of murders = Base crime rate* Sexual frustration factor - gun control factor * number of guns present"

Now you try to see how good your modell (basically your equation) fits both your own data and the data of others. You now start to analyse the robustness (if you change this parameter within reasonable boundaries, does the outcome stay within reasonable boundaries) of your parameters. If everything is fine (so, your modell fits your data, it fits equivalent data from someone else and your parameters are fairly robust), you can now apply your equation to the future and say things like:
"According to my modell, having lots of sex reduces violence more than gun control."

Statistics are fairly straght forward, if you are not afraid of math that is.

Yes, the statistics are fairly straight forward...

States with lax gun laws had higher rates of handgun killings, fatal shootings of police officers, and sales of weapons that were used in crimes in other states, according to a study underwritten by a group of more than 300 U.S. mayors.

Report Links State Gun Laws To Rates of Slayings, Trafficking - washingtonpost.com

 

[Bern80]

Yes, the statistics are fairly straight forward...

States with lax gun laws had higher rates of handgun killings, fatal shootings of police officers, and sales of weapons that were used in crimes in other states, according to a study underwritten by a group of more than 300 U.S. mayors.

Report Links State Gun Laws To Rates of Slayings, Trafficking - washingtonpost.com

A friend just emailed me this list. Witty but spot on. Note another statistic to add to your collection.

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10 The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."