Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[overtone]

If that argument holds water, we would expect to see similar increases in gun related murders in the surrounding states... states that have similar bigotries and republican preferences present... states like Kentucky and Alabama and Tennessee and Kansas and Oklahoma... but we don't see that,

Uh, yes, we do see that - you overlooked the fact that your source there is comparing Missouri's specific rate with an "aggregate" rate from the nearby States - a methodology that has some pitfalls, including the fact that Illinois is going to dominate such "aggregate" stats without being comparable in this particular argument (not part of the Bigot Belt, being only one State law example, etc). Illinois should be omitted in this discussion, not given dominance.

 

In Arkansas, Kansas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma - the Bigot Belt States with significant common border - we see definite jumps in the murder rate around 2006 - 2009. (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/okcrimn.htm, http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/tncrime.htm, http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/kncrime.htm, http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/arcrime.htm )With Kentucky (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/kycrime.htm) the jump is there, but the highlighting circumstance of there having been a drought of murders in the early 2000s, around 9/11 and the launching of the Iraq War, did not happen in Kentucky. My guess? recall the burgeoning drug war there at the time, meth and oxy and so forth. But that's speculation.

 

What is not speculation is that your entire argument rests on a single deeply flawed statistic. And that is obvious without the back check - the jump is idiosyncratic and ungeneralizable regardless of its actual uniqueness. The murder rate in Missouri is down from its recent peak and continues to drop overall, gun laws or no gun laws - that is the situation.

 

The central matter is this: essentially everyone - everyone - agrees that background checks on gun buyers are a good idea. So why do you suppose such a large and intransigent fraction of those favorable to background checks don't trust the gunphobics to set them up? Decades of clueless, mistaken arguments and heedlessly authoritarian pontificating have created an atmosphere of mistrust, increased every time some cop pulls a guy over just outside his driveway for not wearing a seatbelt, - and it's well earned. By the time you have revealed that you have no idea how guns work in self-defense, think resistance to tyranny means taking on the Federal army in war, and in the back of your minds would prefer that all guns be confiscated from private hands and only allowed to the trained agents of the State, a whole lot of people have become willing to put up with the evils of the current situation if that's the only way to prevent the greater evils of your programs and policies.

Edited February 22, 2014 by overtone

[iNow]

In Arkansas, Kansas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma - the Bigot Belt States with significant common border - we see definite jumps in the murder rate around 2006 - 2009.

But your position is that murders went up because a democrat... a black democrat at that... took the presidency. That didn't happen until 2008.

 

By your own numbers above, the rates in those states changed as of 2006. Surely you're not suggesting that the people in the "bigot belt" were somehow clairvoyant and started increasing the murder rate as of 2006 in preparation for a black democratic president being elected 2 years later, are you?

 

Snark momentarily aside... The study I shared did a great job controlling for confounding variables. Perhaps you could stipulate that there is merit in their conclusion and that the lapse of background check regulations just may have had something to do with the increase in murders via firearm.

 

Sure, bigots thought big bad bogeyman president black-enstein was gonna come fur thar guns and they started stockpiling, but that does not negate the fact that Missouri saw a greater increase in murders and it seems to be accounted for by a lapse in background checks.

What is not speculation is that your entire argument rests on a single deeply flawed statistic.

Uhhhmmmm... no. As anybody with eyes can plainly see, I shared numerous sources in this thread on exactly this question, including the post to which you were here now just replying.

 

Decades of clueless, mistaken arguments and heedlessly authoritarian pontificating have created an atmosphere of mistrust, increased every time some cop pulls a guy over just outside his driveway for not wearing a seatbelt, - and it's well earned.

Do you find character assassinations and well poisoning to be good arguments? I don't, and someone like you who seems to prize arguments based on logic instead of evidence should recognize that your approach here relies on logical fallacies.

 

By the time you have revealed that you have no idea how guns work in self-defense, think resistance to tyranny means taking on the Federal army in war, and in the back of your minds would prefer that all guns be confiscated from private hands and only allowed to the trained agents of the State...

And, who is this strange strawman you describe above? You cannot possibly be referring to me, can you? I love the caricature, don't get me wrong, but you're addressing your point to me as if any of what you've just written accurately describes me. Why do you do that?

 

...a whole lot of people have become willing to put up with the evils of the current situation if that's the only way to prevent the greater evils of your programs and policies.

"Evils of MY programs and policies?" What have I proposed that is "evil?" Again, you seem to be arguing against a fantasy in your head instead of against me or my actual position. Can you clarify?

[imatfaal]

I'd enjoy some stats that show a reduction in gun ownership and/or a raise in registration/NICS checks that have a relation to a reduction in violence violence, and not just gun violence. South London is one of the most violent places in the free world, more "hot" home invasions than anywhere in the US... but guns are illegal there.

 

Absolute nonsense. There are a few spots of South London (I presume you mean London in England - there are much more violent Londons - New London S.Africa for example) where you wouldn't want to be flashing your posh new watch late at night - but the most violent place in the free world; complete make-believe.

 

Take a look here http://maps.met.police.uk/

 

Change settings to serious crime against the person and you will note that only two sections are even above average (both lower than that hotspot of crime Mayfair!) and the absolute figures are very small. These are deprived (only in relative terms) areas where there is huge social tension, and most importantly wide inequality of income - yet there is not the endemic violence of many cities; I think perhaps your example provides more evidence refuting rather than supporting your argument.

[overtone]

 

 

But your position is that murders went up because a democrat... a black democrat at that... took the presidency.

My position is that gun ownership by irresponsible, criminal, and otherwise hazardous people went up because the reassuring Republican "conservative" power structure that had calmed down the Confederacy fell apart in a morass of betrayal and incompetence and economic collapse, and the cognitive dissonance of the new political world was a great source of stress and fear among them.

 

 

 

Snark momentarily aside... The study I shared did a great job controlling for confounding variables.

I'm questioning that, because the numbers I looked up (and posted) - the raw data - coupled with what we all know about gun violence in this country, suggest a variety of major influences and trends they seemed to have overlooked completely.

 

Perhaps you could stipulate that there is merit in their conclusion and that the lapse of background check regulations just may have had something to do with the increase in murders via firearm.

There would be merit in a conclusion that a lapse in background checks had some influence, and a valild estimate of exactly how much influence would have been fine. Their conclusion was that the loss of the most intrusive features of the old law accounted for the entire "16% increase in the murder rate", and they offered as evidence an invalid and misleading baseline (prior five year average) and a borderline deceptive "aggregate" statistic as their official support. I'm calling bullshit on that, and pointing out that the willingness of otherwise alert and sophisticated evaluators of statistics to be taken in by such reasoning and rhetoric is symptomatic of a political problem with this particular and disproportionately influential issue.

 

 

 

Do you find character assassinations and well poisoning to be good arguments?

No. That's why I pointed out that they have had bad effects among the factions of Americans victimized by them over the past few decades, in this case gun owners and gun rights supporters and their ordinary embedding communities. Are you reading Fraggle's posts? Your own? Gun owners who have a much more solid grasp of the nature of the intrusions and petty tyrannies you are supporting with your slander and ridiculous statistical "arguments" are hearing that stuff from all over, and they are simply digging in their heels against anything you propose.

 

And no, that's not the whole of the debate. Unlike almost every other political discussion on the table in the US, gun regulation is a "both sides" political problem - there are in fact "two sides" equivalently dominating a polarized argument in a sense, both sides slander and mislead and rig their statistics and arguments, both sides have authoritarian agendas and support, both sides have libertarian arguments and aspects, and so forth. But I'm going to take the side, here, of honest and well-considered statistical argument, reasonable interpretation of things like the Constitution, etc - because I think the greater danger to the general US public and mine personally lies there, rather than in having too many guns floating around.

 

How do you explain the twin facts of universal support for background checks as an idea, and stubborn, intransigent, informed opposition to the actual proposals put on the political table?

[iNow]

My position is that gun ownership by irresponsible, criminal, and otherwise hazardous people went up because the reassuring Republican "conservative" power structure that had calmed down the Confederacy fell apart in a morass of betrayal and incompetence and economic collapse, and the cognitive dissonance of the new political world was a great source of stress and fear among them.

Super, but that doesn't change the fact that YOUR OWN SOURCE shows the trend beginning in 2006... 2 years BEFORE that. So, I have to ask again... Surely you're not suggesting that the people in the "bigot belt" were somehow clairvoyant and started increasing the murder rate as of 2006 in preparation for a black democratic president being elected 2 years later, are you?

 

 

I'm questioning that, because the numbers I looked up (and posted) - the raw data - coupled with what we all know about gun violence in this country, suggest a variety of major influences and trends they seemed to have overlooked completely. <snip> ...and they offered as evidence an invalid and misleading baseline (prior five year average) and a borderline deceptive "aggregate" statistic as their official support. I'm calling bullshit on that, and pointing out that the willingness of otherwise alert and sophisticated evaluators of statistics to be taken in by such reasoning and rhetoric is symptomatic of a political problem with this particular and disproportionately influential issue.

Well, no. Sorry, but that's just wrong. Your argument would be better if you at least didn't misrepresent the work.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26222578

The study links the abandonment of the background check to an additional 60 or so murders occurring per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012.

 

"Coincident exactly with the policy change, there was an immediate upward trajectory to the homicide rates in Missouri," said Prof Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

 

"That upward trajectory did not happen with homicides that did not involve guns; it did not occur to any neighbouring state; the national trend was doing the opposite – it was trending downward; and it was not specific to one or two localities – it was, for the most part, state-wide," he told BBC News.

 

The team said it took account of changes that occurred in policing levels and incarceration rates, trends in burglaries, and statistically controlled for other possible confounding factors such as shifts in unemployment and poverty.

 

 

What was stark, added Prof Webster, was the rise in the number of handguns that subsequently found their way into the hands of criminals.

 

The team counted a doubling of handguns shortly after sale being recovered from scenes of crimes or from criminals.

 

"This study is compelling confirmation that weaknesses in firearm laws lead to deaths from gun violence," said Prof Webster.

 

Gun owners who have a much more solid grasp of the nature of the intrusions and petty tyrannies you are supporting with your slander and ridiculous statistical "arguments" are hearing that stuff from all over, and they are simply digging in their heels against anything you propose.

I've corrected you on this already, but I wonder if you realize that by referring to "gun owners" you're also referring to me. You continue to argue against some caricature in your head, and then further have the audacity to suggest I am the one using any sort of slander. A quick review of your and my posts in this thread makes clear to any reader which of us is using invective, vitriol, and character assassination to support our points instead of objective statistics and data.

 

That's the thing at a science site. Data is useful in discussion. Hand waving it away and dismissing it all as "ridiculous statistical arguments" doesn't negate that central fact.

 

I'm going to take the side, here, of honest and well-considered statistical argument, reasonable interpretation of things like the Constitution, etc - because I think the greater danger to the general US public and mine personally lies there, rather than in having too many guns floating around.

And you're welcome to that opinion, but as I've shared previously... That opinion is contrary to that held for decades (even centruries) by our very own supreme court justices trained and put in place to offer such interpretations.

 

The idea that the constitution guarantees the rights of individuals to own guns is itself debatable, but even if I stipulate such a guarantee exists, that guarantee does NOT mean there is no ability for gun ownership to be regulated in various ways... So your position actually fails on two separate and distinct fronts.

 

But again... You're welcome to your opinion that countless deaths of your fellow citizens, including a few hundred children every year, is less important than your unrestricted and unregulated desire to own and use firearms. I... a gun owner myself... welcome smart regulations like background checks that will save lives and potentially minimize the death of innocents, so long as it's done within reason.

 

This isn't some "those who give up liberty in pursuit of security deserve neither" position I'm espousing, and if you cannot see that then we are too far apart to realize any benefit or enjoyment from further discussion.

 

How do you explain the twin facts of universal support for background checks as an idea, and stubborn, intransigent, informed opposition to the actual proposals put on the political table?

Money in politics coming from those who don't wish to make less of it.

 

The failure of such proposals to pass is not a result of lack of support from the populace, but is instead much more likely the result of powerful lobbies and moneyed interests fighting anything and everything that will even remotely cut into the profits they currently reap by spreading propaganda and stoking fear and anxiety into the populace.

[overtone]

 

 

Super, but that doesn't change the fact that YOUR OWN SOURCE shows the trend beginning in 2006... 2 years BEFORE that.

No, 2006 is not two years before that. It exactly matches - the aftermath of Katrina, the depths of the Iraq War debacle, the loss of dominance in Congress, the beginning of the economic collapse (the onset of the foreclosure run etc) etc etc.

 

And you have looked at the sources, then? Good - time to retract you assertion above that no similar drop and bump in murder rates happened in the Confederate States bordering Missouri, including in the specific States you named.

 

Especially, note the anomalous and sudden drop in each State except Kentucky sometime in the early 2000s - that's one of the main factors the study failed to handle properly, and one that bears significantly on the validity of their conclusions. When climate change deniers do that - using 1998 as their base stat for arguing little or no warming trend since, say - you have no trouble spotting the problem.

 

 

 

Well, no. Sorry, but that's just wrong. Your argument would be better if you at least didn't misrepresent the work.

Any "misrepresentation" wasn't just me - it was also all the other people who quoted the study in this thread. Look at the posts above mine, drawing exactly the same conclusions and inferences.

 

 

I've corrected you on this already, but I wonder if you realize that by referring to "gun owners" you're also referring to me.

And I have corrected your misreading of my simple prose before, but apparently you haven't learned to actually read anything carefully yet - I did not refer to "gun owners" all, but gun owners who have a better grasp of the operations of petty tyranny and more wariness of bullshit dressed up as statistics than you demonstrate. "Aggregate" murder rates, elision of drug wars and political circumstances, baselines dominated by outliers with known influences - what keeps you from recognizing such garbage in this and one or two other politically hot button issues? You would never accept an argument like that in your field.

 

 

That opinion is contrary to that held for decades (even centruries) by our very own supreme court justices trained and put in place to offer such interpretations.

You can keep on saying that, but you never have and never will post a single example of any Supreme Court decision conflicting with any "opinion" of mine in this matter - there aren't any.

 

 

 

But again... You're welcome to your opinion that countless deaths of your fellow citizens, including a few hundred children every year, is less important than your unrestricted and unregulated desire to own and use firearms

This - again - from the guy complaining about strawmen and slander. And you wonder why people don't want to give you and your crowd regulatory authority over any aspect of their lives?

 

 

 

The idea that the constitution guarantees the rights of individuals to own guns is itself debatable, but even if I stipulate such a guarantee exists, that guarantee does NOT mean there is no ability for gun ownership to be regulated in various ways... So your position actually fails on two separate and distinct fronts

That the Constitution guarantees the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms is not debatable by reasonable people - it's a direct quote from the document, of the central clause of the 2nd Amerndment. As far as regulating such keeping and bearing, as all rights are regulated: Why does your reading comprehension take such a deep header in these matters? Who here has ever said anything even remotely opposed to the idea of sensible gun regulation? Nobody.

 

 

 

I... a gun owner myself... welcome smart regulations like background checks that will save lives and potentially minimize the death of innocents, so long as it's done within reason.

You and essentially everyone else involved in this entire issue, both on this forum and out in the big world, as has been posted in front of your eyes several times now. So?

 

 

How do you explain the twin facts of universal support for background checks as an idea, and stubborn, intransigent, informed opposition to the actual proposals put on the political table?

Money in politics coming from those who don't wish to make less of it.

The NRA is a nonprofit, largely funded by member contributions, royalites, contributions for training, etc. The Koch brothers and their pals, the Murdoch media and their allies, do not make money off of firearms - unlike big oil, defense contractors, etc, low end mass market firearms are not big advertisers in the major media or political power centers a la car manufacturers. The religious right makes little or no money from firearms.

 

Meanwhile, I have seen several major and wellfunded candidates for political office in my northern "liberal" State crash on the issue of gun regulation, against candidates with less money and stature, at the hands of voters who in interviews and polls openly disagreed with at least some of the NRA's stances on gun regulation.

[hypervalent_iodine]

overtone,

 

Your original claim, which is the claim that iNow was arguing against, was this:

 

 

That brief spike in "new gun" deaths in Missouri coincided with the election of a black President and a borderline hysterical run on guns throughout the Confederacy. If you recall, a spike in gun violence throughout the Bigot Belt was feared by lots of people, without reference to background checks etc - people were kind of going nuts out there, with that black face taking the oath of office and a black family walking into the White House through the front door as if they belonged.

 

 

iNow questioned your reasoning, stating that if that were true, you'd expect the same trend across the other bible belt states when Obama took office in 2008, when in fact you don't. You then attempted to counter iNow's post by producing statistics that showed a jump between the years 2006-2009. Obama took office in 2008. 2008 is two years after 2006. Perhaps you misinterpreted or misread exactly what iNow was responding to, but whatever the case, surely you can now see why he was disagreeing with your statement and why your response wasn't relevant to the initial claim?

[overtone]

which is the claim that iNow was arguing against,

Inow quoted what he was responding to, in the "origin" of the current tangential phase. I took that as the "original".

 

 

iNow questioned your reasoning, stating that if that were true, you'd expect the same trend across the other bible belt states when Obama took office in 2008, when in fact you don't.

Inow mistook or misrepresented my reasoning (as you just did, reaffirming my querulous complaint about sudden inability to read), and his objection was the contrapositive of your assertion there.

 

 

 

surely you can now see why he was disagreeing with your statement

Sure. Hence my complaints about reading comprehension - and, further, dishonesty in argument, not so much from Inow (who has a record of similar honest confusion, and a reasonable excuse from the nature of my post - too specific in its example ) but you, whom frankly I see no need to treat with civility other than to avoid threats of banishment.

 

But as I clarified things and forestalled any possible honest confusion later on, in posts 54 and 56, your further posting will be more in the nature of contribution to the actual discussion, I'm sure.

 

The immediate issue is the misuse of statistics by the article under discussion, back a page, and the implications of the gullibility of one the two polemical sides in this US political dogfight when presented with such "scientific" abuse of statistics in general. There seems to me to be a notable lack of self-awareness in this matter, among those persuaded by their own credentials and past experience of their automatic grounding in "scientific" evidence.

 

I posted links to raw data flatly contradicting the claims and inferences of both the authors of the paper and its relayers here, as a reference for an argument that needs no such backing in fact (since it is based on the structure of the reasoning and claims presented, and would hold regardless of the circumstantial context) because my experience here has shown that meaningless gesture to be necessary merely to get a reading from the self-described "scientific" types, but you needn't bother with them - simply dealing with the argument, rather than elaborate avoidance and/or rhetorical attack, would be completely sufficient.

Edited February 27, 2014 by overtone

[iNow]

You can keep on saying that, but you never have and never will post a single example of any Supreme Court decision conflicting with any "opinion" of mine in this matter - there aren't any.

Response to Greg, this thread, post #17 accessible at the following link (and other similar posts in other threads in the past):

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/?p=789430

No, 2006 is not two years before that. It exactly matches - the aftermath of Katrina, the depths of the Iraq War debacle, the loss of dominance in Congress, the beginning of the economic collapse (the onset of the foreclosure run etc) etc etc.

As Hypervalent_Iodine has already pointed out for you, you've done little more here than just move the goal posts.

[overtone]

 

 

Response to Greg, this thread, post #17 accessible at the following link (and other similar posts in other threads in the past)

Relevance?

 

Nowhere have I claimed that sawed-off shotguns are Constitutionally protected private weaponry, that gun regulation is unConstitutional. or that Warren Burger - without having the argument in front of him, in some informal context - always described accurately what a militia was. My claim was that contrary to your repeated but never supported claims no Supreme Court ruling has ever conflicted with my plain reading of the 2nd Amendment - to contradict that, you need to quote or otherwise post my reading and contrast a Supreme Court ruling that conflicts. I assert that you can't do that - notice that the recent Court rulings your sources (and you) claim are such dramatic changes in outlook overthrew not one precedent, reversed no former rulings.

 

 

 

As Hypervalent_Iodine has already pointed out for you, you've done little more here than just move the goal posts.

He's wrong, again. He pulls that shit on me occasionally - apparently as with you, but with less excuse, a comprehension problem.

 

If you aren't going to actually deal with a post, there's no point in quoting it.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Overtone

 

This stops now. You are simply not going to be allowed to continue to insult other members when they have the temerity to refute your arguments with facts and logic. In this thread and others you have made bold statements that seem to brook no miscomprehension; when they have been shown to be false you have resiled from your position and claimed a lack of ability to understand in your respondents. It is clear to everyone, save perhaps yourself, that you are merely moving the goalposts every time inconvenient evidence spoils your rhetoric.

 

Please learn to accept when you have made a factually inaccurate statement - then the thread can progress; your continued denial of any imprecision or unreliability in your assertions smacks of trolling and will not be tolerated. If you insist that this is a problem in comprehension then the fact that over the last six months some of the most learned and erudite members of this site have been subjects of your scorn might perhaps give a hint that, rather than the respondents' capacity to understand, it is your ability to convey an idea which is lacking.

 

Both insulting other members and the use of logical fallacies are forbidden - stop now.

 

Any response to this moderation within the thread will be moved to the trash can.

 

[iNow]

In the meantime (in hopes of dislodging us from this muck), I will share another clarifying point.

 

While SOME Americans clearly fear over-reach by the government and resist the implementation of background checks for reasons related to slippery slopes and perceived tyranny, by nearly every measure MOST citizens actually want them.

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx

Americans Wanted Gun Background Checks to Pass Senate

Sixty-five percent of Americans say the U.S. Senate should have passed the measure that would have expanded background checks for gun purchases, while 29% agree with the Senate's failure to pass the measure.

<...>

Prior to the Senate's failure to pass the measure, numerous polls showed that roughly nine in 10 Americans favor expanded gun background checks in concept -- a fact that a number of journalists, columnists, and politicians made note of. Gallup's Jan. 19-20 survey, for example, showed that 91% of Americans said they personally would vote for a measure requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales.

While reasons for opposition are clearly varied, I also stand by my previous suggestion that one of the top contending reasons laws surrounding background checks cannot seem to pass our legislature almost certainly has more to do with moneyed interests and lobbies than fear that this is the first step toward the "gubbmint taykin ahrr guhns."

[overtone]

If anyone has a reponse to what I've actually been posting, I will attempt to respond without in any way referring to any moderation - a bit difficult, considering, but we should be able to find some way to work around it, despite my obvious problems conveying ideas in such a manner that the moderators can comprehend them.

 

 

 

While SOME Americans clearly fear over-reach by the government and resist the implementation of background checks for reasons related to slippery slopes and perceived tyranny, by nearly every measure MOST citizens actually want them.

I have posted that exact assertion at least three times in this thread, and others have also posted it repeatedly - no one has posted anything contrary to it. It's a long and very firmly established and agreed fact, by everyone here.

 

I would actually go much further - I have posted the assertion that almost all of the Americans who are resisting backgorund checks and other such common sense laws in fact approve of them in abstract, and consider them good ideas, and favor them.

 

The issue is not what kinds of regularions most Americans would like to have in a better world, but why they so rigidly refuse to allow some Americans to establish them in this one. And simply waving one's hands and saying "money" or "lobbyists" does not settle the issue - as rich men with huge corporate funding and support have found out repeatedly in this country, money gets you nowhere without votes in a well publicized matter such as this one. How are the Federal House reps, say, getting the constituent votes?

Edited February 28, 2014 by overtone

[iNow]

What specific position do you feel has been ignored for which you'd like a response? Please summarize it for us in one or two clear sentences so we may proceed together in this discussion in a mature engaging manner.

Edited February 28, 2014 by iNow

[overtone]

 

 

What specific position do you feel has been ignored for which you'd like a response?

I'm simply registering my continued willingness to deal with actual responses to what I've actually posted here, should anyone ever be so moved, and my (uncertain) opinion that it can be done without in any way referring to any moderation - ie without being immediately trashcanned by a moderator.

 

In the meantime, that is as long as what I've been posting, repeating, and summarizing is still sitting there, there isn't much to add - just the other day in my town some politician advanced the argument that gun possession should be licensed based on an anaogy or comparison with driving licenses, and immediately afterwards another one proposed that commercial driver's licenses be suspended for men (or women) who fall to make their child support payments (a practive found elsewhere, such as in New Jersey).

 

And these folks make fun of gun owners who shoot themselves in the foot.

[iNow]

So, in other words, no. You refuse to summarize what point you'd like addressed... which position you feel has been ignored? Got it.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

overtone

Stop being so melodramatic. You were told not to respond to the moderation not that you cannot discuss the matters of the thread. Gun control can be discussed without reference to the rules of ScienceForums.net. There are substantive issues being discussed which you are quite at liberty to continue to debate; whereas the procedural issues are still not up for dispute.

...Any response to this moderation within the thread will be moved to the trash can.

 

[emphasis added]

 

If anyone has a reponse to what I've actually been posting, I will attempt to respond without in any way referring to any moderation - a bit difficult, considering, but we should be able to find some way to work around it, despite my obvious problems conveying ideas in such a manner that the moderators can comprehend them....

 

I'm simply registering my continued willingness to deal with actual responses to what I've actually posted here, should anyone ever be so moved, and my (uncertain) opinion that it can be done without in any way referring to any moderation - ie without being immediately trashcanned by a moderator....

[iNow]

I have posted at least four short, one or two sentence, synopses of claims, arguments, etc. The last two sentences of post 42, for example.. If you sincerely want to respond to any of them, take your pick.

Here are the last two sentences from post #42. Precisely what question have you asked that you feel are being ignored, exactly?

 

The current political fight, in other words, is not between reasonable people trying to make life better for us all and unreasonable people fixated on fantasies of firepower. There is plenty of irrationality and delusion and reflexive resort to coercive means to go around.

These are very clearly claims... assertions maybe... but not questions.

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

overtone, the rules in this forum are not really up to you to analyze, let alone in a public thread where the discussion can be derailed off topic. I assure you, no staff member works alone. We discuss and have consensus on actions, and if a note was posted, it is for your advisement, not for your discussion.

When we ask not to reply to moderation notes, we do not 'suggest' it. We require it so threads don't get derailed off topic.

The off-topic reply was removed. If you have a problem with moderation notes, use the "report" button to raise the issues to the staff's attention. Do not reply publicly.

[overtone]

'm simply registering my continued willingness to deal with actual responses to what I've actually posted here, should anyone ever be so moved, and my (uncertain) opinion that it can be done without in any way referring to any moderation - ie without being immediately trashcanned by a moderator

 

 

Stop being so melodramatic. You were told not to respond to the moderation not that you cannot discuss the matters of the thread.

 

 

The off-topic reply was removed.

Sigh. I put some effort into that one.

 

Oh well:

 

Take a look at this:

 

What specific position do you feel has been ignored for which you'd like a response?

{followed by, next post}

So, in other words, no. You refuse to summarize what point you'd like addressed... which position you feel has been ignored?

 

My response included this:

 

I have posted at least four short, one or two sentence, synopses of claims, arguments, etc. The last two sentences of post 42, for example..

Which although removed as "off topic" from me, and therefore out of context, I assume I can quote from somebody else?

 

Hopefully, then: Here is the punch line:

 

These are very clearly claims... assertions maybe... but not questions.

My apologies: I was unaware that the synopses, summaries, etc, of my claims and assertions as originally requested were supposed to be phrased as questions. Perhaps that is why you have overlooked them.

 

But I cannot repost them, apparently. . If you are genuinely interested, try substituting question marks for my various punctuation, and adjusting the grammar mutatis mutandis, in the several posts in which such summaries, synposes, etc, appear. Obviously I cannot promise a viable response, but I will try, and if you are quick enough you may see it.

 

The second paragraph of 45 sort of works, as do the first three sentences of the fourth paragraph of 51, the second sentence of 60, the first sentence of the fifth paragraph of 58, the first sentence of the first paragraph and the last sentence of the third paragraph of 54, the second sentence of the third paragraph and the first sentence of the fifth paragraph of 28, the eighth paragraph (two sentences) of 31, the third paragraph of 16, and the second or third (two issues) paragraphs of post 6. None of these have been dealt with, although moontanman has posted relevantly to them (and Greg H tangentially).

 

post 31, btw, contains the first statement on this thread of the fact that almost all Americans favor background checks for all gun sales and similar gun regulations - including a majority of NRA members, a majority of Republicans, and a majority of those who oppose all attempts to establish such regulations by the current Federal government or any existing State government.

Edited March 4, 2014 by overtone

[iNow]

Why does this have to be so hard? What specific topic do you wish me (or others) to address? What specific point do you feel is being overlooked, overtone? You've done the work of finding post numbers and paragraphs. Your failure to copy/paste or retype it here suggests you're merely interested in being difficult, not in having a mature discussion.

 

Since I DO desire a mature dialog, I'll hunt down your comments and hope to figure out what you think is being dismissed or ignored.

 

Second paragraph of post #45:

Adding to that was the impact of the 2nd Republican Crash, which hit Missouri very hard that year, and highlighting the spike was a lull in murders in Missouri during the previous couple of years - the lull, coincident with the invasion of Iraq as well as the passage of Missouri's "shall issue" conceal carry law, significantly more unusual statistically than the spike

This was nonsequitur from your previous point. As I already replied (as have others), you're merely moving the goal posts.

 

The study I shared regarded data as of 2008. You then cited some study with data as of 2006. When challenged, you replied with the above... trying to push it back further to 2003. It's all irrelevant to the study I shared and peripheral to the discussion actually taking place.

 

First three sentences of the fourth paragraph of post #51:

The central matter is this: essentially everyone - everyone - agrees that background checks on gun buyers are a good idea. So why do you suppose such a large and intransigent fraction of those favorable to background checks don't trust the gunphobics to set them up? Decades of clueless, mistaken arguments and heedlessly authoritarian pontificating have created an atmosphere of mistrust, increased every time some cop pulls a guy over just outside his driveway for not wearing a seatbelt, - and it's well earned. By the time you have revealed that you have no idea how guns work in self-defense, think resistance to tyranny means taking on the Federal army in war, and in the back of your minds would prefer that all guns be confiscated from private hands and only allowed to the trained agents of the State, a whole lot of people have become willing to put up with the evils of the current situation if that's the only way to prevent the greater evils of your programs and policies.

I also already replied to this. I shared that you are arguing against a caricature... a strawman. I asked if you felt that character assassinations and well poisoning were a valid substitute for reasoned discussion. I asked why you were leveling such comments toward me, what "evil policies" you felt I've been advocating, and asked you to clarify how any of this is relevant to ANYTHING I've said... For someone like you who is so sensitive to posts and comments being ignored, I find it curious that you yourself would so blatantly ignore this request for clarification from me.

 

Second sentence of post #60:

Nowhere have I claimed that sawed-off shotguns are Constitutionally protected private weaponry, that gun regulation is unConstitutional. or that Warren Burger - without having the argument in front of him, in some informal context - always described accurately what a militia was.

What precisely do you want me to say to that? Nobody suggested you had claimed such things. This appears to be further evidence that you're arguing against a fantasy in your head instead of any specific person or posts here.

 

First sentence of the fifth paragraph of post #58:

The immediate issue is the misuse of statistics by the article under discussion, back a page, and the implications of the gullibility of one the two polemical sides in this US political dogfight when presented with such "scientific" abuse of statistics in general.

You have asserted the article misuses statistics, but have done nothing to demonstrate the truth of your claim. You lob labels like "gullibility" and "political dogfight" and add scare quotes around the word "scientific" only to follow with further well poisoning weasel words like "abuse of statitistics." I'll be blunt with you. Your assertion was so specious that it didn't warrant response. If you genuinely believe the article misused statistics, then you have do more than simply say it. You have to show it. I wait with baited breath for you to do so...

 

 

I'm done chasing your wild geese. Either man-up and ask a specific question you'd like discussed, summarize what position you want addressed, or just stop posting already... Either way, even if you do nothing else... will you PLEASE for the love of Thor listen to the request from imatfaal and stop being so melodramatic?

Edited March 4, 2014 by iNow

[overtone]

 

 

You've done the work of finding post numbers and paragraphs. Your failure to copy/paste or retype it here suggests you're merely interested in being difficult, not in having a mature discussion.

No, it doesn't. If you want a less difficult approach, go find the post you quoted this

 

I have posted at least four short, one or two sentence, synopses of claims, arguments, etc. The last two sentences of post 42, for example.

from. That's my prefered approach.

 

Why does this have to be so hard? What specific topic do you wish me (or others) to address?

I don't want you to address anything I've posted. You have already provided sufficient illustration material for my arguments and evidence for my position.

 

Like this:

 

This was nonsequitur from your previous point.

No, it wasn't. In light of being informed thusly, please correct your misapprehension of my posting here.

 

As I already replied (as have others), you're merely moving the goal posts.

The central problem is that you don't know what the "previous point" was. The goal posts remain right where they have been since post 6.

 

But that is irrelevant anyway - there was the piece of evidence and the argument, right in front of you.

 

Adding to that was the impact of the 2nd Republican Crash, which hit Missouri very hard that year, and highlighting the spike was a lull in murders in Missouri during the previous couple of years - the lull, coincident with the invasion of Iraq as well as the passage of Missouri's "shall issue" conceal carry law, significantly more unusual statistically than the spike

Note that the lull mentioned there characterized every neighboring Confederate State except Kentucky, and invalidated the reasoning of the article at issue. How does that disappear for being a non sequiter? Now that you have quoted it, how about dealing with it?

 

 

 

You then cited some study with data as of 2006.

What are you talking about? What "study"?

 

 

You have asserted the article misuses statistics, but have done nothing to demonstrate the truth of your claim

Except, for example, posting the raw data that belies the claims made and posted here, and illustrates clearly (by happenstance, btw - no such demonstration was necessary or certain to exist ) one of the problems with the "aggregate" they used, for those who can't follow the argument I also posted. For starters.

 

I'm not sure what more can be done to demonstrate misuse of statistics, than posting the conflicting raw data, identifying specifically the error in the reasoning, identifying by example the deceptive effect (posts on this thread), and providing more valid reasoning supported by the data.

 

And after all that, the actual argument remains not even approached - the problems with that article were merely example, illustration, among several. The contention is that such misleading use of stats characterizes the authoritarian, and also characerizes a significant fraction of the gun curb promulgators - so that wariness of gun curb pushers becomes perfectly reasonable in the US, and not to be wondered at or unduluy maligned.

 

 

 

 

Nowhere have I claimed that sawed-off shotguns are Constitutionally protected private weaponry, that gun regulation is unConstitutional. or that Warren Burger - without having the argument in front of him, in some informal context - always described accurately what a militia was.

What precisely do you want me to say to that?

I want you to quit saying that my reading of the 2nd Amerndment is in any way contrary to any ruling the US Supreme Court has ever made.

 

Nobody suggested you had claimed such things

You did, when you claimed the Court decisions and other evidence you linked contradicted my claims. Those were the claims contradicted, and you said my claims were contradicted, so - - -

 

If you recall, you asserted that the Supreme Court had for two hundred years interpreted the 2nd Amendment in contradiction to my reading ot it. I observed that no Court decision has ever contradicted my reading of the 2nd Amendment (which is to be expected, since my reading is essentially direct quotation). You then posted links that you claimed contradicted my "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment. And that's what they were - Court rulings on sawed off shotguns, secondhand recountings of overheard and private conversations with Warren Burger, etc. No relevant rulings.

Edited March 4, 2014 by overtone

[iNow]

I don't want you to address anything I've posted.

Okay, I'm fine with that. It leaves me confused why you bothered suggesting that your arguments were being ignored if you "don't want me to address anything you've posted," but I'll accept this and move on.

 

 

The central problem is that you don't know what the "previous point" was. The goal posts remain right where they have been since post 6.

Except, you were responding to an article that I shared in post #44. That article is where the goal posts were established for this exchange, and it's odd you suggest otherwise. The article I shared referred to death by firearm between 2008 and 2012 in Missouri, not in neighboring states and not in earlier years (like 2006 to 2009).

 

Interestingly, in this discussion about moving the goal posts you are yet again trying to move the goal posts... this time, back to post #6. It's no wonder we're having a problem with miscommunication.

 

Note that the lull mentioned there characterized every neighboring Confederate State except Kentucky, and invalidated the reasoning of the article at issue. How does that disappear for being a non sequiter? Now that you have quoted it, how about dealing with it?

It's nonsequitur because I was referring to a jump in Missouri from 2008 to 2012, and you tried to counter with data from 2006 to 2009.

 

What are you talking about? What "study"?

I was referring to the data you cited here:

 

In Arkansas, Kansas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma - the Bigot Belt States with significant common border - we see definite jumps in the murder rate around 2006 - 2009. (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/okcrimn.htm, http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/tncrime.htm, http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/kncrime.htm, http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/arcrime.htm )With Kentucky (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/kycrime.htm)

 

 

Except, for example, posting the raw data that belies the claims made and posted here, and illustrates clearly (by happenstance, btw - no such demonstration was necessary or certain to exist ) one of the problems with the "aggregate" they used, for those who can't follow the argument I also posted.

This does not follow. You have posted data about a different time period entirely. You are moving the goal posts. You did the same when trying to pull us back to 2003 with mentions of Iraq war. It's a red herring, and nothing more.

 

And after all that, the actual argument remains not even approached - the problems with that article were merely example, illustration, among several. The contention is that such misleading use of stats characterizes the authoritarian, and also characerizes a significant fraction of the gun curb promulgators - so that wariness of gun curb pushers becomes perfectly reasonable in the US, and not to be wondered at or unduluy maligned.

You have yet to adequately support your contention that the data in the study from Missouri is flawed. You've repeated this accusation several times, but it remains accusation and has not yet breached the threshold of "fact." Oddly enough, this is another instance of you arguing that your opinion and personal interpretation (both of which you are welcome to hold) have somehow been established as factual (which they have not).

 

You've played word games to suggest the well referenced and controlled study about firearm deaths in Missouri between 2008 and 2012 is not trustworthy. You've cited data about entirely different time periods in some weak attempt at a bait and switch, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking you've demonstrated "problems with the article," offered any "examples or illustrations" of those supposed problems, nor that you have successfully demonstrated the study to be "misleading" or "authoritarian" or "unduly maligned" or any of the other weasel words you've been tossing around so liberally.

 

I want you to quit saying that my reading of the 2nd Amerndment is in any way contrary to any ruling the US Supreme Court has ever made.

"Ever" is a long time, my friend. Thanks for setting the bar so low for me. The answer is basically every decision before Heller in 2008, with maybe the exception of Emerson in 2002. It was not until 2008 in the Heller case that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of the individual rights theory, though. It was a BFD precisely because it was so contrary to existing precedent.

 

Here are three cases in support of my point that stand out immediately:

 

* United States v Miller

* Presser v Illinois

* Logan v. United States

 

 

You are basically here trying to impose a revisionist history to meet some agenda of your own. You can argue that those previous cases... cases prior to Heller... involved mistaken interpretations, but you cannot argue that their interpretations were aligned with your own (regarding protected right of individual ownership and inability of federal government to impose regulation).

 

While you are not alone in your interpretation, my point is that your interpretation is a relatively recent one... found really only during modern times... Your interpretation... your "opinion" on this... is contrary to that of our own supreme court and the justices sitting on it precisely to offer such interpretations... Justices beyond just Chief Justice Berger who favored an interpretation of the 2nd amendment contrary to the one you're here now suggesting is somehow fact and which you are here now suggesting has historically been so.

 

A better review can be found here: http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1311&context=lawreview

 

 

Frankly, this is all a bit overkill (or, at least it ought to be). You took a position and asserted your position was fact, not interpretation based. I have shared that you are mistaken. While you are welcome to your opinion and whle you are welcome to your personal interpretation, you cannot assert it as fact, especially since the opinions of Supreme Court Justices were contrary until the very recent past.

Edited March 4, 2014 by iNow

[overtone]

"Ever" is a long time, my friend. Thanks for setting the bar so low for me. The answer is basically every decision before Heller in 2008, with maybe the exception of Emerson in 2002.

You keep saying that, and it keeps on being simply wrong. Your generallizing without evidence seems to have confused you - to realize what's going on, try again (as you did in the sawed off shotgun decision et al) to find just one decision, and show how it contradicts my reading. Just one.

 

 

 

Here are three cases in support of my point that stand out immediately:

The rulings contain no language contradicting anything I've posted here, including my "interpretation" (mostly a direct quote, plus a review of the term "militia"). What is your point?

 

 

 

It was not until 2008 in the Heller case that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of the individual rights theory,

So? The matter hadn't even come up for two hundred years, one likely reason being that it was for all that time taken for granted as obvious. Only recently have any large number of public intellectuals called the obvious language into doubt, and most of that fuss seems to ride on unfamiliarity with what were ordinary terms at the time of the writing - everybody knew what a militia was, in the late 1700s. In the Revolutionary War they were the guys with the long rifles or fowling pieces brought from home, rather than the muskets shipped from France and provided to the Continental Army by the Government, for example. Do you see how people would assume for two hundred years that bringing a rifle from home requires that one's home contain a rifle to bring?

 

though. It was a BFD precisely because it was so contrary to existing precedent.

No precedent was overturned in the Heller decision. That is simply fact. Do you know what a "precedent" is ? Do you know how to tell when one has been overturned? One major characteristic is explicit reasoning dealing directly with the decision being reversed, and in particular naming that decision. That would be a good decision to quote, btw, in support of your contention above - unfortunately, it doesn't exist.

 

You have mistaken a recent and agenda-driven effort to read implications into various tangentially related rulings (such as the sawed off shotgun ruling above), for actual language of the Court.

 

So that was not at all why Heller was a big deal in the world of the gun rights hardliners, which is an important matter. Your mistaking that decision as somehow running contrary to the legacy of the 2nd Amendment is yet another brick on the pile of evidence that gun rights supporters have before them, indicating that gun curb advocates do not know what they are doing and should not be trusted with power.

 

Meanwhile, pointing to the obvious again: one obvious reason no precedent was overturned in that case is that no ruling on the question had ever been made. That is one obvious reason why I am safe in asserting that no ruling has ever contradicted my plain quoting of the main clause of the 2nd Amendment.

 

 

What are you talking about? What "study"?

I was referring to the data you cited here:

None of that data is from any "study". Those links are to raw data bases compiled by State governments.

 

 

 

This does not follow. You have posted data about a different time period entirely.

Your article argued from averages taken of the Missouri murder stats over five years before and five after the repeal of the Missouri law. (A ridiculously invalid argument base, as noted above with data support, but plenty persuasive to the gun curb crowd). The raw data sets I linked cover those years, in particular the five before and the five before them where the most damage to the article shows up, and many more (which is quite informative, btw). Adding years to the time period covered does not make it a "different time period entirely".

 

 

 

You have yet to adequately support your contention that the data in the study from Missouri is flawed.

For starters, I have made no such contention. It's not the data, but the analysis and conclusion that I argue is not merely flawed but flagrantly so - obviously bullshit. I'm talking about the treatment of the data, not the data: the mistakes made in "aggregating", the overlooking of significant circumstance, the pretention to thorough "control" that overlooks even famously obvious factors, the deceptive handling of neighboring States, and so forth. I have posted evidence and argument, both theory and example, establishing those flaws. Simply asserting inadequacy, without even an attempt at dealing with any of that, is empty. When such empty assertion begins by confusing "data" with an article's discsussion and conclusions, while following after several instances of posted factual error apparently inculcated by exactly those aspects of the analysis I objected to, it becomes evidence against itself.

Edited March 5, 2014 by overtone

[iNow]

I'm pretty bored with the continued disagreement.

 

Will you summarize for me what your position is regarding the 2nd amendment?

Will you summarize what I've advocated that you feel is evil and wrong?

 

At least if you answer those two questions, we might hope to return some joy to this exchange. Absent that, I have no interest in further discussion with someone who so readily asserts personal opinion as fact and who suggests anyone who holds a differing opinion is an idiot. It's the whole, "we can disagree without being disagreeable" thing. Can you, in fact, do that?