Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > for the gun control people [CLOSED      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 billingsmason
Joined: 2/3/2012
Msg: 328
for the gun control peoplePage 19 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
country folks use guns on a very regular basis.
almost every state has country.
you might be surprised at how many people own a pistol with some holster wear.
if you've never been in the situation to need a gun, then your frame of reference is going to point you in the direction of not needing one. if you have been in a spot or two when a firearm made the difference, or would have..... then you might be a little less cynical as to the value of having one that is reliable and bombproof.

even some city folks use guns. business owners, delivery drivers, single mothers, ect.

most guns you buy now days are semi automatic. they can fire rounds as fast as you pull the trigger.
my first gun at 10 y.o. held 17 rounds and was semi auto.
they sell at wally world for about 125$
500 rounds cost about 10$

the reason we have this stance on guns..... imagine trying to take away every rancher, cowboy, farmer, back woods, rural, inter city, business owner, delivery driver, clerk, hotel auditor, nite drop person, homeowner, .... even the paranoid and militant, people who live on the borders, people who are prepared to defend what's theirs, people who are not putting up with shootings in public.... ect... imagine trying to take away their guns.

if you know nothing about the industry- you cannot make a judgement about what should be industry standard.
with very little know how, a person can modify weapons to fully automatic, and extend clips to great capacity.
better it be regulated and held to standards.

mental health issues are expensive on the public. you should be spared this expense because you don't have kids in school or want to own guns, fine. valid point. again- it was not the gun that is responsible. it is the man that made the decision to shoot up a bunch of kids.

I am not into the political diatribe. this issue is not a forum to bash the political party that opposes your views.
make assumptions if that eases your mind.

my gun rights do not feel threatened. why should I come up ideas to keeps what's already mine?

my idea to keep this from happening? personal accountability. step in and up to situations that are within your control and make a difference. let the teachers carry guns.

you'd have to be a mind reader to know if some nutter is going to snap and blow up a building or shoot up a school. maybe the government could start offering some classes or something.....
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 329
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 6:52:27 PM

Notwithstanding that, the Swiss firearm death rate is only 50% higher than the mean firearm death rate for the sample (2.1), while having a gun ownership rate of almost double the mean.)

Unfortunately, this is a flawed analysis... Percentage differences from the mean are essentially irrelevant... what counts is the number of standard deviations from the mean... All of Switzerlands rates fall within approximately one standard deviation of the mean, as do ALL of the other European countries... It is also important to note two other issues not being considered here... One, Switzerland's 10 year average is 0.92, well within the normative range... Two, Switzerland's homicide rate began to drop from the 1.1 range to the 0.7 range the year after they tightened their gun control laws by banning the storage of ammo for reservist rifles... Seems it was a successful application of gun control...

That said, Iceland (at an uncritical glance) looks to be the best of the bunch, with the lowest overall homicide rate in the sample, and with a gun ownership rate well above the mean.

Here to you are making the same error... You are right that only a few extra deaths can make a large difference in their rates, however their 10 year average is 0.66 homicides, well within the normative range...

Even if all that were not true, your argument is flawed in that it expects a close to 1:1 correspondence between the within-countries rates... While such correspondances may be found in some comparisons, the expectation that it must be so is both practically and theoretically flawed, that is why normative ranges exist... most events deviate from the mean to one degree or another, that is why standard deviations exist and why they are important and percentage differences from the mean are essentially irrelevant...

I know it SOUNDS powerful and convincing and all to talk about things like "almost double the rate", "50% higher", etc but such talk means little to nothing in terms of real world differences in such comparisons...

I'd like to analyze the data you presented and whatever relevant additional data that may be available from that source. From where did you obtain it and can you give me the URL?

Sure, no problem...

ownership data
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf

homicide data
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

gun death data
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/
http://www.oas.org/dsp/alertamerica/Report/Alertamerica2012.pdf
http://data.euro.who.int/dmdb/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2005/06/28/gun-deaths050628.html (Canada only)
http://www.surgeons.org/media/348297/pos_2011-08-26_gun_control_v3.pdf (New Zealand only)


Why is it that people who don't really understand statistics think that objecting to one number invalidates the entire connection (or, if it fits, why do people who do understand statistics think they can pull this obfuscation and get away with it)...?

I have no idea. Who was doing that?

It appeared as though you were in pointing out the outlier of Switzerland... Perhaps I was wrong in thinking you were prepared to throw out the entire analysis over the one outlier... but given that the results are significant whether the Swiss data (or Icelandic data) is included or not it certainly seemed that way... If it wasn't then I don't see what your actual point was since the one exception does not "disprove the rule" in this case...

I would suggest that you take the numbers and graph them in excel... The relationship becomes glaringly obvious... Including the "floor effect" for homicide rates that I mentioned...
 hplazerjet
Joined: 11/1/2012
Msg: 330
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 7:58:44 PM
Billings,
Great post.
Tons of common sense.
You correctly point out that the anti-gun folks have had no experience with guns
and have managed to avoid danger.

I just thought of a great story as an example. Old friend of mine owns a lot of rental properties, some in not such
good areas. When I went to visit him, we went to do a repair on one of the buildings. I got a bad vibe and told him that he should be carrying a gun. He shrugged and said it wasn't necessary.
That was three years ago.
Recently, on rent day he went to collect the money. As soon as he was ready to leave, two gunman appeared and
demanded the money. He gave them the money and went to get into his truck, and they started shooting and
shot up the truck, shot out both the front and back windows, and just about every panel on the truck. Miraculously,
my buddy wasn't hit.
Guess what?
He immediately got a concealed permit and a .38 revolver.
 forum_moderator
Joined: 1/24/2003
Msg: 331
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 8:16:39 PM

Just like with any other Internet Forum, if this spirals out of control with insults and trolls, it will get closed or deleted along with any particpant posting privileges not following the posted rules. Keep it civil and leave out personal insults - debate the subject matter.
 outlaw4200
Joined: 12/15/2012
Msg: 332
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 9:03:56 PM
thank you forum controler, i was a meenee before but have since come to my senses, but this is a very touchy subject that should not be moderated or controlled, this is real world, when we start controlling opinions whats next? i enjoy this site personally, but if it gets regulated to much i will bring my donations elsewhere. is that what you want?


If you actually read the advisory, no one is putting a stop to your opinion AS LONG as you do not insult others or troll the thread. If that's what you want to do, you'll find yourself without privileges and we could care less where you take you donations or lack there of in your case. This is not a public site, it's a private site where you have been granted the privilege of posting - hope that's clear. This is an advisory and non debatable - stick to the thread topic, in case you hadn't read the posted rules - a requirement of your membership here.

 Holly63
Joined: 2/4/2011
Msg: 333
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 10:21:05 PM

this is a very touchy subject that should not be moderated or controlled, this is real world, when we start controlling opinions whats next?


A touchy subject HAS to be moderated and controlled. No one is trying to control opinions. Opinions are personal.

A debate allows each side, so to speak, to give their argument in a way for people who have opposing views to discuss controversial issues ( such as this) without insulting or personal bias.

Debates rarely end in agreement so someone, at some stage has to stop the otherwise never ending arguments which will just go round and round in circles and perhaps get more and more heated. Whats the point of that?

Moderate away I say and bottom line is....in my opinion, get rid of guns altogether for civillians except those I mentioned in my previous post.
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 334
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/22/2012 10:49:39 PM
Fear is a powerful motivator.
Some people are afraid of guns.
Others are afraid of people who do bad things.
If Americans want to get rid of all guns, just amend the Constitution.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 335
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 12:08:56 AM
People should be aware that they've already dumped the first part of the second amendment while they were napping and left themselves wide open for tyranny when they let the government dump the Posse Comitatus Act that protected them from the army. It was the first part of the second amendment that justified the second part in the interest of preventing tyranny by providing a credible deterrent to ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

How is not being able to equip the people with useful military-grade arms not a failure in the duty of the American people to protect themselves from potential domestic enemies like a government or its standing army?

The NRA is right to point out that most legislated or proposed gun restrictions are infringing on every reasonable human being's right to possess the armaments they choose to defend themselves, but they don't go far enough, because they don't point out that the true intent behind the right to bear arms is to defend the nation from standing armies and oppressive government, which in itself dictates that reasonable citizens should be able to purchase the best military grade arms they can afford, not just handguns and hunting rifles, but machine guns, grenade launchers, cannons, tanks, the whole bit.

I would agree that in general, moderation is a good thing, but when the freedom of a nation's people is at stake, I'd say that extremism in the cause of patriotism is no vice (and I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would agree with me, most especially at this juncture of American history where freedom and tyranny hang in the balance).
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 336
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 1:00:28 AM


Switzerland's homicide rate began to drop from the 1.1 range to the 0.7 range the year after they tightened their gun control laws by banning the storage of ammo for reservist rifles... Seems it was a successful application of gun control...


…and a failure to their militia…I'm really sorry to hear that.



Unfortunately, this is a flawed analysis..


I wasn't making a statistical analysis, only suggesting that an apparent anomaly bore further investigation. That it falls within a statistical norm is irrelevant when it is not yet calculated whether or not it does, and a simple percentage can serve as an indicator to suggest deeper study with perhaps other sample groups than those provided. (hence my request for the URL)



Here to you are making the same error..


I wasn't making an error because I wasn't making a statistical analysis. I was merely commenting on the apparent anomaly without making any determinations as to whether the data adequately fit the statistical norms.



Sure, no problem...


Thanks.





Who was doing that?

It appeared as though you were…Perhaps I was wrong in thinking you were prepared to throw out the entire analysis over the one outlier..

No biggie. I didn't look at your presentation too closely, as I plan to do a bit of a study of my own on changes over time in gun crime and criminal homicide with respect to the extent of gun ownership, and legislation affecting the variables.



I would suggest that you take the numbers and graph them in excel..


Sorry, but I despise Microsoft and currently use LibreOffice (I recommend it highly…It has its flaws, but it's pretty good in light of the alternatives)



…the "floor effect" for homicide rates that I mentioned..


...is interesting…I'll look into that....Thanks again.
 billingsmason
Joined: 2/3/2012
Msg: 337
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 1:03:27 AM
actually, dukky said this much better than anyone else here.
and in a calm even manner, without insulting anyone. props.

they take a little, then a little more, and so on.....

all enemies- foreign and domestic
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 338
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 5:07:18 AM

It's been 236 years.


Has it been that long? We really must get together more often.



America is not going to become a military dictatorship;


I know…It already is.



the government is not a threat to you and your family.


Actually, it is, and I don't even live in the US. Thanks to the NDAA I can be hit by a killer-drone anywhere in the world anytime that Fuhrer of yours decides I'm an "extremist."



The whole idea of needing guns to protect yourself from the govenment is as outdated as the Bible condoning the murder of people who are homosexual.


True. What is really needed is SAMs to protect the citizen from killer drone strikes ordered by your president. At least the Bible demands a trial before killing a homosexual, your president doesn't even allow you one anymore. I guess he isn't "old fashioned" in the biblical sense. Is that why you like him?



The claim that you need to arm yourselves against government tyranny is pure, pure paranoia.


…or killer drone phobia.

Were the founding fathers paranoid? What do you suppose they'd say if they saw what America has become in 236 years?



Another nonsense NRA argument that sways no one but those who are already believers, i.e., preaching to the choir.


It is my argument, not the NRA's, and I "preach" the law to everyone in the vain hope that some of you will recognize it.



How about coming up with something that is reasonable, rational, thoughtful, and based in reality instead of fantasy?


OK…When they throw you your bale of straw, ask Massa if you can borrow the wire cutters for a minute to cut the baling wire. I'm sure if you've passed the safety course and have an up-to-date wire-cutter licence, he'll let you use them and trust you to give them back. (Don't forget to say "Thank you.")
 onecoolM8
Joined: 12/1/2012
Msg: 339
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 6:26:13 AM
Owning a gun isn't the problem, most citizens are law abiding responsible individuals, owning a semi automatic gun is the problem and unnecessary , someone needs to explain to me why guns like that are allowed in society? Those guns belong in Law Enforcement and the Military .
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 340
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 11:24:38 AM
the Founding Fathers were men of commerce who wanted to avoid the mercantile system and control their ability to make money. Until then America was a colony who's only purpose was to sell raw material at low cost then pay a higher price to purchase the finished product from England, who had just defended America from French attacks in a world war and wanted to get its money back from paying all the military costs.

Were they worried about England coming back to invade? Well, the War of 1812 proved them correct if they did or didn't. Nature beat the English as much as any colonial militia did (there were laws back then to prosecute those who made fun of the militia during monthly drills, giving you an idea of how well the militia performed. Remember, Valley Forge was as much about desertion by that militia--the "summer soldiers" versus the "winter soldiers" Thomas Paine propagandized about--than waging war on "enemy"troops American Tories supported with housing and warm meals while Washington's militia starved across the river).

to the OP's point: a knifeman stabbed 10 people with something used in a kitchen. a gunman killed 27 with a military weapon not used for hunting or other civilian needs. If I have to choose between 10 victims and 27...gee...I'd take the 10. Anyone prefer the 27?
 Debyduz_
Joined: 5/4/2012
Msg: 341
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 11:30:07 AM
Very few guns have killed people with out help of a human.

Still the right to bear arms was made in another time.

There has to be a way to balance protection with societies safety.

My children and I have a right to live.
 BlokeInSydney
Joined: 5/7/2012
Msg: 342
for the gun control people
Posted: 12/23/2012 3:28:24 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brilliantly put Procol.

An educated and informed electorate makes a difference.

When we hear over here about yet another mass-shooting in the US we scratch our heads and wonder why their love of guns is almost pathological. Gun control worked for us and many other countries, but then we don't have the gun culture that exists in the US, nobody does. Do we feel safe walking down the street knowing our fellow citizens don't have guns? Of course we do.

I suspect many of the posters crapping-on about 2nd Amendment rights and personal protection, if they really examined their true motivations for owning a gun, would come to the conclusion it's really that they get off when they fire it. Simple as that, they get off when they shoot. I have American friends with guns and they told me they loved going out back and firing bullets at things, and it's even better when they hunt.







CLOSED


Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > for the gun control people [CLOSED