The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 4001 - 4020 of total 5667 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Apr 3, 2013 - 07:08pm PT
Gun owners should be able to shoot their ARs or bushmasters at the range like they do.

A Gun Nut is someone who believes their right to punch holes in paper is superior to a kid's right to attend school without being murdered.

TE
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 3, 2013 - 07:09pm PT
There was never any doubt... just having a little self-deprecating fun.

Glad to see more sane people (TE) speaking up.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 3, 2013 - 07:09pm PT
TE,,Ive known a few from PA,, logic just like yours too...
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 4, 2013 - 05:12am PT
A Gun Nut is someone who believes their right to punch holes in paper is superior to a kid's right to attend school without being murdered.

An anti-gun-nut is someone so statistically clueless that they believe that the odds of being gun-murdered at school are even related to the right to punch holes in paper.

According to the US Census Bureau, there were 55.5 million kids enrolled in school, grades 1-12, in 2012. Of that number, 565 were killed by guns (in any context!) in that year. That translates into basic odds for 1-12-graders of 1 in 98,230 of being killed by a gun (anywhere, in any context) in 2012.

However, those odds are for being killed by a gun at ANY point in the year 2012, yet kids are in school a small fraction of the total hours in a year, certainly less than 1/3 of the time. But the stated odds are not for being gun-killed AT school. The odds are far lower when contemplating ONLY at-school hours. Even non-complex thinking about this yields something like 1 in 294,690 for the odds of a kid being killed by a gun AT school in 2012. More sophisticated analysis would produce even longer odds, all things considered.

So, the anti-gun-nut believes that odds of 1 in almost 300,000 should be sufficient to excite a national brouhaha and denigrate those people that are "punching holes in paper." Let's compare for perspective....

Annual odds of dying by other causes:

All accidents and injuries: 1 in 1656

Intentional self-harm: 1 in 8447

Assault by firearm: 1 in 24974 (entire population)

Walking: 1 in 54538

Fire: 1 in 104524

So, a kid in school is dramatically, hugely, amazingly safer from being murdered by a gun than, say, uhhh... WALKING during a given year. And being killed in a car wreck. And dying in a fire.

In fact, the very kid we're trying to protect is far, far, FAR more likely to kill him/herself (not using a gun).

Indeed, worrying about death in the statistical range of 1 in hundreds of thousands is actually NUTTY!

It's nuttier than planning your retirement on the results of a single horse race. It's nuttier than planning your life income on the basis of getting some friends together to buy a bunch of lotto tickets. At these sorts of odds, it is LITERALLY not worth thinking about, much less devoting the national will to "address" and "solve."

There is no "epidemic of gun violence in our schools." This phrase, "epidemic of gun violence" is a media creation with ZERO basis in statistical fact. 1 out of 300,000 of ANYTHING is not an "epidemic."

If anything, there is an epidemic of kids killing THEMSELVES while not using guns.

If the anti-gun-nut response is the old saw: "NO kid should EVER be murdered while in school," there are (at least) two responses:

1) "Should" in this context is an absolute ideal, and it is not possible in principle to achieve the ideal. Period! You can't even get close, no matter what you do. The most radical police state could not achieve this ideal. So, some kids are gonna get killed by guns while in school. So, this devolves into (2) below, which is about "reduction."

2) This line hearkens back to the "if it can save even one life" BS. But NOBODY really believes that in ANY context. As a nation we constantly employ cost/benefit analysis to decide where to exert effort to save lives. We do not EVER think in absolute terms like "if it can save even one life."

We DO put price tags on lives, as we MUST, because there is not enough money in the world to think in terms of "if it can save even one life."

So, we devote our efforts and money toward statistically-significant risks. And if we were thinking rationally about this, as a nation we would instantly see that death by gun at school is not a statistically-significant danger. Of course there's all this visceral reactionism....

But I said, "thinking rationally."

So, if you want to put your money where the benefits are, you would devoted hundreds of times more money and effort to reduce child/teen suicide. You can't "do it all," so you put your money/efforts where they will be most statistically significant.

Nobody wants ANY particular kid to be gun-murdered. But it's not preventable. And even "reducing" its incidence is not practically possible, because the odds against it are already so LOW! And what reductions might be achieved don't relate to the GUNS. The reductions would be achieved by focusing on other metrics.

Of the gun-murders at school, the vast majority of them are caused by small handguns rather than rifles of any sort (particularly not "assault rifles"). They take place primarily in inner-city schools (such as in Chicago), and they are almost without exception gang-related.

Not one of the laws currently being proposed will have the slightest effect on the incidence of such shootings, as the kids with the guns are getting them from their older, criminal, gang-banger siblings and friends. No assault weapons ban will significant change the incidence of such shootings, so the actual odds will remain effectively unchanged. No "straw purchases" law is going to significantly reduce the "trickle down" of illegal firearms into the hands of these young gang-banger punks.

And none of these statistics considers a host of very statistically-significant metrics, such as: race, age, size of city, size of school, regional economic metrics, or many, many others. Those metrics are the statistically-significant ones, not the existence of guns.

I grew up attending just such low-income, large, inner-city schools. My first year in high school, I saw three black teens beat a white teen to death in a corner of the football field after school. All were wearing gang colors. I saw beatings and heard about a couple of shootings. All were gang-related. ALL! And none of this came my way nor near anybody I knew. Out of a school of thousands, a tiny minority were involved in the violence. NONE of it would have been stopped by any law currently being proposed. The WEAPONS were not the issue. The other, actually statistically-significant metrics were the issues. If you want to reduce gun-violence, you have to go after THOSE metrics, because gun-violence is rooted there, not in the "accessibility" of the guns.

If there's a standard and familiar component to all anti-gun-nut arguments it is a cherry-picked, superficial analysis of the data. Basically it comes down to this song and dance: People die from guns. People should not die from guns. Thus, too many people die from guns. The ONLY way to "reduce" the number of people that die from guns is to make there be fewer guns, or at least to make there be fewer guns in "the wrong hands." So, we must legislate against guns being in the wrong hands.

This thinking is tragically superficial and ignores the real causes of violence (using ANY implements). It also over-emphasizes the positive effect of legislation (when long history in this country teaches us otherwise). Guns are "easy" to use, so they are most widely used. But the causes of gun-violence are not to be found in the guns or even how they are obtained.

And, sadly for the anti-gun-nuts' "ideal world," any effect of their heroic anti-gun efforts will prove to be statistically insignificant, because they simplistically prefer to ignore the much more difficult but REAL causes of gun violence.

You want to "eliminate" straw purchases? Go for it. I'm all for it. It's no threat to my world view at all. It will have no statistical effect.

You want to have universal background checks? No problem. I have no problem with it. It will have no statistical effect.

You want to eliminate "assault rifles?" More power to you. I find that one downright funny. (The "evil grip," lol.) And it will have no statistical effect.

On and on. The odds we're talking about are ridiculously low, and there are many more profound "threats" that can be addressed, providing a far better cost/benefit ratio, IF you are really after saving lives. If fixating on "murder" as a cause of death turns your crank, then, you know, beat your head if it makes you feel any better.

Just don't try to justify your Quixotic Quest as being rational or as owning you the moral high ground. It's not. It's superficial. It's visceral. It's knee-jerk. It's reactionary. Statistically speaking, schools are very safe. You would do better to legislate that there are sprinkler systems in every nook and cranny of the nation, so as to reduce that nasty risk of dying by fire.

After all, NO child should have to worry about being burned up in his/her sleep! And the odds are a lot higher of that than of being gun-murdered at school.
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Apr 4, 2013 - 05:31am PT
That translates into basic odds for 1-12-graders of 1 in 98,230 of being killed by a gun

Assault by firearm: 1 in 24974 (entire population)

...and these are acceptable odds??...by any measure or comparison ??
saghi

Trad climber
Muskogee, OK
Apr 4, 2013 - 08:55am PT
...and these are acceptable odds??...by any measure or comparison ??

No. Please read the entire post before you ask questions.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 10:49am PT
MadB,,again,, well put!
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 4, 2013 - 10:54am PT
Even the ACLU doesn't like Dingy Harry's bill.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/exclusive-aclu-says-reids-gun-legislation-could-threaten-privacy-rights-civil-liberties/
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 10:59am PT
Harry Reid-tard is a MALINGERER who has stood upon the back of his state and watched it hit the bottom.. He cant even solve Nevada problems- so thinking he is on top of natl problems probably isnt statistically possible.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 11:02am PT
By the way,, did anyone else catch that interview with a female "lawmaker" that was talking about magazines, and that they would "run out" of bullets and be USELESS ROFLMAO! Yeah,, these are the people put in charge of coming up with gun laws.. Amazingly ignorant at best.



In fact,, one would wonder why those politicians that OBVIOULSY dont even know how guns work would be the ones put in charge of coming up with logical laws.

That would be like putting a person that NEVER climbed in thier life- in charge of making laws regarding the crags. Non sense right?
frank wyman

Mountain climber
montana
Apr 4, 2013 - 11:10am PT
Darn...You mean to tell me I can use those things more than once??
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 11:13am PT
Yep Frank,, can you believe it! And here ive been chucking them in the garbage after they "ran out" LOL!
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 11:33am PT
Odds of a child getting abducted: 1:1,500,000

Way less likely than getting shot in a school.

Will a simple Brady check for a stranger on the street suffice to make them your next baby sitter?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 4, 2013 - 11:43am PT
Keep trying to work that line - just shows how bankrupt your argument really is.

Yup, the statistical facts count as a "bankrupt argument" just like Bill Gates' balance sheet counts as a bankrupt net worth.

Like I said, do what you will. I'm not opposing it. Just saying that if you're gonna devote the national will to that issue, you'd accomplish more good by legislating sprinkler systems to cover every square inch of America to "reduce" fire risk. It's just a cost/benefit game.

Go ahead: bang your head.

Will a simple Brady check for a stranger on the street suffice to make them your next baby sitter?

Ahh, finally, the light of reason! Exactly: PERSONAL responsibility is what actually does the most good, rather than government legislation.

mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 12:00pm PT
PERSONAL responsibility is what actually does the most good, rather than government legislation.

Ah, yes, but why would a gun shop take any personal responsibility to make sure their products are being sold to responsible parties and risk their profits?

They wouldn't. Which is why we have.... you guessed it LEGISLATION.

Parents should and do choose who babysits their kids. They don't get to choose who buys a gun (save through their elected officials). Gun nuts would leave that up to a 200+ year old document, a cursory background check that excludes any assessment of mental health, and the gun shop clerk's judgement... judgement that carries with it NO consequences for the clerk.

Tell me again, where is the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in that situation?

you'd accomplish more good by legislating sprinkler systems to cover every square inch of America to "reduce" fire risk.

So now you want to lump gun murders and school shootings in with "natural" disasters? No wonder Ron admires your logic.


It's just a cost/benefit game.

No, it is a "we live in a society where unfortunately people (gun sellers) will only take on as much responsibility as they have to... despite being in the business of selling killing machines... so we have to find a way to reduce the negative impacts of their irresponsibility... through legislation enacted by our elected officials" game.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Apr 4, 2013 - 12:10pm PT
Like I said, do what you will. I'm not opposing it. Just saying that if you're gonna devote the national will to that issue, you'd accomplish more good by legislating sprinkler systems to cover every square inch of America to "reduce" fire risk. It's just a cost/benefit game.

Huh. A lot of "you'd be better off" arguments going on. I guess politics don't work that way.

Or sprinkler systems.

It's a culture war, pure and simple. I don't like the neurotic and alarmist end-of-days argumentation of the pro-gun side, nor do I like the smarmy, mealy-mouthed elitist rhetoric of the anti-gun side. I guess my redneck roots peep through every once in a while, trapping me in the middle.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Apr 4, 2013 - 12:43pm PT
According to the US Census Bureau, there were 55.5 million kids enrolled in school, grades 1-12, in 2012. Of that number, 565 were killed by guns (in any context!) in that year. That translates into basic odds for 1-12-graders of 1 in 98,230 of being killed by a gun (anywhere, in any context) in 2012.

However, those odds are for being killed by a gun at ANY point in the year 2012, yet kids are in school a small fraction of the total hours in a year, certainly less than 1/3 of the time. But the stated odds are not for being gun-killed AT school. The odds are far lower when contemplating ONLY at-school hours. Even non-complex thinking about this yields something like 1 in 294,690 for the odds of a kid being killed by a gun AT school in 2012. More sophisticated analysis would produce even longer odds, all things considered.

Which is exactly why the NRA's proposal is pointless and laughable. But taking your numbers at face value, you appear to be saying that 565 dead kids every year is an acceptable price to pay for the right to punch holes in paper.

TE



madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 4, 2013 - 12:58pm PT
It's a culture war, pure and simple. I don't like the neurotic and alarmist end-of-days argumentation of the pro-gun side, nor do I like the smarmy, mealy-mouthed elitist rhetoric of the anti-gun side. I guess my redneck roots peep through every once in a while, trapping me in the middle.

Exactly. Well said. Both sides think they own the moral high ground. But politics is pragmatism, plain and simple. Legislation should go where it does the most good, be it sprinkler systems, anti-cigs-in-the-home laws, or even gun-responsibility laws... as long as the cost/benefit analysis is pragmatically sound.

The idea that there should be "no murder," or "no murder of kids," or some such ideal is pragmatically unattainable.

The "war on terror" justified the most sweeping loss of basic freedoms ever seen in this nation; the NSA is now an invasive Juggernaut that Orwell could not have imagined in his wildest nightmares.

Point is that we cannot "make things safe" for anybody, at any cost and at any amount of effort. So, we settle. We settle for what makes sense.

And what "makes sense" is a purely pragmatic decision. There's no grand moral high ground here to be had. We can only settle.

So the debate rages in "moral terms," but it's really a purely pragmatic issue: What legislation is both cost-effective, enforceable, and empirically demonstrable as likely to have a statistically significant effect.

All the "stupid" and "immoral" accusations on both sides just muddies the waters. Both sides have reasonable positions. Even the "extremists" on both sides have good reasons for their perspectives. They are not "idiots." The fact that intelligent people disagree doesn't make any of them prima facie "stupid." Typically, we disagree about the nature of the facts themselves. Our perspectives emerge from our interpretation of the data we have and the data we believe is relevant (which is, itself, a function of other perspectives, etc.).

So, if we could simply ratchet back the rhetoric a few notches, and systematically come to agreement about the facts and how to interpret them, perhaps we could achieve genuine consensus about what makes the most pragmatic sense.

But the basic lack of philosophical charity in the debate accomplishes nothing toward that end.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:06pm PT
Legislation should go where it does the most good, be it sprinkler systems, anti-cigs-in-the-home laws

Ah, yes, more of that "personal responsibility" you speak so highly about.

The idea that there should be "no murder," or "no murder of kids," or some such ideal is pragmatically unattainable.

Of course. But why do you insist on twisting it into complete bullshit like that?

It is clearly more an ideal of "making sure guns are ONLY sold to mentally fit, responsible people." While that may not be 100% unattainable, we can CERTAINLY get closer than letting ANY non felon purchase 2 guns a week with nothing more than a cursory Brady check!

We settle for what makes sense.

Does it make sense to sell killing machines capable of slaughtering dozens of people in minutes to ANY non felon, as long as they pass the cursory Brady check?
Gary

Social climber
Right outside of Delacroix
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:07pm PT
The idea that there should be "no murder," or "no murder of kids," or some such ideal is pragmatically unattainable.

True, so let's just do away with those pointless laws against murder. Obviously, they don't work.
Messages 4001 - 4020 of total 5667 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews