4 ms·

> Weapons are the ultimate form of equality ...only if everyone is willing to carry? The lack of understanding here is astounding. The claim of lax gun laws pr

> Weapons are the ultimate form of equality ...only if everyone is willing to carry? The lack of understanding here is astounding. The claim of lax gun laws promotes safety has been debunked hundreds of times. The average person does not have to have to carry a firearm in order to be safe, believe it or not. It's sad, really, how people think owning guns makes them safer or more tough. Statistically the former is 100% not true. Maybe people have this fiction in their heads that they will "save the day" from the bad guy (or government?) Seems childish.

jakeogh 7y ago
Tell that to a single mother. It's not your choice. It's a false argument that everyone needs to carry. Hence police get phone calls... to bring guns. Are you going to politely ask the murderer to wait 5 minutes? Nice "stats" you have there. http://v6y.net/gun_stats.jpg http://v6y.net/gun_stats.jpg
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  GP didn't offer meaningless "stats" like your link. They simply noted that relaxing gun laws like allowing concealed carry leads to an increase in violent crime under every analysis. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-... presents a survey of the research.
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    Everything on that graphic is sourced at the bottom. Right from your link: "NO STUDIES MET OUR CRITERIA" -> "Defensive Gun Use" Obviously they need to avoid that given the first thing on the graphic. Even skipping the biggest stat, they honestly admit "limited" and "inconclusive" on the table's 4th row: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html "increase in violent crime under every analysis" the table you linked to says "limited", and the criteria for limited is "At least one study meeting our inclusion criteria ". So by "every analysis" you mean "at least one study".
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      Your graphic is a bunch of disconnected statistics with no causal analysis. It doesn't even run a regression, which would easily find other explanations for what it so incompetently implies. There's a reason it's a social media graphic instead of published research.
      - jakeogh 7y ago
        Where is the underyling data to that Rand study? I havent found it yet. I see the methodology links, and the link to the book, but no underlying data so far. Like what studies they included/excluded and why. I'm glad you arent arguing with my analysis of it so far. Your comment about the graphic is rather pointless, the links are at the bottom. Specifically, which stat on the graphic are you disagreeing with? The top one? EDIT: (since comments are limited, I wont be able to post a new one for hours likely). You linked to https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html which does _not_ have the underlying data I asked for. "what analysis" Really? here I'll re-paste it: So by "every analysis" you mean "at least one study". "Again, I'm not saying anything about the data." Ya. I know. By "time and time again" are you referring to the so far data-less Rand study? Because if so, you now have used "every analysis" and "time and time again" to mean "at least one study". Gymtime. I'll check back later, maybe you will say something specific.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > Where is the underyling data to that Rand study? The paper prominently links to it. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html > I'm glad you arent arguing with my analysis of it so far. What analysis? > Your comment about the graphic is rather pointless, the links are at the bottom. Single variable analysis without including obvious covariates is about the laziest possible analysis I've seen, which is why it leads to ridiculous results. > Specifically, which stat on the graphic are you disagreeing with? The top one? Again, I'm not saying anything about the data. It's the utterly incompetent analysis of the data that I take issue with. As far as the first one, as a matter of public policy, it doesn't matter what the predominant use is, it matters what the net effect is, which has been shown to be negative time and again. Response to your response. > So by "every analysis" you mean "at least one study". Let me get this straight. Your argument is that because there is at least one methodologically sound analysis of the data that shows concealed carry leads to violent crime at the time of the survey and no analysis otherwise, you remain unconvinced? > Ya. I know. Then why did you bring it up? It seems obvious to me that you didn't know. > By "time and time [sic] again" are you referring to the so far data-less Rand study? As I said, the Rand paper is a survey. Check the bibliography for the data. As far as "at least one," for one thing, you only need one, and for another, the other relaxed gun laws have even more methodologically sound analyses showing negative effects. That's what I meant by "time and again."
- matchbok 7y ago
  What % of single mothers are willing to own a gun? The vast majority of them do not want that in their homes. This whole "wild west" mentality of gun ownership is both frightening and sad. Violent crime is at historic lows. And what's the end game here? Once everyone gets guns, the criminals start using nerve gas? Would you suggest a single mother start keeping nerve gas in her home?
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    TIL gas is a defensive weapon? Roughly 50% of US households have a firearm. If someone can break that out to single mothers that would be great, but as I said, it's not your choice to make. https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...

jakeogh 7y ago

Tell that to a single mother. It's not your choice. It's a false argument that everyone needs to carry. Hence police get phone calls... to bring guns. Are you going to politely ask the murderer to wait 5 minutes? Nice "stats" you have there. http://v6y.net/gun_stats.jpg http://v6y.net/gun_stats.jpg

lern_too_spel 7y ago
GP didn't offer meaningless "stats" like your link. They simply noted that relaxing gun laws like allowing concealed carry leads to an increase in violent crime under every analysis. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-... presents a survey of the research.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  Everything on that graphic is sourced at the bottom. Right from your link: "NO STUDIES MET OUR CRITERIA" -> "Defensive Gun Use" Obviously they need to avoid that given the first thing on the graphic. Even skipping the biggest stat, they honestly admit "limited" and "inconclusive" on the table's 4th row: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html "increase in violent crime under every analysis" the table you linked to says "limited", and the criteria for limited is "At least one study meeting our inclusion criteria ". So by "every analysis" you mean "at least one study".
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    Your graphic is a bunch of disconnected statistics with no causal analysis. It doesn't even run a regression, which would easily find other explanations for what it so incompetently implies. There's a reason it's a social media graphic instead of published research.
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      Where is the underyling data to that Rand study? I havent found it yet. I see the methodology links, and the link to the book, but no underlying data so far. Like what studies they included/excluded and why. I'm glad you arent arguing with my analysis of it so far. Your comment about the graphic is rather pointless, the links are at the bottom. Specifically, which stat on the graphic are you disagreeing with? The top one? EDIT: (since comments are limited, I wont be able to post a new one for hours likely). You linked to https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html which does _not_ have the underlying data I asked for. "what analysis" Really? here I'll re-paste it: So by "every analysis" you mean "at least one study". "Again, I'm not saying anything about the data." Ya. I know. By "time and time again" are you referring to the so far data-less Rand study? Because if so, you now have used "every analysis" and "time and time again" to mean "at least one study". Gymtime. I'll check back later, maybe you will say something specific.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > Where is the underyling data to that Rand study? The paper prominently links to it. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html > I'm glad you arent arguing with my analysis of it so far. What analysis? > Your comment about the graphic is rather pointless, the links are at the bottom. Single variable analysis without including obvious covariates is about the laziest possible analysis I've seen, which is why it leads to ridiculous results. > Specifically, which stat on the graphic are you disagreeing with? The top one? Again, I'm not saying anything about the data. It's the utterly incompetent analysis of the data that I take issue with. As far as the first one, as a matter of public policy, it doesn't matter what the predominant use is, it matters what the net effect is, which has been shown to be negative time and again. Response to your response. > So by "every analysis" you mean "at least one study". Let me get this straight. Your argument is that because there is at least one methodologically sound analysis of the data that shows concealed carry leads to violent crime at the time of the survey and no analysis otherwise, you remain unconvinced? > Ya. I know. Then why did you bring it up? It seems obvious to me that you didn't know. > By "time and time [sic] again" are you referring to the so far data-less Rand study? As I said, the Rand paper is a survey. Check the bibliography for the data. As far as "at least one," for one thing, you only need one, and for another, the other relaxed gun laws have even more methodologically sound analyses showing negative effects. That's what I meant by "time and again."
matchbok 7y ago
What % of single mothers are willing to own a gun? The vast majority of them do not want that in their homes. This whole "wild west" mentality of gun ownership is both frightening and sad. Violent crime is at historic lows. And what's the end game here? Once everyone gets guns, the criminals start using nerve gas? Would you suggest a single mother start keeping nerve gas in her home?
- jakeogh 7y ago
  TIL gas is a defensive weapon? Roughly 50% of US households have a firearm. If someone can break that out to single mothers that would be great, but as I said, it's not your choice to make. https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...