Ask An Anti

[btg3]

Thanks bumm, I'll pass that along. My SIL says no guns in her house, but there's a pool and a hot tub off the back deck. (The upside to her position is that when dad died, his guns had to go with me rather than split with my brother, But bro' still mentions "his" guns on occasion, even if I'm the one who shoots 'em.)

 

[Mac45]

Anti's love the "If even one child/person is saved" argument.
Turn it around and ask her "If even one person is able to protect themselves from an attacker, isn't it worth it?"
Since your prof liked supported arguments, play the 911 tape of that lady in Indiana that killed a stalker while she was on the phone with the dispacher.
Graphic to be sure, but it does make people think.

 

[Crunker1337]

Make the point that, as long as we have indoor plumbing, guns are always going to be more available than any illegal drug you can think of; we can't stop people IN PRISON from getting or making functional firearms, so there's absolutely NO chance she's going to stop someone on the outside from getting them.

Well, that's debatable, but for us to do this we'd have to go 1984.

 

[ahellers]

I didn’t read all the posts so this may have been mentioned but...

I'd say take the high road, and don’t single out the girl for her "beliefs". If she feels its necessary to interrupt you then politely enlighten her by stating facts and staying on track. Remember we want people to like gun owners (and guns by extension), and nobody likes some one who acts arrogant and picks a fight.
That said bet of luck to you.

t

 

[JasperST5]

RPCVYemen

It's intellectually lazy to throw out a link and expect someone to do your research for you. Why not give us the best example that makes your point? Note, from the beginning of the first link:

"(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)"

Not to mention it's a five year old report by a bunch of college professors, shrinks and government employees, who most likely had their minds made up before they even started.

 

[RPCVYemen]

It's intellectually lazy to throw out a link and expect someone to do your research for you.

Whoa there, friend. You asked about some studies I had mentioned, and I provided you links to them. Why the hostility?

If you don't want to read them, don't read them. Why would it make any difference to me whether you chose to read them or not?

Why not give us the best example that makes your point?

I am not sure what you mean by "an example", or what you mean by "your point".

If by "example", you mean anecdotal evidence, there wasn't much anecdotal evidence in either report. Both were pretty dry statistical pieces. What example are you looking for.

I am a little baffled by what you are calling "your point". What did you think was my point.

My point was that two extensive studies I had read - neither of whom took funding from either "pro" or "anti" groups - had been unable to find any correlation between firearms legislation ("gun control" or "carry"), and rates of crime.

If my point is that two such studies exist, and I give you links to those studies, haven't I exactly and precisely proved my point? How else could I prove that such studies exist? I am puzzled.

Note, from the beginning of the first link:

"(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)"

Not sure what you point is here. The quotation you cite is one of the things I like about the report. The authors of the report are being careful diligent scientists - that quote was one of things about the report that convinced it was not light weigh propaganda, but a real enquiry.

Most of the work of real science is about disproving things, not about "proving" them. The core of the scientific method the attempt to refute a hypothesis. Beginning with some conjecture, a scientist specifies some test and evidence that will show that the conjecture is wrong.

The classic example the relativity experiment during an eclipse in Africa in the early part of the last century. Einstein had predicted that light would be "bent" by the gravitational field of the sun. Men went to Africa and found that in fact, light rays were bent by the gravitational field of the sun. Did they prove that Einstein's theory was correct? Not precisely. The light could be bent by some other force.

However, since Einstein had said that the light be bent as it went by the sun, if the light had failed to bend, his theory would have been refuted. When the expedition came back from Africa, the strongest scientific claim that could be made is that Einstein's theory had not been refuted.

The search for evidence that refutes a hypothesis is what distinguishes science from pseudo-science (alchemy, astrology, geomancy, creationism). Pseudo-science searches only for evidence that confirms a hypothesis, science searches largely for evidence that refutes a hypothesis.

The CDC study refuted the conjecture(s) that firearms legislation had an effect on rates of crime. However, the authors were very carefully expressing the limitations of science - the fact that they refuted the hypothesis that these kinds of legislation were effective is not at all the same as saying that they confirmed the hypothesis that legislation was ineffective.

Not to mention it's a five year old report by a bunch of college professors, shrinks and government employees, who most likely had their minds made up before they even started.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? Do you see errors on methodology and or evidence? Or is this like an all knowing ESP thing for you?

Later - I have poor mistreated Blackhawk that needs clearning, and a bunch of empty brass in front of me that needs filling.

Mike

 

[Superlite27]

I am a huge fan of pointed questions that lead to a mental "cul-de-sac". Here are some good "logical traps" I have invented for anti-gunners:

"Since the national average police response is over four minutes, If a murderer kicks in your door at 3 a.m., what would be a better choice, grabbing a gun or calling the police?"

"If guns are so evil and dangerous, why do we allow police officers to carry the things?"

"Why would the framers insert a collective 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights when all the other amendments apply to individuals?"

These types of questions require lengthy, complex thought in order to answer without sounding completely illogical. When the venue calls for an instant response (such as in front of a classroom) a person would have to have an instant ability to redirect the thought processes of the audience. Very hard to do. The most likely outcome will be a pause (while the person tries to mentally steer around the problem) followed by a completely numbskull answer sounding biased and completely illogical.

Give one a try and watch the fun unfold!

 

[GlenJ]

If guns are so dangerous then why are Jerry Garcia, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Elvis Presley, Jim Morrison and Anna Nicole Smith all dead and Ted Nugent is still alive?

 

[benEzra]

If she brings up the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, point out that rifles are not a crime problem in the United States and never have been:

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%


All rifles combined account for only half as many murders annually as shoes and bare hands, never mind knives and blunt objects.

For your state of Colorado, there were 156 murders in 2006; all rifles combined (including AR-15's, civilian AK lookalikes, FAL's, SKS's, etc., plus all .22's and all hunting rifles) accounted for exactly zero according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

If the subject of "you don't need X for hunting," point out that the vast majority of lawful gun owners (4 out of 5) are not active hunters, and that the #1 reason the law-abiding own guns is self-defense, followed closely by recreational and competitive target shooting--and the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch includes the most popular centerfire target rifles in the United States.

Backup data on the percent of hunters comes from http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/FHW01.pdf, which shows 13.0 million licensed hunters over the age of 16 as having hunted in 2000. If you add in hunters under 16, you get ~14.7 million active hunters in 2000. I don't have a link to the Census Bureau report for 2006, but National Geographic says the Census Bureau number for 2006 is 12.5 million:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-11/hunters/poole-text-p8.html

so say around 14.2 million people hunted in 2006 if you add in hunters under 16. Add a couple million more for states that let people over 65 hunt without licenses, and for lifetime licenses, and you still end up around 16 million. 16 million out of 80 million is 1 in 5.

 

[armedandsafe]

According to the FBI Unified Crime Statistics Report, each year an average of 16,000 women successfully defend themselves from rape by using a gun in self-defense, and then report the incident to police.
Question: If you ban all guns, how do you propose to protect those 16,000 women each year?

According to the FBI Unified Crime Statistics Report, each year approximately 374,000 Americans use a gun lawfully and legally to defend themselves from crime and then make a police report of the incident. If you ban all guns, how do you propose to defend these 374,000 Americans?

According to FBI published statistics, 374,00 Americans defend themselves with a gun each year and then report that defense to the police. This includes a yearly average of 16,000 women who defend themselves against rape and then report that defense to the police. Are you saying that it is better that these 374,000 citizens be robbed, murdered and/or raped than for them to have a gun to defend themselves?

Pops

 

[JasperST5]

RPCVYemen

Whoa there, friend. You asked about some studies I had mentioned, and I provided you links to them. Why the hostility?

If you don't want to read them, don't read them. Why would it make any difference to me whether you chose to read them or not?

Why are you assuming hostility when all I asked was to post the best example instead of simply posting a link?

I am not sure what you mean by "an example", or what you mean by "your point".

If by "example", you mean anecdotal evidence, there wasn't much anecdotal evidence in either report. Both were pretty dry statistical pieces. What example are you looking for.

You don't know what an example is?
Your assertuon is that the opinion piece is gospel and should remain unchallenged. I don't share your mindset and I asked for the best example instead of me spending a week going through each claim. That's a reasonable request.

I am a little baffled by what you are calling "your point".

What did you think was my point.

My point was that two extensive studies I had read - neither of whom took funding from either "pro" or "anti" groups - had been unable to find any correlation between firearms legislation ("gun control" or "carry"), and rates of crime.

If my point is that two such studies exist, and I give you links to those studies, haven't I exactly and precisely proved my point? How else could I prove that such studies exist? I am puzzled.

I see the problem then. I asked you to pick what you thought was their strongest point since I don't already believe it and you thought I was asking if any written opinions differed from mine. Just to clarify, why don't you pick out what you think is their best example, since I believe it's based on bull****, so I can refute it?

 

[RPCVYemen]

Just to clarify, why don't you pick out what you think is their best example, since I believe it's based on bull****, so I can refute it?

They are "study of studies" methodology kinds of paper. I still don't know what you mean by giving you an "example" from a statistical paper. I guess you're not going to tell me either.

That's OK.

I think that I misread your original comment. When you said,

You've seen different statistics than me. Everyone I've seen says violent crime goes down where CCW is more prevalent.

I thought you were expressing intellectual curiosity - "I haven't read the studies you're talking about. Where are they?"

I now understand that you intended your comment as a invitation to some kind of high school debate format - "You show me your strongest point and I'll knock it down, by golly."

Debates bored me to tears in high school, and they still bore me. I don't have any strong objection to them - its like objecting to badminton or water polo. But I don't find it very interesting to watch, much less participate.

If you do want to read the studies, you have the links. If you don't want to read the studies them, don't. Doesn't make a lot of difference to me.

Have a good week.

Mike

 

[The Unknown User]

- Why do you support the civil liberties of a person attempting to infringe upon the same civil liberties of another human being?

- Is gun control about the guns or about the control?

- Gun control isn't really about saving lives, is it? It's about imposing your views on others, right? If it was about saving lives, why aren't you against motor vehicles, swimming pools, and lightning? Lightning kills people. Go ban that.

- Why do you have fire detectors installed in your home? Why do you have your sexual partner wear a condom? Why do you wear a seatbelt in your motor vehicle (that could potentially be used to kill or injure another human being)?

- Do you just want to make it easier for criminals to commit their crimes?

 

[JasperST5]

They are "study of studies" methodology kinds of paper. I still don't know what you mean by giving you an "example" from a statistical paper. I guess you're not going to tell me either.

That's OK.

No it isn't OK. You picked the wrong place to make the assertion and are obfuscating instead of answering. I asked for the best example on the sites instead of me addressing the entire two pages. As I said before, it's intellectual dishonesty.

I now understand that you intended your comment as a invitation to some kind of high school debate format - "You show me your strongest point and I'll knock it down, by golly."

It was an invitation to support your assertion. Instead, you obfuscated and insulted. You aren't ready for a high school debate.

 

[Shooter57]

Back on topic now. Try some photos of victims, ask if you can give your report right after hers. also have reports of women that defended theirselfs. Make sure you can give refrence location to your info. You should do fine if prepared.

 

[Rachen]

Ask her about 'Gun Town USA' who had 25 years without a single murder and a crime rate that plummeted after a law required residents to own a firearm.

That about sums it all. I think using Gun Town aka Kennesaw will be WAAY too much electricity for her fragile brain to handle. But have it ready just in case. And have a fire extinguisher on hand too, just in case the circuitry goes up in flame.

I wish I could just pack my bags and move to Kennesaw right now. I'll build me a nice cabin right on the fringe of town, so I can go into the backwoods to hunt whenever and wherever the law permits.

 

[RPCVYemen]

..., but a study by David McDowall, Brian Wiersema and Colin Loftin, published in the journal Sociology and Social Research1 argues that Kennesaw's crime statistics show that rather than a decrease, there was a statistically insignificant increase in crime afterward.

//...

Here are the facts. In 1982, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1983, after passing their mandatory gun ownership law, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1986, there were 70.

You might want to read more before you pack your bags.

I can't find a copy of the study on the web, but it seems to be cited by a number of other scholarly articles. Since I can't find a copy of the article being referenced, I can't evaluate it. But I would be skeptical of the claim that that "the crime rate plummeted" unless and until I read the article that claims the opposite.

Here's the citation:

McDowall, D., B. Wiersema, and C. Loftin (1989). "Did mandatory firearm ownership in Kennesaw really prevent burglaries?" Sociology and Sociological Research, 74: 48-51.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

BTW, does anyone know hoe to search the FBI UCR for small towns? The matters of fact should be verifiable. The only search engine I could find on the web is limited to towns bigger than 100000. I gather Kennesaw is 20K.

Mike

 

[Rachen]

Quote:
..., but a study by David McDowall, Brian Wiersema and Colin Loftin, published in the journal Sociology and Social Research1 argues that Kennesaw's crime statistics show that rather than a decrease, there was a statistically insignificant increase in crime afterward.

//...

Here are the facts. In 1982, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1983, after passing their mandatory gun ownership law, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1986, there were 70.

You might want to read more before you pack your bags.

I can't find a copy of the study on the web, but it seems to be cited by a number of other scholarly articles. Since I can't find a copy of the article being referenced, I can't evaluate it. But I would be skeptical of the claim that that "the crime rate plummeted" unless and until I read the article that claims the opposite.

Whoah, that can't be. However, do they consider "burglaries" as violent crime? These incidents were just probably break ins and shuffling about, not to the point of being called "violent crime". A burglary can be violent, or it can be just some petty thievery. It depends on how the compilers of the vidence regard it in their own view.

I like to do more reading on that.

 

[Tropical Buzz]

"Since the national average police response is over four minutes, If a murderer kicks in your door at 3 a.m., what would be a better choice, grabbing a gun or calling the police?"

"If guns are so evil and dangerous, why do we allow police officers to carry the things?"
...
These types of questions require lengthy, complex thought in order to answer without sounding completely illogical.

One of the most common fatal flaws in any defense is the underestimation of the enemy and constructing your strategy around the premise that the enemy is inherently less intelligent, motivated and capable than you are. Be careful that a couple of off the cuff answers to those two questions don't leave you requiring some lengthy, complex thought in order to answer without sounding completely illogical.

Answer #1 - I can fix that by installing double bolted security entrance and bedroom doors for less money than a lawyer would charge me after shooting somebody in my house.

Answer #2 - Some military personnel can carry rocket launchers and grenades. The police are also allowed turn on a siren and rush through traffic. Are you suggesting we should let everyone do those things too?

- Buzz, the devil's advocate

 

[RPCVYemen]

Whoah, that can't be. However, do they consider "burglaries" as violent crime?

That's why I'd like to take a quick look at the raw stats. But I can't seem to find a link for the FBI UCR stats that lets me look at a town as small a Kennesaw.

It would also be useful to know the magnitude of the other stats - particularly for a small town. I had a friend who grew up in a small town in Iowa, where there was one murder in the whole time he grew up. So in that year, the murder rate went up by an infinite percentage. The year after the murder,the rate went down by an infinite percent!

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

One of the most common fatal flaws in any defense is the underestimation of the enemy and constructing your strategy around the premise that the enemy is inherently less intelligent, motivated and capable than you are.

Hear, hear.

That is an extraordinarily common error on THR gun "debates". One of the things

I have noticed about very effective debaters is that they have the ability to understand the weak points of any argument, including their own.

As I recall, the debaters in high school did not know until the day of the debate which side they were going to be required to support. I think they were given a proposition and on the day of the debate they flipped a coin to find out if they were "affirmative" or "negative". That's one of the things that made debating sort of boring - but the really good debaters quickly learned the strengths and weaknesses of any argument.

If you post an argument in a gun (or any other) debate, you had better be able to shoot down that argument. If you can't you probably haven't thought about it very hard.

Mike

Mike

 

[Shooter57]

Crime Statistics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

City of Kennesaw 1981 (Year Before Gun Law Passed)
Population: 5,242
Total Part 1 Crimes: (per 100,000 pop): 4,332

City of Kennesaw 2005
Population: 28,189
Total Part 1 Crimes (per 100,000): 2,027 -7% from 2004

U.S. Average 2005
Total Part 1 Crimes per 100,000: 3,899

Summary: Although the population of the City of Kennesaw and surrounding area has increased dramatically since 1981, on a per capita basis crimes rates were actually lower in 2005 than in 1981.

Note: To control for population differences and make comparisons between jurisdictions more accurate and meaningful, index crimes are reported at the rate per 100,000 persons.

Part 1 crimes consist of: Murder, Non-Negligent Manslaughter, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny, Auto Theft and Arson.

For more information on F.B.I. UCR Crime Statistics Click Here


Newest I could find with a quich search.

 

[Superlite27]

Tropical Buzz,

Be careful that a couple of off the cuff answers to those two questions don't leave you requiring some lengthy, complex thought in order to answer without sounding completely illogical.

Very good point. I do agree that these can backfire. Yet, I'm not assuming that the person asked is less intelligent, I'm just "gambling" that between the pressure of being in front of everyone, and the requirement for a short reponse time, the probability of a well thought out reply will be very low.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the person asked these questions could come up with the same excellent answers that you did in the same time frame? How long was that? Could a person realisticly take this long to think of them in front of a waiting audience?

Another point is that the speaker will be providing an answer, not another question. Since this isn't a debate, the person asking these questions will most likely not receive any in return. Hence, no need to respond to an off the cuff reply by the speaker.

 

[RPCVYemen]

For more information on F.B.I. UCR Crime Statistics Click Here

Can you re-post the URL? It didn't come through.

Thanks,

Mike