Give up my guns?

[piezoe]

I maintain that decisions on gun control measures should be, when possible, based on probabilities rather than anecdote. I have stated in the past that the probability of guns being used to commit crime is reduced when the distribution, not necessarily the number, of guns is reduced, and that the probability of specific types of guns being used to commit crimes is reduced when the distribution of those specific types is reduced. Logical argument would suggest that this should be true, but it does not prove it. However there are now quite a few studies that support my position. To argue the opposite, as many of my ET colleagues are wont to do for reasons inexplicable other than anecdote, should require correspondingly strong statistical evidence, especially considering that the opposite position from mine is counter intuitive and seemingly illogical.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I maintain that decisions on gun control measures should be, when possible, based on probabilities rather than anecdote. I have stated in the past that the probability of guns being used to commit crime is reduced when the number of guns is reduced, and that the probability of specific types of guns being used to commit crimes is reduced when the number of those specific types is reduced. Logical argument would suggest that this should be true, but it does not prove it. However there are now quite a few studies that support my position. To argue the opposite, as many of my ET colleagues are wont to do for reasons inexplicable other than anecdote, should require correspondingly strong statistical evidence considering that the opposite position from mine is counter intuitive and seemingly illogical.

I can go on and on with fact based analysis on the horseshit the main stream media spews (and some of you folks regurgitate) if you want. But I doubt you've even read what I've posted because it will end up triggering you. That is what is illogical and counter intuitive.

 

[piezoe]

Once again you have no actual facts. [in response to a gwb... post]

Probably his [gwb...] contentions about Cary NC are correct but they, by themselves, certainly can't support his conclusion.

We have a seemingly endless number of "studies" on the relationship of gun ownership to gun violence, gun accidents etc. etc., many of them sponsored or promulgated by gun advocates, and a few carried out by disinterested experts in statistical studies. (Some of these numerous studies would be the ones quoted by tsing tao and myself. Those with statistical training will be aghast at how defective many of these studies are. (During the 1950s we had studies showing little connection between lung cancer and smoking. )

I find somewhat humorous the idea that having a gun at home will protect you from burglars or robbers. Of course those that maintain this , if they are sane , will not be claiming that the probability of an intruder getting into their home will be reduced by the presence of their gun -- I wonder, have they put up their yard sign yet -- but they maintain that they are safer because they are just going to shoot the intruder, or at worst hold him/her at gunpoint until the cops arrive, more or less exactly as happens in Hollywood Movies.

God Bless America. What a Country!

 

[futurecurrents]

More guns mean more deaths. It's very simple. The family that owns together dies together. Having a gun in the house increases odds of a family member dying. I

 

[Option_Attack]

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/na...ire-houston-home-invasion-20190119-story.html

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I can go on and on with fact based analysis on the horseshit the main stream media spews (and some of you folks regurgitate) if you want. But I doubt you've even read what I've posted because it will end up triggering you. That is what is illogical and counter intuitive.

I applaud your efforts to bring actual facts to light, but I fear it is useless. Opposition to guns, like most liberal policies, is not driven by fact or logic but by emotion. Demagogues stoke that emotion cleverly and try to cloak it with an air of scientific certitude to appeal to liberals' typical moral narcissism.

For me, aside from the Constitutional aspect, this is an issue of personal freedom. I find it breathtaking that politicians and busybody do-gooders feel they have the right to dictate to me what measures I take to protect my family. There are risks to owning firearms, just as there are risks to owning a car or using a turkey fryer. You weigh the risk versus the utility. Our side is not insisting that the other side go out and buy an AR 15. Why can't they extend us the same consideration?

 

[El OchoCinco]

Our side is not insisting that the other side go out and buy an AR 15. Why can't they extend us the same consideration?

Well you can understand a lot of the feelings come from watching people shoot up schools with AR15s. You are not insisting that everyone has a gun, but many people feel there are many who do have a gun that shouldn't because they are taking it outside their house or range and using it against other people. Most cases we see of shootings have clear red flags but nothing is being done.

Take away the far left but look at the middle arguments. You have a right to a gun for the reasons you said, no question about that. BUt just as the far left is off base saying there should be no guns, the far right is incorrect to say they should all be able to buy whatever guns and as many rounds as they want with no interference.

Someone in the middle is the common ground that neither side wants to land in.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Take away the far left but look at the middle arguments. You have a right to a gun for the reasons you said, no question about that. BUt just as the far left is off base saying there should be no guns, the far right is incorrect to say they should all be able to buy whatever guns and as many rounds as they want with no interference.

I will assume you are making this argument in good faith. The problem is a compromise in which one side gives up rights, while the other gives up basically nothing, is possible only if it resolves the issue for once and for all. You think it is a good idea to limit mag sizes and maybe ban AR's totally. What are you offering in exchange? Nothing really. And we both know the end game is gun confiscation. Your leaders, e g Sen. Feinstein are not even coy about that now. They are demanding it. Why would we ever want to give an inch when it is just another step down the slippery slope?

 

[futurecurrents]

"BUt just as the far left is off base saying there should be no guns,...."


I don't say that there should be no guns. I don't know what other far lefties say.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I will assume you are making this argument in good faith. The problem is a compromise in which one side gives up rights, while the other gives up basically nothing, is possible only if it resolves the issue for once and for all. You think it is a good idea to limit mag sizes and maybe ban AR's totally. What are you offering in exchange? Nothing really. And we both know the end game is gun confiscation. Your leaders, e g Sen. Feinstein are not even coy about that now. They are demanding it. Why would we ever want to give an inch when it is just another step down the slippery slope?

Your leaders...I am not from California nor do I come from a planet where I kneel down before a leader like a god like many MAGAs do.

the biggest problem I have with have any discussion with people like you is you assume anyone who says anything .001% different is simply a far extreme person from the other side of the spectrum. Basically you would rather name call and label people as libtards or lefties or socialists. It might be hard to believe be there are plenty of GOP people who think Trump is a complete asshole and those who don't I seriously question. It is ok to remain loyal to your belief/opinion but to blindly follow a person is idioltry.