The Gun debate sandbox


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 4841 - 4860 of total 5441 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

Trad climber
Western America
Feb 3, 2015 - 05:26pm PT
Thats the spirit Crankster. Keep that tunnel vision focused.

Credit: dave729


Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Feb 3, 2015 - 05:54pm PT
So, we're taking our cues from Pakistan? Allah akbar!

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Feb 3, 2015 - 07:03pm PT
Took four newbies to the range last week. All new carry permit holders. And all female. Big smiles all around.... This week we're shoveling snow...
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Feb 4, 2015 - 10:17am PT
Yeah, the real advantage to the .300 Blackout is that in a short barrel it develops full power in 11" of travel.

My AR handgun in 5.56 has a huge muzzle flash and dumps something like 40% of the cartridge's energy.
frank wyman

Mountain climber
Feb 4, 2015 - 10:26am PT
Mr. Toker Villian..Since your around and know alot about guns..I have a Question..The rifle that Chuck Conners uses on the show "The Rifleman" is that the same gun Steve McQueen uses on the show "Wanted Dead or Alive" only in a sawed off verison? ..sort of a "Mares leg" Just wondering...Thanks
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Feb 4, 2015 - 10:58am PT
I seem to recall that Chuck Conners got into a little trouble with that piece.

Eventually a behind the scenes agreement was reached, but these days a mare's leg is fairly common.

Not sure about commonality, how about some pictures?

Now I hear that the BATF is getting pissy when people "shoulder" their Sigg stabilizing brace on their mare's legs.

Near Boston
Feb 4, 2015 - 12:35pm PT
The ATF is having fits about that Sig brace; shooting off almost a new letter a month. Sig has stepped up to the plate though and is going to file a suit if they backtrack on the current use agreement.
I love my 938 Toker. Amazing pocket piece that shoots super soft. I was very happy that Sig solved the mag isses they had with the 7 round mag for the 238. That spacer moved way too much. I wish S&W would address the same issue with the 7 round Shield mags.
I am chomping at the bit to get my hands on a 227. But that will have to wait for a while.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Feb 4, 2015 - 12:59pm PT
Yeah, Sig is pretty cool.

They even include a copy of the BATF compliance letter with the brace!

But I wouldn't say a 938 is soft. It has more snap than any other 9mm I own, but since I shoot .45 all the time it is NBD.

Feb 6, 2015 - 10:06am PT
So would issuance of a medi-jane card be cause for the great state of Cali to come knocking on your door to confiscate your weaponry?

Feb 6, 2015 - 10:40am PT
Interesting. I have doubt that the whole standoff issue is done yet; but that's another thread topic. The government has a long memory.

In any case, I don't do mj and don't have a card. No worries here. Except Werner's onto something... we keep giving up rights for stupid reasons, mainly fear.

The Granite State.
Feb 6, 2015 - 10:50am PT
Madbolter wrote;

"A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun 'for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere.' Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all 'military service, police work, or work as a security guard.'"

This statistic is not accurate, read here;

In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

Turns out, not only is the number that so many arguments have used as a cornerstone wrong, many of the defensive uses were illegal.

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 6, 2015 - 12:41pm PT
Ahh... there is SO much wrong with that article that it would take a book-length manuscript to address it. Here is BARELY scratching the surface.

The article starts with a few anecdotal cases designed to "soften up" the opponent, much like a boxer jabs and jabs, knowing that the jabs won't provide the knockout, but setting the opponent up for the knockout. Anecdotal cases are always cherry picked, and how they are reported makes ALL the difference (I say this reviewing both pro-gun and anti-gun reporting).

But the article goes far beyond just citing the typical slate of BIG MISTAKES among gun owners (as the likes of Gary does in this thread). The article draws a substantive conclusion from these cases: "What do these and so many other cases have in common? They are the byproduct of a tragic myth: that millions of gun owners successfully use their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals."

But wait!

A "byproduct" of the "tragic myth?"

THIS claim the article never, ever supports. Yet THIS is one of the BIG claims the article is really driving to get you to believe: "The fact that people BELIEVE that gun ownership and usage as self-defense PRODUCES these sorts of BIG MISTAKES." And the corollary is, of course: "If people could be convinced to stop BELIEVING the 'tragic myth,' then these PRODUCTS of the myth would cease or be greatly reduced."

As a side argument, the article states (although does nothing to sustain) the claim that the criminal possession of guns would be greatly reduced if the ownership of guns by citizens could be greatly reduced, because about 200,000 guns are stolen each year.

Let's address the side argument first, because showing it for what it is reveals much about the overall tactics of the entire article.

There are conservatively around 300,000,000 (three hundred million) civilian-owned guns in the US. Let's accept that 200,000 of them are stolen each year. That means that less than .07% of the population's guns are stolen each year. First, try to get your mind around how insignificantly tiny that percentage is.

Next, let's consider how entirely irrelevant that percentage really is. In an article written with ATF-supplied studies and statistics (, we read conclusions like these:

"Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: 'They steal them.' But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception."

"In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel [ATF agent] says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales."

"The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers."

Etc., etc. The tiny, TINY proportion of guns stolen each year is not a significant issue in the criminal possession of guns. And reducing the number of guns legally possessed would only very, very minimally reduce the number of guns criminals obtained... because the proportion of guns stolen to guns legally possessed is so infinitesimally tiny.

So, to sum up this one point: The article makes it SOUND like by reducing the number of guns legally owned, we could put a substantial dent in the number of guns possessed by criminals AND significantly reduce the BIG MISTAKES in defensive uses of guns. NEITHER idea is substantiated by the facts or by the article itself. BOTH claims are "sustained" by hand-waving in the general direction of the facts but without any review of the vast array of facts that counter the claims. This is cherry-picking of "evidence," and the article is full of this tactic.

The irony is that you claim that the main study I cited was filled with cherry-picking.

However, let's get right at that study, since much of the article you pointed me to addresses it.

As just one major point your article makes, the article claims that over half of the study's self-defense uses were actually illegal, despite the respondents' natural efforts to paint their uses in a positive light. This proportion is supported by appeal to a Harvard study involving a five-judge panel, which was asked to review respondents' answers and evaluate each situation as described for its legality.

Okay, so let's review the actual Harvard study upon which these "results" are based (

Suddenly, the "results" get very interesting indeed. Follow the study's methods through, and you quickly see that the five-judge panel actually reviewed 35 total "self defense" cases, and that out of an initial sample size (the original two studies from which the cases were drawn) of 4426 total respondents!

The Harvard study "winnows out" and "cherry picks" down until the IT (PRE-judicial review) finds 35 cases to have the judicial panel review. Then, on the basis of that TINY proportion of putative "self-defense" cases, the article you cite IGNORES this finding in its conclusions from the study: "The criminal court judges were shown summaries of the remaining 35 events; each judge rated each event. Twenty per cent of the time a judge rated a case as 'as likely legal as illegal.'"

YOUR article instead chooses this statement as the basis of its conclusions: "Excluding these ratings [the 20% rating from the previous quote] (when judges often said there was not enough information), a majority of the judges rated 18 of the 35 (51%) as probably illegal and 15 of the 35 (43%) as probably legal." But this sentence is only a SUBSET of the actual findings, as it deals with only a SUBSET of the breakdown of case types.

So, in reality, of the 35 cases the judges actually considered, 20% of them did not result in a finding of illegality, with some judges claiming that they were "as likely as unlikely to be illegal." And of the REMAINING 28 cases, the judges by a bare majority found the cases "likely illegal."

Those actual findings are nowhere NEAR as compelling as your article would have us believe!

Sum this all up, and what you REALLY have from the Harvard study is the vast, vast, VAST... VASSSST majority of the purported cases never being considered by the judicial panel (and who knows what biases the judges on that panel had?). Of the TINY proportion that were considered, what YOU DO NOT HAVE is "51% of the cases being found illegal!" THAT is what you CANNOT fairly conclude from the Harvard study.

But that is exactly what YOUR article does conclude!

I really could go on and on and on. Your article is absolutely RIFE with misinformation, cherry-picked data, and FLAGRANT misinterpretation of study methods and results as to be flat-out laughable.

However, the most significant point I take from your article is how it "says" again and again without every having the honesty to flat-out SAY it: If you reduce the number of guns, you WILL reduce the amount of gun violence. According to the article, the number of BIG MISTAKES will significantly decline (despite the FACT that the BIG MISTAKES are the tiniest proportion of legal gun uses), and, most importantly, reducing the number of guns will significantly reduce the number of guns held by criminals.

BOTH sides of that "claim" (that is never flatly made) are incorrect, and there are countless articles based upon FBI, ATF, and US Department of Justice statistics demonstrating the fact of the incorrectness of the claim. Here is just one:

The FACT is that there are more guns in civilian hands than ever before. More guns are being CARRIED by civilians than ever before. More concealed-carry permits are being issued than ever before. And by all metrics, violent crimes INCLUDING crimes involving guns are in dramatic decline over the past decade. (Except for places like Chicago, which has the strictest gun-control laws in the nation, and where all violent and gun-related incidents are on the rise year by year. And note that a FEW places like Chicago actually skew the nationwide statistics.)

So, put aside ALL of the nonsense and flagrant misinterpretations by the article you cited, and you are still left with the FACTS that dispute the main points the article was trying to make. It is simply not the case that more guns lead to more crime, more violent crime, or more crime involving guns. And it is not the case that there would be substantially fewer BIG MISTAKES if there were fewer guns in civilian hands. What your article fails to recognize is that the relevant proportions are so tiny that huge decreases in gun ownership (not gonna happen!) would have only minimal "results."

(I could write a whole other treatise regarding how your article misrepresents the Kleck/Getz study, but I've said enough.)

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Feb 6, 2015 - 01:44pm PT
Madbolter, try apply those same critical assessment skills to the BS pro-gun articles you posted here a while ago. Produce the best article you can find supporting the position that more gun ownership means less death and injury by guns.



Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Feb 6, 2015 - 01:55pm PT
"Produce the best article you can find supporting the position that more gun ownership means less death and injury by guns."

EVERY law enforcement agency in America endorses firearms for personal defense.

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 6, 2015 - 01:56pm PT
Sorry, TE, I won't play your game. The point you should be taking from this whole mess is that ALL statistics are BS (as Mark Twain rightly noted). ALL of them mean nothing apart from interpretation, and ALL of the interpretations written up by both pro-gun AND anti-gun articles depend upon interpretations that conflate (thin) correlations with causes.

Gun ownership in this country is NOT about statistics. If you could prove (which you can't) that doubling gun ownership doubled gun homicides, you would still have merely correlation, and, more importantly, you would not address the fact that gun ownership (and carrying) is a constitutionally-protected right in this country.

People like you seem bound and determined to undo the 2nd amendment (good luck with that), but the public largely isn't buying the correlations-as-causes arguments.

And even if you somehow managed to get the 2nd amendment changed (or so radically and "progressively" interpreted by the courts) that the average citizen really had no more legal right to keep and BEAR arms, all you would accomplish is to turn more than half of this nation into "criminals." The average person KNOWS that they have the right of self-defense, which just is the right to the MEANS necessary to defend him/herself against likely threats. You are not going to convince the average, otherwise law-abiding citizen, that they no longer have the right of self-defense nor the right to the MEANS by which to uphold it.

Remember prohibition.

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Feb 6, 2015 - 02:15pm PT
I'm jonesing for the Sig 320. What the heck is that "tabbed trigger safety" thingy?
It looks like it violates all tenets of the KISS philosophy.

Never mind, I see that it isn't legal in Cali. WTF? It's got every safety
gizmo known to man!
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Feb 6, 2015 - 02:27pm PT
The point you should be taking from this whole mess is that ALL statistics are BS

Religious philosophy, I take it?


Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 6, 2015 - 02:54pm PT
Religious philosophy, I take it?

LOL... Twain was an avowed atheist.

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Feb 6, 2015 - 02:56pm PT
Its just such an ignorant thing to write, I'd guess you have no math training at all.


Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 6, 2015 - 03:01pm PT
Yeah, Twain was a complete ignoramus.

Or perhaps you are missing the point, which is that the statistics themselves are not the problem (the data is what it is). The devil is in interpreting the data, and there people (scientists and statisticians included) necessarily bring their biases to bear.

Show me an article you like, based upon "favorable" statistics, and I'll rip it to shreds. You (and TE) can do the same to anything I trot out. It's a GAME, and it is pretty close to utterly irrelevant to the principles underlying this issue.

Legislate me into being a "criminal," and, sure enough, I'll be a "criminal." Remember prohibition.
Messages 4841 - 4860 of total 5441 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews