Are you afraid of guns?

[Totovader]

This isn't an explanation. It's just a link. You can't even be bothered to explain what the link is to.

You asked for a link, so I gave you a link. You've tried this tactic before and to me it's just lazy thinking.

I appreciate The Don taking the trouble to vet the numbers. I would also add, Totoavder was comparing bad killings by police to bad killings by CCW holders. From the Cato Institute figures:

A different picture is emerging.

Why oh why would you only include shootings by police and then include all murders for CCW holders? You may try argue that you aren't, but you haven't thought through the data, yet.

 

[tsig]

From page 1.

So your argument is that since cops shoot a lot of people there should be more guns?

 

[jimbob]

And that one factor causes that?

In the United States, we can see what happens when gun availability goes up. That's the same culture, changing to more availability: crime goes down. In extreme cases where gun ownership becomes mandatory, crime is dramatically and quickly reduced. This is a far better measure than comparing one country to another. So we know that the assertion "more guns means more crime" is false.

Are you sure? And what sort of crime. ETA: Gun crime tends to be more serious than shoplifting

Myth #2 in this article suggests that gun crim is lower when there are fewer guns

Ah, time for this plot again, showing how much the US is an outlier when comparing for a proxy of wealth (GDP)

If anyone can come up with a better proxy and data I'd be very happy:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1449450fbf92621bec.jpg[/qimg]

And this PDF

has an interesting conclusion supporting other data that is no longer online:

Conclusion
��Male life expectancy in US: 74.1 years
��Average LE in 34 other rich countries: 75.8 years
��US gap: 1.7 years
��US firearm LE reduction 167.4 days
��→27% of male US lag due to availability of firearms and resulting deaths
��Females: 3.3%

A lot of the rest of the lag in life expectancy will be due to healthcare.

This paper suggests that keeping a gun in the home increases the chance of a homicide in the home

 

[newyorkguy]

You asked for a link, so I gave you a link. You've tried this tactic before and to me it's just lazy thinking.

I asked you for an explanation. You posted a link without any comment at all. It seems when it suits your purposes you write lengthy messages. When it doesn't suit your purposes you don't. You made an assertion and you refuse to qualify it or even discuss it. The numbers you link to do not seem to justify your assertion for the reasons The Don described. To me this appears to be deliberate deception on your part. I'm sure any reasonable person would agree.

Why oh why would you only include shootings by police and then include all murders for CCW holders? You may try argue that you aren't, but you haven't thought through the data, yet.

I made no mention of CCW holders. I referred to your reference. I'm not trying to prove or disprove your statement that people are in more danger of being unlawfully shot by a police officer rather than someone with a concealed carry permit.

I was suspicious of your claim that there were 247 bad police shootings in 2010. Your response was to post a link. The link does not back up your claim. The link states there were 127 allegations of deaths by excessive police force in 2010. Ninety-one involved the use of a gun.

Will you withdraw your assertion that police were involved in 247 bad killings in 2010? I think you need to but I doubt you will. I do not intend to pursue this, I'm satisfied with the result. Once again you -- who routinely accuses other posters of lying, making fallacies and using strawmen -- have once again played fast and loose with the truth. I'm sure any reasonable person would agree.

That and $1.96 will get me coffee at Dunkin Donuts!

 

[Totovader]

I asked you for an explanation. You posted a link without any comment at all. It seems when it suits your purposes you write lengthy messages. When it doesn't suit your purposes you don't. You made an assertion and you refuse to qualify it or even discuss it. The numbers you link to do not seem to justify your assertion for the reasons The Don described. To me this appears to be deliberate deception on your part. I'm sure any reasonable person would agree.

You asked for a link. I provided a link. If you want an explanation, you can refer to the OP. If you're baffled as to why your posts don't get any more attention than that, I'm not sure I can help you.

I made no mention of CCW holders. I referred to your reference. I'm not trying to prove or disprove your statement that people are in more danger of being unlawfully shot by a police officer rather than someone with a concealed carry permit.

That was kind of my point.

I was suspicious of your claim that there were 247 bad police shootings in 2010. Your response was to post a link. The link does not back up your claim. The link states there were 127 allegations of deaths by excessive police force in 2010. Ninety-one involved the use of a gun.

Now you're being dishonest.

The study very clearly states right below the part you're referencing:

*Note: fatalities listed are only those involved in cases where excessive force or unnecessary force was reported. This does not include all fatalities related to police use of force.

You're trying to exclude the results and narrow the definitions to the point of being meaningless because you don't like the conclusion. I get it, it's just pretty obvious. Why would we only include fatalities where a police officer used a gun in unjustified homicide? That's not the question we're trying to answer. It also doesn't follow that we would only include cases of excessive force. In order to make an accurate comparison of which group is more dangerous it makes sense to compare unjustified homicides on both sides. You call that misleading, which is absurd.

Will you withdraw your assertion that police were involved in 247 bad killings in 2010? I think you need to but I doubt you will. I do not intend to pursue this, I'm satisfied with the result. Once again you -- who routinely accuses other posters of lying, making fallacies and using strawmen -- have once again played fast and loose with the truth. I'm sure any reasonable person would agree.

That and $1.96 will get me coffee at Dunkin Donuts!

I was painfully clear on my methodology and sources. If you have alternate sources, you're more than capable of supplying them. Accusing me of being dishonest and making sure it sticks is going to take a lot more than just injecting some unsubstantiated doubt into my sources, however.

 

[Totovader]

Are you sure? And what sort of crime. ETA: Gun crime tends to be more serious than shoplifting

Myth #2 in this article suggests that gun crim is lower when there are fewer guns

But notice how you switched the terms? Why should we only care about gun crime? That's not a counter-argument to what I said.

This paper suggests that keeping a gun in the home increases the chance of a homicide in the home

You'll notice that I referenced that article already. This one commits the same fallacy I'm discussing in the OP: confusion of the inverse.

 

[12AX7]

It seems when it suits your purposes you write lengthy messages. When it doesn't suit your purposes you don't. You made an assertion and you refuse to qualify it or even discuss it.

To me this appears to be deliberate deception on your part. I'm sure any reasonable person would agree.

I do not intend to pursue this, I'm satisfied with the result. Once again you -- who routinely accuses other posters of lying, making fallacies and using strawmen -- have once again played fast and loose with the truth. I'm sure any reasonable person would agree.

This. ^^^^

And with that, I am done with 'ol Tater as well.

 

[Peter May]

It's not the guns it's the bullets they fire, that's the danger.

 

[Mark6]

This. ^^^^

And with that, I am done with 'ol Tater as well.

Likewise

 

[jimbob]

But notice how you switched the terms? Why should we only care about gun crime? That's not a counter-argument to what I said.



You'll notice that I referenced that article already. This one commits the same fallacy I'm discussing in the OP: confusion of the inverse.

I have come late to this thread. I have not seen where your posts on either.

I waa careful to limit the first to gun crime because that is one of the most important areas of crime where an arned citizenry might be expected to have an effect - either positive or negative.

Where is the data to support your contention?

Similarly, I haven't seen where you discussed the second paper. However the authors controlled for confounding factors, so either gun owning households are in general a more violent population than the general population - suggesting that the laws make it too easy for violent people to get guns legally, or that the presence of guns in a household increases the risk im susceptible households.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I'm afraid of guns. So shoot me.