Discussion:
Lucky this bugger didn't have a gun - London Bridge attack
Add Reply
p***@hotmail.com
2019-11-30 11:18:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 08:14:36 +1100, in talk.politics.guns Dechucka
Nope but it was an effective weapon for dealing with a bloke with a
knife, not that effective against a gun. That is why in the US the
civilians run or hide or die or bleed when the crazies start firing
which is oh so common in that great country :-(.
Actually, unarmed civilians have stopped more shooters in ths US than
armed civilians have. If the person right beside the shooter acts
quickly, they're reasonably effective.
Really? How did they do that? Stand there and absorb the
flying bullets until the shooter ran out?

I'd like to hear more how this was accomplished.
Just Wondering
2019-11-30 18:05:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 12:18:23 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Really? How did they do that? Stand there and absorb the
flying bullets until the shooter ran out?
I'd like to hear more how this was accomplished.
No, you wouldn't.
Armed civilians stopping shooters are pathologically rare
Funny, the CDC which is hardly a gun-loving agency puts the
number at 500,000 to 2,000,000 defensive gun uses per year.
You can call that pathologically rare if you wish, most
people don't.
Just Wondering
2019-11-30 18:10:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 12:18:23 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Really?  How did they do that?  Stand there and absorb the
flying bullets until the shooter ran out?
I'd like to hear more how this was accomplished.
No, you wouldn't.
Armed civilians stopping shooters are pathologically rare
Funny, the CDC which is hardly a gun-loving agency puts the
number at 500,000 to 2,000,000 defensive gun uses per year.
You can call that pathologically rare if you wish, most
people don't.
Sorry, I remembered the upper limit incorrectly. The range is
500K to three (not two) million defensive gun uses per year.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
!Jones
2019-12-01 02:29:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 11:10:44 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Sorry, I remembered the upper limit incorrectly. The range is
500K to three (not two) million defensive gun uses per year.
JW, we already have an almost astronomical number of criminal gun use
in the US. Are you suggesting that it's *really* three million more
than that? If we're doing so well, we should be coming up in the
international statistics.
Just Wondering
2019-12-01 05:36:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 11:10:44 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Sorry, I remembered the upper limit incorrectly. The range is
500K to three (not two) million defensive gun uses per year.
JW, we already have an almost astronomical number of criminal gun use
in the US. Are you suggesting that it's *really* three million more
than that? If we're doing so well, we should be coming up in the
international statistics.
I'm not "suggesting", I posted a link to an article citing
an actual study. Funny you clipped it and then ignored it,
probably without reading it. That's the behavior of a troll.
!Jones
2019-12-01 19:36:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 22:36:41 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
I'm not "suggesting", I posted a link to an article citing
an actual study. Funny you clipped it and then ignored it,
probably without reading it. That's the behavior of a troll.
OK, let me describe how an intelligent consumer approaches something
like this.

First of all, every news medium has an editorial position... you may
call it a "bias" if you please. The New York Times has an editorial
bias, as does WaPo. I always ask: what is the editorial position of
this medium?

< QUOTE (from your news article) >
The liberal media are terrified of the truth, especially when it leads
to uncomfortable questions about their own leftist worldview.

CNSNews covers the stories that the liberal media are afraid to touch.
It drives the national debate through real, honest journalism — not by
misrepresenting, misquoting, or ignoring the facts.
< /QUOTE >

Right! OK, so I will expect to see them quoting NRA spokes-people and
generally touting their political philosophy; I was not long to be
disappointed:

< QUOTE >
"The findings of the CDC's study - that guns are an effective and
often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not
fatal - could affect the future of gun violence research." John
Frazer, director of research and information at the National Rifle
Association (NRA), told CNSNews.com.
< /QUOTE >

May I interject a couple of points?

Point 1) The "study" they're discussing was done by the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, not the CDC... but
one must read more closely than JW is likely to read before one will
find that little tid-bit buried down in paragraph six. They never
cite the original document; however, it may be accessed via:
https://www.nap.edu/login.php?record_id=18319&page=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nap.edu%2Fdownload%2F18319
(Before you waste bandwidth, please be aware that it's a 160-page
document without the bib.)

Point 2) It's not a "study"... it is an exhaustive literature review,
the stated purpose of which is to identify "Priorities for Research to
Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence" (which is its official
title). The document neither produces data nor states any "findings"
besides identifying weaknesses and recommending research priorities.

Point 2a) It's almost seven years old; the priorities may well
have changed?

Point 3) The document never says that there are or ever were three
million defensive gun uses per year (or even one, for that matter); it
says "a national survey" suggests that and then they cite Kleck (then
CNS changes that to "*all* national surveys...", which is true, I
suppose, since there is only one such survey). But, Kleck says only
that three million people would respond affirmatively to his survey if
it were run nationally.

Point 3a) The document points out Kleck's problem with
operational definitions: a "DGU" is an answer to a survey.

Point 4) In the original paper, there is an entire chapter dedicated
to "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home" which
documents a positive correlation between gun ownership and homicide
suggesting that a gun in the home might increase the probability of a
family member dying by gunfire.

But, JW didn't see that part because the only thing JW read was an
800-word blog article condensed by the NRA just for him... then, the
fool says *I* don't read.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-12-01 19:40:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 22:36:41 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
I'm not "suggesting", I posted a link to an article citing
an actual study. Funny you clipped it and then ignored it,
probably without reading it. That's the behavior of a troll.
OK, let me describe how an intelligent consumer approaches something
like this.
How on earth are you going to do that?

!Jones
2019-12-01 02:23:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 11:05:50 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Armed civilians stopping shooters are pathologically rare
Funny, the CDC which is hardly a gun-loving agency puts the
number at 500,0 00 to 2,000,000 defensive gun uses per year.
You can call that pathologically rare if you wish, most
people don't.
J.W., you have to read the study. Turn to chapter two: Kleck's title
is: "methodology". Therein, you will find a subtitle: "operational
definitions"... scroll down and you will find the study's definition
of a "DGU". (Kleck did not use the term "defensive gun use".) **A
DGU is an afirimative answer to a survey item in a cold-call anonymous
telephone survey.** (Actually, it's two survey items, but I don't
think that's important.)

Thus, if you were to run the survey nation-wide, you would be likely
to see 500,000 to 2,000,000 affirmitive, anonymous answers, AKA, DGUs.
You'd see something similar if you asked about interactions with UFOs.

If you're studying how people answer surveys, it's valid; otherwise,
it's meaningless.

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

There's a technique in surveying known as "inversion" that's commonly
used when the researcher suspects the data are skewed; instead of
asking: "Have you defended yourself?", you ask: "Have you been the
object of a defensive gun use?" Now, I'm way out on a limb, but I
suggest that the number of people who defended themselves will be
similar to the number of people against whom they defended. Now, the
numbers on the survey won't be close; however, it would give a
confidence level... so, let's say you came out with a 0.001 ratio; I'd
be flatly amazed! That's 500 probable defensive uses! (It's not as
impressive as two million, but it's something.)

I wrote to Gary Kleck and suggested that... haven't heard back because
we all know it'd be a flatline zero.

In short, you can't validate a single one... no names... no police
reports... just a bunch of anonymous survey answers.

I'm not impressed.

(Well, I am... just not the way you want.)
d***@gmail.com
2019-11-30 22:00:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 12:18:23 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Really? How did they do that? Stand there and absorb the
flying bullets until the shooter ran out?
I'd like to hear more how this was accomplished.
No, you wouldn't.
Armed civilians stopping shooters are pathologically rare; armed
civilians are usually the ones doing the shooting. (I've never heard
of an unarmed civilian committing a mass shooting.)
Some guys armed with box cutters took down two skyscrapers in New York
City and killed 3000+ people.
!Jones
2019-12-01 02:30:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 22:00:58 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns
Post by d***@gmail.com
Some guys armed with box cutters took down two skyscrapers in New York
City and killed 3000+ people.
Yeah... wasn't that on the news?
Loading...