The Gun debate sandbox


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 4241 - 4260 of total 5849 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Jebus H Bomz

Peavine Basecamp
Apr 7, 2013 - 11:11pm PT
Well said ^^^

Social climber
Apr 7, 2013 - 11:12pm PT
Hey guys what's goin' on? :D



Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 7, 2013 - 11:12pm PT
HAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!GUD one G! And Thanks to those calmer heads here. Im all about peace love and doves.. If given the choice.

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 7, 2013 - 11:21pm PT
The basic test is referring to anyone's race in a way you wouldn't dare say to them in person if you were afraid of them being offended and/or kicking your teeth down your ignorant throat.

That and the rest of what you had to say in that post are so obviously not the "real test," or even a legitimate one, is so obvious that I'm not going to bother.

What I will say is that HOW you approach such a discussion is going to have a big effect on how much (legitimate) offense you might cause. As a college professor in both the Cal. State and UC systems, I can say that I have repeatedly discussed "very offensive" issues having to do with demographics, and I've managed to do so in such a way that my very racially-mixed audiences did not take offense.

Perhaps a big reason is that I recognize a distinction that is LOST on this thread: Racism is discrimination (or advocating discrimination) against a RACIAL group according to attributes supposedly possessed by that RACIAL group that may or may not be in fact possessed by that group.

What most people typically do (apparently you as well) is CONFLATE "racial" attributes with demographic attributes.

For example, according to the FBI site you so dearly love, about 50% of the gangland violence in the US is perpetrated by "blacks." That's a DEMOGRAPHIC fact rather than a RACIAL one, because "blacks" do not have "gangland violence" as an attribute qua race!

By the same token, it's a demographic rather than racial fact that a higher proportion of illegal Hispanic immigrants are involved in gangland activities than are their legal counterparts. So, it CAN'T be a RACIAL issue, because there are both legal and illegal Hispanic immigrants.

What I read from Ron is a fairly simplistic attempt to note some demographic facts. These attempts do NOT make him a racist.

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Apr 7, 2013 - 11:44pm PT
I just wanted to be post #5000.

Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 7, 2013 - 11:47pm PT

edit: And MadBolter,, thank you for your effort and concise summation..

I owe ya a cognac sometime..;-)
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:05am PT
Gawd.....Utterly amazing^^^.. At least Coz cleared up a mystery or two tonight.. Thanks Coz..Things make a little more sense. Ill simply give my pity..

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:06am PT
Joe repeatedly cites "12000 murders," and I show that that figure is simply not the case, not even on the FBI site he cites to support that claim.

CDC data
Firearm homicides in 2010: 11,078
Total homicides in 2010: 16,259

FBI data
Firearm homicides in 2010: 8,874
Total homicides in 2010: 13,164

Pretty simple, ~67% of all homicides in this country involve a firearm, no matter whose data you look at. The fact that the firearm and total homicides are different suggests different definitions or data collection methods, nothing more.

FACT: 67% of all homicides in this country involve a firearm.

You and Joe then spend a dozen posts on sarcasm about how accidents, suicides, and murders are really not really different.

When someone equates being next to a smoker with being held at gunpoint, sarcasm is really the only thing left.

Okay, so I post careful research noting that if "the death toll" is all that matters (confused as I am by your and Joe'e EMPHASIS on murder, murder, murder)

Yes, I am well aware that you attempted to redefine the issue. The issue in the "gun debate sandbox" is NOT stopping deaths, it is stopping GUN deaths. If you want to stop death, you will have to talk to WBraun.

then there ARE many other easily preventable activities that do FAR more damage to this society and cause FAR more death, particularly among young people, than guns do.

So fuking what? Seriously. 67% of all homicides involve a firearm. Nobody but you is talking about stopping death. I couldn't give a fuk if people want to kill themselves and/or their kids by being complete morans and smoking, not wearing seat belts, whatever. THAT is not the issue. The issue is, 67% of all homicides involve a firearm, which are initially purchased through legal channels. Time to stop the flow through those legal channels.

You and Joe then devolve into yet more mirth about how "pulling a cigarette" doesn't "feel" as much of a threat to you as pulling a gun.

I can't speak for Joe, but I was simply pointing out how fuking stupid it is to compare cigarette smoking to shooting someone. My mom smoked when I was growing up and I used to help my dad open is smokey ass bars every morning before school. I'm not dead. I probably would have been if they had shot me instead.

I clarify that, yes, the sense of "proximate threat" is not there with cigarettes, but that as a statistical FACT they do far more damage to and cause far more death in our society than all gun deaths combined (again, particularly to our young people and even infants, who cannot "just walk away").

I agree, exposing kids to second hand smoke is child abuse... but not as bad as holding them at gun point.

I could go on and on.


In every case that I have responded to a stated perspective with hard facts and careful interpretation, you and Joe have initiated a dog-pile response of pure sarcasm and straw-man comparisons.

You should look up strawman. You are in a "discussion" about guns. You bring up cigarettes and prove that they kill more people than guns. Then conclude that guns are not the problem because other things kill more people than guns. Again, look up strawman. The issue is NOT death, the issue is guns.. in particular, reducing homicides involving guns.

Look, if you want to emphasize gun-MURDER, then the actual statistics do NOT support your claims of 12,000 MURDERS per year; it's more like 1/3 of that

See my 2 references above. Provide other references that show total gun homicides at ~4,000. Then we can talk.

Those are FACTS derived from the very same site you most highly tout, coupled with CDC data that is even more reliable than that of the FBI because it is cooked rather than raw data.

Uh, okay, CDC says 11,078 in 2010... I provided links to both above. Show me my mistake.

If you want to emphasize DEATH by gun, then you can at least get to around 11,000 but in that event, you'll have more work to do to distinguish "all that death" from MANY other causes that are even more easily preventable than are gun deaths

Nope. Just homicides involving firearms (11,078)... that's the issue in the gun debate sandbox... if YOU want to talk about all the death from all the other sources it is plenty easy to start another thread... knock yourself out. The issue here... says right in the title... is GUNS.

I just don't think you or anybody else has produced the slightest systematic evidence to indicate that such laws are going to have the desired effect.

There is absolutely NO way to show such laws will work in the US, without passing them. It has never been done. I'm pretty fuking awesome, but even I can't do the impossible (anymore).

There is compelling evidence from other developed countries with high population density that suggests stricter regulation would work. Of course passing them may slightly inconvenience some and trigger psychotic episodes in some insane conspiracy theorists. 67% of all homicides involve firearms, most acquired through straw purchases. For those of us who can think our way out of a paper bag, it makes perfect sense to AT LEAST TRY stricter regulations on firearms.

My point is that YOU and JOE have been the most vociferous gang-bangers on this thread, and you have BOTH been willfully and sarcastically dismissive of any attempts to show you that your particular "take" on the data and how to interpret it is NOT the only reasonable or valid "take" on it.

Between Joe and me, we have addressed EVERY bit of valid GUN RELATED data. I challenge you to show otherwise. Your "take" on it is actually your "take" on an entirely different issue... death.

Meanwhile, as I've said, neither you nor Joe demonstrate that you are concerned with any actual moral high ground.

Of course not. We are concerned with gun homicides... this is the gun debate sandbox after all... moosedrool started the underground "moral high ground" thread quite a while back.

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:23am PT
Ok, I'm lazy...
Anyone have a link to data showing the source of the guns used in homicide? I've never looked it up, and would rather have a clickey.

Now here's an opinion: No doubt many were legally purchased, as sometimes that's what as#@&%es do... buy a gun, kill someone. Many others, I suspect, were stolen, then either used directly or sold on the black market to someone who committed a crime with them. One could argue that the stolen ones were originally legally purchased, and that's fine, but I've seen arguments in this thread stating the owner should be held strictly liable for whatever crime might then be committed with it.

Is that fair to someone who had their house burglarized? Do we do that with knives, cars, VCR's, and such? Oh wait, here comes the "those things don't kill people" argument. Hello stolen high-speed chase!

I don't know, maybe it's like giving a drunk chick a DUI when she drives home, but throwing her BF in jail 'cause she had sex with him earlier. That oughta get you going. It's inflammatory enough.

Anyway, source percentages for firearms used in crimes?

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:28am PT
Wow. 1000 kids die a year from drowning? I'm teaching my kid to swim early. But that, and auto accidents are non-preventable? Damn. And all this time I've been wearing a seat belt when I coulda been screwing the GF's and drinking on the way to Utah.

Oops, thread drift... it's the GUN DEBATE SANDBOX.
Crap. And I thought it was the gun DEATH sandbox.
I... should probably go to sleep now.
Fun stirring the pot though.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:29am PT
that WASNT you i saw then??^^

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:33am PT
I'm invisible.

Cups kill.

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:37am PT
So no, you aren't making a valid argument when you say we should focus on other causes.

At least this is a systematic point. I, of course, do not agree with it. But at least it's in the form of a reasonable discussion.

Wes then emphasizes 67% of all homicides are caused by guns. NP... no debate. The point I'm making is that the CDC data and the FBI data are saying two different things, because the CDC data is treating "homicides" very differently from the FBI data. The CDC data includes in "homicides" accidents and suicides. The FBI data treats "homicides" as (pre-reviewed) cases of murder. After review, only a fraction of these "homicides" turn out to be "murder."

So, you do NOT get to blithely claim "12,000 murders" as "fact" and then bash on others for not being accurate or careful with the facts.

It is not ME that's been "redefining" this issue. Several hundred threads back, I, ATTEMPTING to not be "obtuse," tried to get Joe to explain why he was so fixed on murder, murder, murder. HIS response was that 12,000 of them per year WAS something to get worked up about.

I, then, pointed out that there were not 12,000 MURDERS in this country per year, and that was the start of yet another round of sarcasm and calls for the data to support my claim. I was told to look at the FBI site. At THAT point, the CLAIM was still "12,000 MURDERS per year."

Well, okay, I looked at the FBI site, and I found that the FBI's data is raw and NOT indicative of 12,000 MURDERS. I came back, made THAT point, and supported it with analysis.

More sarcasm, and THEN the moving target: "murder, accidents, suicides... whatever."

NO! Not "whatever!"

The POINT on a "gun sandbox" thread is to talk about what ROLE guns actually play in all this, and there's been a LOT of pretty fluffy "analysis" in that "discussion." You and Joe being the primary perpetrators of it, along with HEAPING helpings of sarcasm and being pretty "obtuse" yourselves.

YOUR very simplistic claims are the ones I've been calling you on, and at every step you just move the target.

NOW your present target seems to be "67% of all homicides."

Fine, we can get to that one too NOW. But that has NOT been your past target. Your most consistently cited justification for the "obviousness" of the need for gun-sales laws is how outlandish "12,000 murders per year" is compared to, say, the UK's "35 murders."

So, maybe we're getting somewhere finally. At least now we're agreed (right?) that there are NOT 12,000 MURDERS by gun per year in the US. Instead, somewhere around 11,000 people die by gunshot per year in the US.

Are we agreed on THAT point? Can we now turn the the "67% of all homicides" point and, primarily, how to interpret that fact?

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:41am PT
Suppose interpretation of the facts would be thus:
be it 12k murders, or 67% of homicides, they feel it's excessive and things should be done to reduce it.

So. Looking for reduction ideas. Hedge says (without the insult-laden pomposity) repeal the 2nd. mechrist, if I've got it right, says tighten regulations. Ron, if I've got it right, says current regulation is enough and something should be done about gangs.

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:46am PT
define "homicide" vs "murder" just for fun. The legal meaning IS different after all.

Do they delineate between justifiable vs murder? Sure they do... saw that posted somewhere Wayy back. It's ok, repetition is glorious.

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:50am PT
And are you just not seeing that "homicides" and "murders" are not the same thing, nor are they defined the same ways?

Yes, hillrat, I get that they think it's "excessive." But before it's even possible to address that, we need to be using the same terms with the same definitions.

It's like students in an applied ethics class debating on, for example, whether or not abortion is "wrong." All of their opinions are pre-theoretical, filled with loaded language, and the participants are not even using the same WORDS. I mean, the words SOUND the same, they are pronounced the same, and all participants think they are saying the same words, but they are not. The pro-life camp says, "Life begins at conception," and the pro-choice camp says, "No it doesn't." Both use the word "life," yet it is NOT the same word, because it means vastly different things to the two sides of the debate.

And people don't think through the theoretical implications of their opinions. Instead, they just "know" certain things, and to them, such things are "obvious" (to the point that they are deeply suspicious of the honesty, intelligence, or even sanity of those that can't see the "obvious").

So, I'm trying to be sure that I really DO understand what the Joe's et al really are saying, and what their words really mean. That's not being "obtuse;" it's being careful and systematic. I agree that they probably have an overarching "It's obviously too much" sort of intuition here. But what the "it" is, and WHY "it" feels like "too much" is what needs to be pinned down.

EDIT: Sorry, hillrat, cross-posts. I was responding to Joe in my opening sentence. Oh, and I realize that YOU are not suggesting that I'm being obtuse. LOL

SF bay area
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:55am PT
FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), in 2011 there were 12,664 murders and 653 justifiable homicides (of which 393 were performed by law enforcement.

So 260 justifiable homicides by non law enforcement.

Link supports the conclusion that 67% of murders are with guns and gives one an idea about the murder/justifiable homocide ratio.

BTW Madbolter, I wasn't responding to you. Relax.

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 8, 2013 - 01:00am PT
FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), in 2011 there were 12,664 murders and 653 justifiable homicides (of which 393 were performed by law enforcement.

Uh huh. I know that's what they report. And I addressed HOW they report that up-thread. This is RAW data, issued with the significant disclaimer that this data reflects the "investigation" on the incidents, PRE-review by a host of fact-finding agencies and entities, such as courts and juries.

The point is that this data calls things "murders" that (as just ONE sort of entity) a jury often later finds was NOT murder. The FBI does not then go back and "clean up" this data, which is WHY they issue the disclaimer they do.

The FBI data is RAW and PRE-review. And they even SAY that it is not "accurate" in the very sense that you and many others are claiming that it is accurate.

By contrast, the CDC data is "cooked," POST-review, and reflects the final findings on these cases. Hence, the CDC distinguishes among various types of "homicide" that the FBI lumps all together as "murder."

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 8, 2013 - 01:04am PT
The more pressing point, however, is the one that Wes indicated just earlier, I believe. He is now emphasizing that 67% of all homicides (murders, accidents, suicides) are gun-caused!

And I do believe that THAT statistic is the one the has the most potential for us to find common ground upon.

So, if we can focus on that one, I think we might move forward in an assessment of that one in productive fashion. That is certainly the one that, more than any I've heard yet, SCREAMS: "Houston, we have a problem!"

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 8, 2013 - 01:08am PT
Got it. The stats I'm looking at don't make that distinction, though, so I don't either. You'd have to point to a source delineating the difference statistically - I suppose the FBI murder stats showing around 8800 murders as opposed to 12000 are doing just that.

Right. That's why I looked up how the FBI defines their terms, because only when finding their disclaimers and definitions can you get clear about what they are really saying. That's what I posted up-thread.

I don't buy even 8800 murders, however, because that doesn't even come close to a correlation with the cooked CDC data, which would put the figure at closer to 4000.

But, as I just said, this is nickel and diming the issue. I think we're getting clearer about what's driving the "too much" intuition, and that's that a LOT of people are dying (67% of all homicides, in fact) from guns.

So, let's focus on that statistic, if that sounds good to you. That's one that seems clear to us all, I think, and it's one I'm not inclined to debate the "factuality" of.

What to MAKE of it is the next step, imo.
Messages 4241 - 4260 of total 5849 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