CDZ We should charge 431.50 dollars in order to vote, people will then take it seriously...

[2aguy]

It is difficult to determine, and the studies take the easy way out and just assume that anyone holding a gun at all has used it "defensively." It's a bogus, pro-gun study. Tainted as studies get.

There's definitely big gaps in methodology. What determines a DGU, is it based strictly on survey answers or something like FBI crime statistics, if it's a survey, what are the questions and how are they asked, what is the sample size, etc. etc.

Even the lowest estimates I've seen so far (I've been looking at it a bit, I'm curious) are at about 50,000 a year. The highest was, I think, 4.7 million a year. Somewhere in between, even if it's toward the lower end, seems reasonable to me.

The Kleck study gives the methodology......as does the clinton Department of Justice study.....

Where did you get the 50,000 a year?

A study by David Hemenway had an estimate of 55,000 a year.

I know it's Wiki, but here : Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can look at this article by Hemenway and a couple of other authors about the subject as well : http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

And here is the Dr. Gary Kleck explaining his research.......

Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US

Not so fast bubbalah

Contradictions of Kleck

And you use hemenway to take onKleck...when the study hemenway uses to compute defensive gun use is not a defensive gun use study...and doesn't directly ask one question about defensive gun use......and it doesn't have the word gun in it.......yet he is the guy you want to use?

THe Nation nail Crime Vicitmization Survey can't even count the crimes it is supposed to be researching accurately.....let alone gun self defense which it isn't even designed to study.....

 

[2aguy]

It is difficult to determine, and the studies take the easy way out and just assume that anyone holding a gun at all has used it "defensively." It's a bogus, pro-gun study. Tainted as studies get.

There's definitely big gaps in methodology. What determines a DGU, is it based strictly on survey answers or something like FBI crime statistics, if it's a survey, what are the questions and how are they asked, what is the sample size, etc. etc.

Even the lowest estimates I've seen so far (I've been looking at it a bit, I'm curious) are at about 50,000 a year. The highest was, I think, 4.7 million a year. Somewhere in between, even if it's toward the lower end, seems reasonable to me.

The Kleck study gives the methodology......as does the clinton Department of Justice study.....

Where did you get the 50,000 a year?

A study by David Hemenway had an estimate of 55,000 a year.

I know it's Wiki, but here : Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can look at this article by Hemenway and a couple of other authors about the subject as well : http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

And here is the Dr. Gary Kleck explaining his research.......

Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US

Not so fast bubbalah

Contradictions of Kleck

Your link also includes Kellerman...the guy who changed his research when he got caught fudging the numbers......I have linked to that change numerous times.....

 

[2aguy]

It is difficult to determine, and the studies take the easy way out and just assume that anyone holding a gun at all has used it "defensively." It's a bogus, pro-gun study. Tainted as studies get.

There's definitely big gaps in methodology. What determines a DGU, is it based strictly on survey answers or something like FBI crime statistics, if it's a survey, what are the questions and how are they asked, what is the sample size, etc. etc.

Even the lowest estimates I've seen so far (I've been looking at it a bit, I'm curious) are at about 50,000 a year. The highest was, I think, 4.7 million a year. Somewhere in between, even if it's toward the lower end, seems reasonable to me.

The Kleck study gives the methodology......as does the clinton Department of Justice study.....

Where did you get the 50,000 a year?

A study by David Hemenway had an estimate of 55,000 a year.

I know it's Wiki, but here : Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can look at this article by Hemenway and a couple of other authors about the subject as well : http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

And here is the Dr. Gary Kleck explaining his research.......

Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US

Not so fast bubbalah

Contradictions of Kleck

This is the other guy in your link cited to refute Kleck.........

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

That is one of the guys in your very link that you think refutes Kleck.......please try again....

 

[Montrovant]

Unfortunately, many of the links within the page do not work.

It seems like it could be a difficult statistic to accurately determine. That it happens at least in the hundreds of thousands seems like a good guess based on the little I looked at it, though.

It is difficult to determine, and the studies take the easy way out and just assume that anyone holding a gun at all has used it "defensively." It's a bogus, pro-gun study. Tainted as studies get.

There's definitely big gaps in methodology. What determines a DGU, is it based strictly on survey answers or something like FBI crime statistics, if it's a survey, what are the questions and how are they asked, what is the sample size, etc. etc.

Even the lowest estimates I've seen so far (I've been looking at it a bit, I'm curious) are at about 50,000 a year. The highest was, I think, 4.7 million a year. Somewhere in between, even if it's toward the lower end, seems reasonable to me.

The Kleck study gives the methodology......as does the clinton Department of Justice study.....

Where did you get the 50,000 a year?

A study by David Hemenway had an estimate of 55,000 a year.

I know it's Wiki, but here : Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can look at this article by Hemenway and a couple of other authors about the subject as well : http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

David Hemenway used the National Crime Victimization Survey to get that number....do you realize that the NCVS is not a defensive gun use survey....? Also, it does not actually use the word gun anywhere in the survey, and does not ask any direct questions about defensive gun use.....that is how he gets such a low number and why his number is the number anti gun activists frequently cite......

It doesn't matter much what he used to get his numbers. I wasn't supporting the 50,000 number, just pointing out it was the lowest estimate I'd come across.

Like I said, somewhere between the two extreme estimates seems reasonable to me.

 

[Montrovant]

Only white supremacists would want a poll tax?

Only college educated voters can afford $431.50?

you see African American voters wanting a poll tax? it has always been a tool of white supremacists.

it isn't more likely that an educated person makes more than an uneducated person?

I don't see many people at all advocate a poll tax. I don't know the race or ethnicity of just about any of them.

It may be more likely that college educated people make more money, but that isn't what you said. In fact, you implied that only college educated voters, at least among Trump supporters, could afford to pay the $431.50 to vote.

that's because trump's demographic is largely people without college degrees. that may have shifted a bit but that's been true for the entire electoral season

Even if Trump supporters were all people without college degrees, $431.50 isn't THAT much.

To someone who can afford it.

Yes. You seem to imply that most, or even all, people without college educations cannot afford it. That is silly.

 

[hjmick]

Pay people to vote, at least they'll show up. They may not be any more educated about what's going on, but at least they'll vote.


Seriously though, I say make election day a paid federal holiday. I know that the last thing I want to do after a day at work is stand in line waiting to vote...

 

[Montrovant]

Pay people to vote, at least they'll show up. They may not be any more educated about what's going on, but at least they'll vote.


Seriously though, I say make election day a paid federal holiday. I know that the last thing I want to do after a day at work is stand in line waiting to vote...

I've seen the paid federal holiday idea before, and it seems like a great idea to me. I can't think of any real reason against it.

 

[GaryDog]

Pay people to vote, at least they'll show up. They may not be any more educated about what's going on, but at least they'll vote.


Seriously though, I say make election day a paid federal holiday. I know that the last thing I want to do after a day at work is stand in line waiting to vote...

I've seen the paid federal holiday idea before, and it seems like a great idea to me. I can't think of any real reason against it.

100% agree. It's not just a great idea, it's really a disgrace NOT to have it.

 

[GaryDog]

That has no bearing on reading comprehension unless your claim is that the writers of the 2nd were illiterate.

Actually, I think that you are incorrectly comprehending the statement. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state is how I would describe the amendment. So, while it certainly is based on the idea of a well regulated militia, it does not implicitly say that only militia members can keep and bear arms.

I'm not saying the writers predicted what things would look like today, just that they didn't write the amendment in a way that required militia membership to own guns.

I disagree for the reasons I pointed out earlier. The right specified in the second part of the sentence is contingent on the first part which is a "well regulated militia". Today that exists as our national guard. The thought is expressed as one thought not two separate thoughts. There is no period or even sentence structure to show that each thought stands on its own. Furthermore the the term "the people" is used instead of person or individual. .

The thoughts are not separate, but neither is the right contingent on being part of the militia. Per the amendment, the right exists and shall not be infringed because a militia is necessary. That is different than saying the right exists as long as you are in the militia.

thats a pretty novel interpretation of the 2nd. I may need to rethink this.

I would like to see the 2nd re-written for clarity.

One might argue that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state and therefore the second is invalid, I suppose.

You've inadvertently and "jokingly" hit upon a profound truth. The 2nd Amendment has basically become an afforded right to recreation. Which is stupid.

 

[MarathonMike]

Charge a dollar to take an online test. If you pass you get a ticket to the voting booth. Voter turnout will drop 50%. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[GaryDog]

Charge a dollar to take an online test. If you pass you get a ticket to the voting booth. Voter turnout will drop 50%. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

So it's not enough that a poll tax and a literacy test are both unconstitutional on their own....you want to combine them?

 

[2aguy]

Actually, I think that you are incorrectly comprehending the statement. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state is how I would describe the amendment. So, while it certainly is based on the idea of a well regulated militia, it does not implicitly say that only militia members can keep and bear arms.

I'm not saying the writers predicted what things would look like today, just that they didn't write the amendment in a way that required militia membership to own guns.

I disagree for the reasons I pointed out earlier. The right specified in the second part of the sentence is contingent on the first part which is a "well regulated militia". Today that exists as our national guard. The thought is expressed as one thought not two separate thoughts. There is no period or even sentence structure to show that each thought stands on its own. Furthermore the the term "the people" is used instead of person or individual. .

The thoughts are not separate, but neither is the right contingent on being part of the militia. Per the amendment, the right exists and shall not be infringed because a militia is necessary. That is different than saying the right exists as long as you are in the militia.

thats a pretty novel interpretation of the 2nd. I may need to rethink this.

I would like to see the 2nd re-written for clarity.

One might argue that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state and therefore the second is invalid, I suppose.

You've inadvertently and "jokingly" hit upon a profound truth. The 2nd Amendment has basically become an afforded right to recreation. Which is stupid.

Americas use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives, many times to stop mass shooters......so no, it is not for recreational purposes...it is to protect the lives of Americans....

 

[2aguy]

Charge a dollar to take an online test. If you pass you get a ticket to the voting booth. Voter turnout will drop 50%. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

So it's not enough that a poll tax and a literacy test are both unconstitutional on their own....you want to combine them?

Yet you support the concept of the Poll Tax...

 

[GaryDog]

I disagree for the reasons I pointed out earlier. The right specified in the second part of the sentence is contingent on the first part which is a "well regulated militia". Today that exists as our national guard. The thought is expressed as one thought not two separate thoughts. There is no period or even sentence structure to show that each thought stands on its own. Furthermore the the term "the people" is used instead of person or individual. .

The thoughts are not separate, but neither is the right contingent on being part of the militia. Per the amendment, the right exists and shall not be infringed because a militia is necessary. That is different than saying the right exists as long as you are in the militia.

thats a pretty novel interpretation of the 2nd. I may need to rethink this.

I would like to see the 2nd re-written for clarity.

One might argue that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state and therefore the second is invalid, I suppose.

You've inadvertently and "jokingly" hit upon a profound truth. The 2nd Amendment has basically become an afforded right to recreation. Which is stupid.

Americas use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives, many times to stop mass shooters......so no, it is not for recreational purposes...it is to protect the lives of Americans....

Blah blah blah debunked "facts" on repeat blah blah blah

You're not a serious person. Go away.

 

[GaryDog]

Charge a dollar to take an online test. If you pass you get a ticket to the voting booth. Voter turnout will drop 50%. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

So it's not enough that a poll tax and a literacy test are both unconstitutional on their own....you want to combine them?

Yet you support the concept of the Poll Tax...

Here we go again with the asinine exercise of equating voting to going to the shooting range.

PLEASE post less.

 

[2aguy]

The thoughts are not separate, but neither is the right contingent on being part of the militia. Per the amendment, the right exists and shall not be infringed because a militia is necessary. That is different than saying the right exists as long as you are in the militia.

thats a pretty novel interpretation of the 2nd. I may need to rethink this.

I would like to see the 2nd re-written for clarity.

One might argue that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state and therefore the second is invalid, I suppose.

You've inadvertently and "jokingly" hit upon a profound truth. The 2nd Amendment has basically become an afforded right to recreation. Which is stupid.

Americas use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives, many times to stop mass shooters......so no, it is not for recreational purposes...it is to protect the lives of Americans....

Blah blah blah debunked "facts" on repeat blah blah blah

You're not a serious person. Go away.

again...you simply saying you don't like the numbers actual studies have found is not debunking them....please learn the truth.

 

[2aguy]

Charge a dollar to take an online test. If you pass you get a ticket to the voting booth. Voter turnout will drop 50%. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

So it's not enough that a poll tax and a literacy test are both unconstitutional on their own....you want to combine them?

Yet you support the concept of the Poll Tax...

Here we go again with the asinine exercise of equating voting to going to the shooting range.

PLEASE post less.

A Right is a Right....you are in favor of charging people to exercise a Right...that's on you.

 

[KissMy]

So.......isn't it more important to have people who actually care about the country enough to pay this fee vote? Rather than a bunch of people who just vote in ignorance of the issues?

Agreed, but rather than just letting the Paris Hiltons of the country vote, I'd rather limit it to veterans.

No Way!!! - That would create a "Marshal Law" "Police State"

It MUST always be everyone allowed to freely vote once per election. Restricting any segment of the population will eventually enslave them.

 

[Montrovant]

The thoughts are not separate, but neither is the right contingent on being part of the militia. Per the amendment, the right exists and shall not be infringed because a militia is necessary. That is different than saying the right exists as long as you are in the militia.

thats a pretty novel interpretation of the 2nd. I may need to rethink this.

I would like to see the 2nd re-written for clarity.

One might argue that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state and therefore the second is invalid, I suppose.

You've inadvertently and "jokingly" hit upon a profound truth. The 2nd Amendment has basically become an afforded right to recreation. Which is stupid.

Americas use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives, many times to stop mass shooters......so no, it is not for recreational purposes...it is to protect the lives of Americans....

Blah blah blah debunked "facts" on repeat blah blah blah

You're not a serious person. Go away.

Whether that is an accurate number for the number of times guns are used to stop crimes doesn't have much, if any, affect on what people own guns for. I think self defense is certainly one of the top reasons people own guns, not simply recreation.

 

[GaryDog]

thats a pretty novel interpretation of the 2nd. I may need to rethink this.

I would like to see the 2nd re-written for clarity.

One might argue that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state and therefore the second is invalid, I suppose.

You've inadvertently and "jokingly" hit upon a profound truth. The 2nd Amendment has basically become an afforded right to recreation. Which is stupid.

Americas use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives, many times to stop mass shooters......so no, it is not for recreational purposes...it is to protect the lives of Americans....

Blah blah blah debunked "facts" on repeat blah blah blah

You're not a serious person. Go away.

Whether that is an accurate number for the number of times guns are used to stop crimes doesn't have much, if any, affect on what people own guns for. I think self defense is certainly one of the top reasons people own guns, not simply recreation.

I guarantee recreation is the # 1 use for guns in this country. And it's the leading factor in motivating rednecks to get angry when anyone, say, suggests taking them out of the hands of terrorists.