Pages

Jump to bottom

54 comments

1 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 2, 2014 6:51:35pm

Okay I am truly confused. In my Dashboard with a functioning perfect preview I have the page. But above it has been truncated. huh. Renaming this Part One.

2 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 2, 2014 7:42:13pm

Just weird. In preview the whole Page shows just fine.
Okay fiddled with a link and it’s all good.

3 William Barnett-Lewis  Jun 2, 2014 8:17:34pm

Glad it’s back. Good page.

Self defense is a human right. The question I have often asked myself is if the mechanism of that defense is a right or a privilage? That is, I can defend myself but is my choice of _HOW_ determined by the social contract? If it is, then there is a very differnt understanding of the 2nd Amendment that applies.

I don’t know. I’ve played devil’s advocate more than once in both directions. I still have my CCL though and will keep it until, at least, my son is 18 and can chose to defend himself or not.

4 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 2, 2014 8:30:40pm

re: #3 William Barnett-Lewis

Thanks. From recent conversations on the topic I resolved to clear the air about a few points of contention. Took a little time but I anted to make where I am at more clear.

In my view what should determine what we would be allowed to have for self defense would be something that can at least deal with the incoming threat. Bad guys have guns so until I can buy my magik stun beam gun I figure I get to have a similar scale gun. No RPG for holding off home invaders, lol.

Social contract (to me) means I pick something unlikely to over penetrate walls and such. No need for my defense to put the guy down the street at risk. No full auto. No crazy huge caliber.

But that contract goes two ways. I get some concessions as well. Like some legal room to prevail in the fight and not wind up in prison. Or maybe deaf. That last one is really tricky.

5 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 2, 2014 8:39:13pm
The FBI interest in disseminating these numbers includes helping us understand the day to day risk of being a victim,

They don’t. National statistics have no bearing, zero, nada, zip, niente, not a single thing, on individual risk. The danger of being murdered as, say, a retired hedge fund guy out in the Hamptons and a young black male in whatever hellhole has replaced Cabrini Green are entirely different.

This is a core part of honest and responsible use of statistics, not to apply a broad trend to an individual.

The only way to assess individual risk is by looking at individual circumstances, not by applying national numbers.

The VPC looks like a shitty advocacy group intentionally cherrypicking only research that agrees with them. Their argument is a weak one.

There is not ever going to be a way to get to a real number of defensive gun uses. It’s simply not possible, because it depends on surveys from people who have a vested interest in presenting a story one way or another. We at best will have a hazy guestimate.

Most people in the US live in very safe communities; the ghettos and other danger zones skew the murder rate quite a bit. In addition to that, the majority of murder that most people face is from their spouse, close friend, or relative, and most of the time that murder is not one that could be defended against with a gun.

For a lot of people, the idea of a gun as a self-defense weapon is simply not in line with statistical reality: they have very low chances of being attacked. The national numbers are not how you figure out your danger, any more than your chance of cancer is based on the national average for cancer. It matters if you’re a pack a day smoker who worked in heavy industry vs. someone with no cancer in their family history who lives a healthy life.

If you want to honestly address this topic, then it’s important not to pretend the national numbers can inform us about the risk of any individual: that’s not how statistics work.

6 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 2, 2014 8:48:49pm

re: #5 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

If you want to honestly address this topic, then it’s important not to pretend the national numbers can inform us about the risk of any individual: that’s not how statistics work.

This is an honest Page, speaking only of course for what I wrote. And in clear answer to your point an excerpt from above.

To me any national statistics are just the start. We each have to consider our own local conditions and personal circumstance. Our risks, and our aptitudes. our willingness and ability to use whatever we decide upon really well.

7 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 2, 2014 8:54:46pm

re: #5 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Somewhere between people that carry valuables or really have a dangerous stalker problem or a very dangerous local situation and the vapid rich guy with alarms and security in a gated community is a place where it makes sense to say below here, the gun is unwise, above here, yes train up and get the gun.

We would put that line in different locations. At least we agree it’s there somewhere.

8 William Barnett-Lewis  Jun 2, 2014 8:58:20pm

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I really wish the two of you would find a way to talk _TO_ each other rather than _PAST_ each other as you have _BOTH_ been doing for months now (since Sandy Hook really).

No you don’t agree. No you never will.

DEAL WITH IT!!!

9 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 2, 2014 9:01:12pm

re: #8 William Barnett-Lewis

I’m fine with agreeing to disagree. Obdicut called that a cop out.
*sigh*

10 allegro  Jun 2, 2014 9:12:27pm

Let me share a story….

In my single 20s I went on a date with a man I met at a friend’s party. Liked him a lot, seemed like a great guy. After our date, I invited him in to my apartment for a nightcap. By now, considering the topic, surely you can see where this is going.

In fact, I did have a gun. I had a Remington bolt-action rifle I used on the job as a federal wildlife biologist. Even if it had been loaded, I could not access it. I’m actually quite grateful for that because if I could have gotten to it, and had I used it to prevent being raped as I was, I would have ultimately been arrested and probably had my life trashed with a prison sentence. Maybe worse. It could have been used against me. Probably would have even since I had never been in a physical fight in my life, even as a kid, and had no idea how to defend myself.

My story is one of the most common scenarios of rape in this country. Those rape statistics above? Most of those are committed by friends, family, dates. Guns are no defense. Even if a rape is prevented, is arrest and prison an improved outcome? Because I guarantee a woman who uses one for defense will end up behind bars.

Let’s look at those murder statistics. How many of those are deaths by guns? I can reasonably surmise that most are in the US. How many might have been prevented by guns in defense? Logic tells me that number is very, very small. The attacker always has an enormous advantage. Which victims of last week’s CA shooting had any chance at all, even if armed? They were walking down the street or shopping in a convenience store when a bullet suddenly ended their lives. Even those who might have been carrying would still be dead thanks to our sick gun culture.

Love your guns. Nothing stopping you. But know that you are part of the problem the more you try to defend the gun culture and argue that we all need guns to defend ourselves from that culture.

11 kirkspencer  Jun 2, 2014 9:19:34pm

I object to a particular line:

So why no apparent interest in unarmed self defense incidents? In principle self defense is the same regardless of the weapon or lack of one.

Unarmed self defense is not lethally oriented. Armed self defense is (usually) lethally oriented. The exception to the latter is weaponry designed as less-than-lethal.

The further significant difference firearms bring to the equation is range. With most weapons, the implicit threat exists in two stages: warning and threat. Warning is “I have the potential to harm you, but can not do so unless one of us escalates by closing range.” A firearm has no such warning zone. It moves the situation from “self defense” to “mutual threat.”

Note that I’m not saying firearms are a bad self-defense option with this statement. I am saying that arguing that firearms and fists or even firearms and clubs or blades are the same for self defense is wrong.

12 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 2, 2014 9:19:56pm

re: #10 allegro

Thank you for your heartfelt post. I’m very sorry to hear of that awful thing to have happen. I respect your choice sincerely.

13 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 2, 2014 9:26:59pm

re: #11 kirkspencer

One line? I’ll take it. Good point too.

14 kirkspencer  Jun 2, 2014 9:31:30pm

re: #13 Rightwingconspirator

One line? I’ll take it. Good point too.

heh - you aren’t following, I think. Because they’re significantly different it weaken your thesis: that “Focusing on guns is a terribly distorted way to look at self defense.”

15 allegro  Jun 2, 2014 9:55:56pm

I have no interest in or use for sympathy. I apparently didn’t make the point of my post clear: guns are not effective weapons of self defense. What I do have interest in is serious gun control and a fundamental change in attitude in our culture that will protect all of us from the ‘responsible’ gun owners whose guns are terrorizing, injuring, and killing people. Every. Single. Fucking. Day.

I told the story a few days ago of an asshole here in the RV park where I live deciding to play with his arsenal in the middle of the night with a bullet whizzing through a rig and past a woman’s head as she slept in her bed. Or maybe I should talk about the guy who decided to empty his gun a few times at Hurricane Ike outside of my hotel room door, resulting in the police being called and having to deal with this bullshit during the most violent and dangerous part of the direct hit storm. There was no self defense in either of these incidences - it was just assholes and their “toys.”

Now we have assholes with their deadly toys wanting to take them shopping and to restaurants and bars with laws permitting them to do so. More of these ‘responsible’ gun owners we hear so much about.

Where the ever-loving fuck does it end?

16 Renaissance_Man  Jun 3, 2014 3:09:45am

This article out of Harvard is much more germane, I think.

It specifically does not attempt to put a number to national Defensive Gun Uses, as self-reported gun uses will never be reliable data. It notes also that surveys of this kind will report higher statistics than national crime databases, due to people reporting gun uses where a crime was not reported.

However, it is also the only survey to ask open-ended questions about the gun uses, and to ask questions about both gun victimisation and defensive gun uses. And the findings are quite telling.

Firstly, the majority of reported gun uses come from a very tiny number of people. They note that 68% of the gun uses come from six people total. Most of these were included in order to have a generous sample of gun uses, and they also included incidents where the respondent refused to give any details of the incident, or where it is not clear if the suspected assailant even knew if the defender had a gun. They were more stringent about what counted as a hostile gun display, and more generous about what counted as a defensive gun use. We can only guess how accurate numbers of defensive gun uses are when 3% (6/152) of the respondents report 68% of the gun incidents.

The most telling part of the study, however, is where the gun uses are separated into hostile, aggressive acts and defensive uses, and a panel of five judges are given the descriptions of the events (which, remember, are from the point of view of the defender, and thus may well be biased in favour of that person) and asked whether they were probably legal or illegal. The judges were told to assume that the person was describing the event honestly and had all legal permits to own and/or carry the gun. Even with all of that, the majority of the defensive gun uses were rated by a majority of the judges as ‘probably illegal’.

Their conclusions are that the aggressive and threatening uses of firearms in the US are far more common than defensive gun uses, and that even those defensive gun uses are more often than not probably illegal.

I like this study because it’s the only one I’ve seen that really tries to evaluate hostile and threatening gun uses vs defensive uses. It also notes, without making judgements, that so many of these reported uses come from a very few individuals. Maybe these guys really are in constant urban combat and the rest of us are blissfully untouched by crime. I suspect the reality is that a few idiots who happen to be armed like to live in a fantasy world, but even that does not statistically change things significantly on a national scale. What does matter on a national scale, however, is that there are an awful lot of guns out there. And a lot of scared people who think that guns make them safer. And, as a result, there are a lot of incidents where someone goes for a gun and escalates a situation into violent and possibly lethal conflict where such lethal force is completely and totally unnecessary and inappropriate. And the results are lots and lots of people getting shot, simply because there are far too many people out there with guns who think they need them.

17 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 3, 2014 4:32:49am

re: #6 Rightwingconspirator

This is an honest Page, speaking only of course for what I wrote. And in clear answer to your point an excerpt from above.

Which is why citing the national numbers at all is completely pointless.

hat should one make of the crime clock? Or the DGU incidents? That’s up to each of us. The FBI interest in disseminating these numbers includes helping us understand the day to day risk of being a victim,

This is not true. It’s not up to each of us: if someone uses national numbers to assess their risk as a victim, they’re fucking up. The FBI does not disseminate these numbers to help us understand the day to day risk of being a victim. That is not the purpose of these numbers and presenting them as though they are is inaccurate at best.

re: #7 Rightwingconspirator

Somewhere between people that carry valuables or really have a dangerous stalker problem or a very dangerous local situation and the vapid rich guy with alarms and security in a gated community is a place where it makes sense to say below here, the gun is unwise, above here, yes train up and get the gun.

We would put that line in different locations. At least we agree it’s there somewhere.

Sure. And you also have to consider how many of those people really will ‘train up’, how many will actually responsibly own the gun.

But even with a generous interpretation of risk, the majority of people are not at risk of an attack that they could defend themselves against with a gun.

18 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 3, 2014 6:30:06am

re: #17 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

The majority of people are at very small risk. To say none overstates.

19 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 3, 2014 6:40:55am

re: #18 Rightwingconspirator

The majority of people are at very small risk. To say none overstates.

Well, it’s a good thing neither I nor anyone else said ‘none’, then, isn’t it?

20 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 3, 2014 6:51:25am

re: #19 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Well, it’s a good thing neither I nor anyone else said ‘none’, then, isn’t it?

Right you declared “not at risk”.

Where was this homeowner in your risk scale?

kcci.com

Police said that shortly after 6 a.m., a man knocked on the front door of a Coalville resident. The man cut the homeowner in the neck with a knife.

The homeowner then used a handgun to fire three shots into the man’s torso. The suspect managed to drive five miles away from the scene on Old Mill Road, just south of Fort Dodge, where police ultimately found him.

The alleged robber was airlifted to a Des Moines hospital, and the homeowner was taken to a hospital in Fort Dodge.

Webster County Sheriff Jim Stubbs said he believes the man was attempting to rob the home.

While charges are pending, police said the homeowner was acting in self-defense.

21 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 3, 2014 7:08:44am

re: #20 Rightwingconspirator

Right you declared “not at risk”.

Yes. When you say someone is ‘at risk’, that means that they have a higher than normal chance of it happening to them. When someone is ‘not at risk’, they have a low risk of it happening to them.

in the US, people are at a ‘high risk’ of being attacked when they live in horrible neighborhoods with a ton of crime, when they have a high-risk job like diamond courier or bail bondsman. They are ‘not at risk’ when they live a normal job and live in a sleepy suburb in the Bay Area.

If you want to declare some semantic victory because I used a colloquialism, have a it.

And I’m sorry, i don’t understand the point of the random anecdote. I thought the purpose of this page was talking about statistics. I could put up a citation of someone accidentally shooting their spouse with a gun: would that prove anything?

22 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 3, 2014 7:10:03am

Did you read the paper cited by Renaissance Man, by the way?

23 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 3, 2014 7:50:56am

re: #22 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Not yet. Today I’m sure.

24 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 3, 2014 7:51:41am

re: #21 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

When I said at risk I was speaking to at all not above normal.
Almost all of us are at risk it just varies by how much.

25 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 3, 2014 8:24:28am

re: #24 Rightwingconspirator

When I said at risk I was speaking to at all not above normal.
Almost all of us are at risk it just varies by how much.

You see, that meaning of ‘at risk’ is meaningless. All of us are ‘at risk’. The common sense meaning of ‘not at risk’, like ‘not at risk for a heart attack’, is not that there is zero percent chance, but that there is a very low comparative chance.

Most people are not at risk of a violent assault from a stranger where a gun would help them defend themselves. Does this mean there is no chance of it happening? No, it means the chance is a very remote one.

When someone says “I’ve got no chance of winning”, they don’t mean that they have literally no chance, they mean that, resonably assessing the chances, their chances are very, very low.

So again, if you want to dance on a point of semantics, go ahead. It doesn’t matter to the actual point: Most people are at very low risk of being violently attacked by a stranger. Most people also overestimate that risk. That’s too bad, and it has a negative effect on our society, so we should educate people about how low their risk actually is.

26 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 3, 2014 8:29:08am

re: #14 kirkspencer

I’m following just fine. I respect other views.

27 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 3, 2014 10:46:10am

re: #25 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Could you describe at all what level of threat justifies having a gun and all that goes with it by way of training and insurance and proper storage?

28 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 3, 2014 11:12:12am

re: #27 Rightwingconspirator

Could you describe at all what level of threat justifies having a gun and all that goes with it by way of training and insurance and proper storage?

It’s not a number that has meaning on its own, it’s only a comparative number, and it would obviously be related to the increase in risk that having the gun is. In order to give a super-precise answer, I’d have to do a ton of risk-related research.

However, like most things, there are obvious extremes. I live in the Upper East Side of Manhattan. There were literally no murders in my neighborhood in 2013. There have been no stranger-murders in about five years, when there was one. There were 81 violent crimes in my neighborhood last year, only half of them occurring against residents, and the majority of the remainders being domestics. There are about a quarter of a million people who live here.

This puts me at infinitesimal risk of being violently attacked, especially when you take into account that I don’t stay out drinking late and I’m a six foot tall, in-shape male. I don’t have the time or inclination to go to the range and shoot often enough and take the tactical training courses that’d give me the confidence to actually use the gun on the street, and even in the home I’d want to train the hell out of myself so I didn’t shoot some poor drunk neighbor in a panic.

Furthermore, the population of people who are assaulted includes people who were complicit in that assault, who started shit with someone at a bar, who got drunk and started being racist. Except in a few weird jurisdictions, If two guys get into a fight, they both get charged with assault. So if you’re a nice, normal person, your odds of being assaulted are significantly less than raw statistics would show. This is not, in any way, saying those assaults were legitimate or excusable, but in many cases assaults are mutual or provoked.

Nobody is going to have the time to do the thorough statistics on this to get an exact answer, but the majority of people live in a place where the risk of violent assault from a stranger in a scenario where they could defend themselves from a gun without it being a situation they’re getting themselves into is very low, much lower than the dangers of commuting, or, more pointedly of suicide by gun, as compared to suicide without a gun, when removing the population who bought a gun just to commit suicide).

Another number that it’s impossible to calculate exactly is how responsible an individual is going to be, but to correct for that rigorous training that actively fails people for fucking up is completely fine. You can’t ask people to self-assess competence and while I think that gun enthusiasts have a duty to discourage people they know are irresponsible from owning guns, there’s needs to be actual enforcement of competence, too.

29 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 3, 2014 11:23:54am

re: #28 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Right, well we have more agreement than some watching us chat might think.

30 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 3, 2014 11:25:11am

re: #29 Rightwingconspirator

Right, well we have more agreement than some watching us chat might think.

I really doubt that, since your response last time I talked about people who owned guns based on a misconception about their risk of attack was that they should become sport shooters.

31 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 3, 2014 1:53:28pm

re: #30 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Well I have no serious disagreement with that post so that should show some agreement there.

What I did before was present an alternative to getting rid of the gun. Sporting practice is how good habits are learned and fixed into memory. The safety rules, handling, actual practice, all parts of the training I’m sure we agree one must have.
Having fun in the sport encourages frequent practice. That reinforces training. How else is that training going to be practiced?

And lots of gun owners are sport shooters first, and then take advantage of the skills and the gun if needed in the event of a DGU.

You don’t like this. Okay we disagree on that sporting option. Yes we disagree that sport shooters must keep the guns at the range. Given legal proper storage properly used at home I’m fine with the guns at home.

But why focus so hard on where we disagree. I would hope finding some common ground is worthwhile to the discussion. We have some. Maybe not as as much as we might like but hey that’s the internet.

32 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 3, 2014 1:59:54pm

re: #31 Rightwingconspirator

Well I have no serious disagreement with that post so that should show some agreement there.

What I did before was present an alternative to getting rid of the gun.

Why look for an alternative?

Sporting practice is how good habits are learned and fixed into memory. The safety rules, handling, actual practice, all parts of the training I’m sure we agree one must have.
Having fun in the sport encourages frequent practice. That reinforces training. How else is that training going to be practiced?

Again, we were talking about someone who had thought they were in far more danger than they were, and actually faced very little danger. Easy solution: get rid of the gun. Your solution requires a big commitment of time and energy and money.

You don’t like this. Okay we disagree on that sporting option. Yes we disagree that sport shooters must keep the guns at the range. Given legal proper storage properly used at home I’m fine with the guns at home.

Do you agree that guns stored in the home are a risk?

But why focus so hard on where we disagree. I would hope finding some common ground is worthwhile to the discussion. We have some. Maybe not as as much as we might like but hey that’s the internet.

If you actually calculated the risk people were at of violent assault and correlated it with people who own firearms, and then told and convinced those people of their real, minor risk of violent assault, and they did the logical and reasonable thing of no longer having a gun, this would cut the number of gun owners (and the number of guns out there) severely.

I’m not sure where it is you ‘agree’ with me. The amount of training that I want for someone to carry a CCW is something you’ve disagreed with in the past. The change in gun culture, where guns stop being fetishized as self-defense weapons, you’ve criticized. You even have been wishy-washy about people taking guns on marches for gun rights.

Where is it you think we agree?

33 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 3, 2014 2:39:48pm

re: #32 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Okay I’m just not going to debate over agreeing. I already linked. There are places where we agree in principle but at depart different points along the spectrum of risk.

Yeah your training level for CCW actually exceeded what a cop trainer friend said LAPD does. So yeah that was a tad excessive. But we do agree that extensive training is the need. I think training for home defense or CCW should scale to about what gun training police get. Not SWAT, detectives and beat cops.
Now that sport I mentioned? That is how they can improve on that level.

Was your level of training you called for a deliberate discouragement? That’s not what training is for.

34 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 3, 2014 6:43:47pm

re: #33 Rightwingconspirator

Okay I’m just not going to debate over agreeing. I already linked. There are places where we agree in principle but at depart different points along the spectrum of risk.

Yeah your training level for CCW actually exceeded what a cop trainer friend said LAPD does. So yeah that was a tad excessive. .

Except cops train continually on the job too. There’s very few places where CCWs have that requirement.

But we do agree that extensive training is the need. I think training for home defense or CCW should scale to about what gun training police get. Not SWAT, detectives and beat cops. now that sport I mentioned? That is how they can improve on that level.

Home defense and CCW are entirely different scenarios. And again: The point was that those people don’t need the gun. Getting real good at shooting the gun they don’t need for self-defense doesn’t make it more legitimate for self defense.

Was your level of training you called for a deliberate discouragement? That’s not what training is for

Why the fuck would you ask a question like that? That’s like, basically “Are you being dishonest and underhanded?”

No, the purpose is not deliberate discouragement. it’s based on this crazy fucking idea that people with guns, especially those allowed to just carry them around wherever the fuck they go, should be trained well enough so that they can actually respond and use them will in crisis situations.

This is the reasoning I have always expressed, so can you tell me where you got the idea to accuse me of deliberate discouragement?

35 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 4, 2014 10:10:56am

re: #34 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Except cops train continually on the job too. There’s very few places where CCWs have that requirement.

Home defense and CCW are entirely different scenarios. And again: The point was that those people don’t need the gun. Getting real good at shooting the gun they don’t need for self-defense doesn’t make it more legitimate for self defense.

Why the fuck would you ask a question like that? That’s like, basically “Are you being dishonest and underhanded?”

No, the purpose is not deliberate discouragement. it’s based on this crazy fucking idea that people with guns, especially those allowed to just carry them around wherever the fuck they go, should be trained well enough so that they can actually respond and use them will in crisis situations.

Now that sport I mention that is CCW based? That’s how regular training and practice happens. The part you find disagreeable.

This is the reasoning I have always expressed, so can you tell me where you got the idea to accuse me of deliberate discouragement?

Calm down. It’s not necessarily that dishonest or nefarious. Or uncommon. The question was prompted after I learned how much more than police level training you suggests. CCW is included in police training, for off duty carry and detectives, and plainclothes officers.

Home defense is very different. It’s easier than CCW. By far.

No look, I don’t challenge your statistical expertise, you have the training and education. You should keep in mind I trained in firearms for 15 years.

36 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 4, 2014 10:44:56am

re: #35 Rightwingconspirator

Calm down. It’s not necessarily that dishonest or nefarious. Or uncommon. The question was prompted after I learned how much more than police level training you suggests. CCW is included in police training, for off duty carry and detectives, and plainclothes officers.

I don’t get how you can think asking if something is deliberate obstruction isn’t dishonest. Why would you come to a conclusion that I wanted that level of training for any other reason than thinking that level of training is appropriate? Where do you get that from?

. The question was prompted after I learned how much more than police level training you suggests.

I am not suggesting more than police-level training. Police get trained for awhile before they go out into the field, but again, they’re trained continually, they’re out with other officers, and they have to actually use what they learn in real-life situations.

No look, I don’t challenge your statistical expertise, you have the training and education. You should keep in mind I trained in firearms for 15 years.

You do ‘challenge’ it regularly, actually.

You skipped a number of questions.

First, why look for an alternative if someone has bought a gun for self-defense and it turns out their risk of being attacked by a stranger in a way that a gun could help them is very, very low? Why shouldn’t they just get rid of the gun?

Second, do you accept that having a gun in the home is a risk?

37 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 4, 2014 11:06:29am
First, why look for an alternative if someone has bought a gun for self-defense and it turns out their risk of being attacked by a stranger in a way that a gun could help them is very, very low? Why shouldn’t they just get rid of the gun?

Because some want to have the option even understanding the risk is very low. So if they are also willing to do the correct things that go with gun ownership I respect that decision as perfectly acceptable.
Can’t really emphasize this enough.

I am not suggesting more than police-level training. Police get trained for awhile before they go out into the field, but again, they’re trained continually, they’re out with other officers, and they have to actually use what they learn in real-life situations.

Oh so we agree that training at the same quality as the police get is adequate? To me that’s new information about how you feel. See we agree more than you think.

I don’t get how you can think asking if something is deliberate obstruction isn’t dishonest. Why would you come to a conclusion that I wanted that level of training for any other reason than thinking that level of training is appropriate? Where do you get that from?

The most honest answer I have is my surprise at your level of outrage. And again you misrepresent my words. I said DISCOURAGEMENT. I did NOT say obstruction.

There are lots of gun control laws that are deliberate discouragement. Would you be so kind as to oppose those as well? (With the stipulation for discussion such laws exist)

I don’t challenge your expertise on statistics. Just sometimes that next step-The conclusion part. The “what to do differently given those numbers” part.

38 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 4, 2014 11:15:16am

Obdicut, FYI
policeone.com

At a recent use-of-force class I was instructing for a Public Risk Management group, the topic of firearms training frequency came up. The discussion was prompted by the fact that during the latest round of FBI suspect interviews conducted for the third book in the Officer Assaulted and Murdered trilogy (“Violent Encounters”), it was revealed that those suspects believed that police officers trained between two and three times a week with their firearms. In reality, most police departments only train about two times a year, averaging less than 15 hours annually. In contrast to our frequency of training, those same suspects revealed that they practiced on average 23 times a year (or almost twice a month) with their handguns.

During a poll taken during this class which represented about a half dozen Florida law enforcement agencies, I asked how many train more than twice a year. No hands went up. When asked how many train or qualify with their duty guns only once a year. Everyone raised their hands. Hence, the genesis for this article.

The courts have said that our firearms training needs to be relevant and realistic. However, it must also be conducted regularly — as in, occurring close enough to the incident in question so as to assist the officer in making proper deadly force decisions. Back when I was the Rangemaster at my agency in upstate New York, we managed to get twice-a-year range training with our revolvers. When we transitioned to semiautomatics shortly before my retirement, we doubled that to four times a year — albeit with fewer rounds. Most of the time, our range was open and staffed 24/7 with instructors, so quite a few officers came out almost monthly to get in some training time. So the question is “how often should today’s law enforcement officers be training with their duty pistols?”

39 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 4, 2014 11:16:27am

re: #36 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

It’s just not as hard as you seem to think to learn these skills.

40 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 4, 2014 11:33:40am

re: #37 Rightwingconspirator

Because some want to have the option even understanding the risk is very low.

First, I really don’t think many people who actually understand how low the risk is still want to have a gun for self-defense. I think it usually represents a resistance to the truth of how safe they are.

But even so, if someone says, “I realize that I’m super-safe but I still want a gun for self-defense”, why not try to dissuade them? They’re already showing a huge logical inconsistency, a desire for a gun for irrational reasons, why wouldn’t that make you leery of their ability to use the gun responsibly?

Oh so we agree that training at the same quality as the police get is adequate? To me that’s new information about how you feel. See we agree more than you think.

No, I don’t. I don’t know how you can ask that right after I talked about how the police get continual and on-the-job training. I don’t have a definite level that I’d like them trained at, but the training should be continuous and failure should be a real possibility.

The most honest answer I have is my surprise at your level of outrage. And again you misrepresent my words. I said DISCOURAGEMENT. I did NOT say obstruction.

Again: The purpose of the training is so they will be well-trained.. Implying I want it for some sort of subtextual reason is weird, and insulting. Stop doing shit like that. I want people to be well trained so that they will be well trained, and I want to know they can actually pass training that requires them to act responsibly over time.

There are lots of gun control laws that are deliberate discouragement. Would you be so kind as to oppose those as well? (With the stipulation for discussion such laws exist)

Sure, whatever. I’m not going to take your word that their purpose is discouragement, but I don’t have any interest in a law that just makes it harder for people to get guns.

I don’t challenge your expertise on statistics. Just sometimes that next step-The conclusion part. The “what to do differently given those numbers” part.

When you respond to statistics with anecdotes, when you argue with me about the relevance of the FBI statistics after misrepresenting their purpose, you are doing something worse than challenging, It’s fine to challenge me: just because I’ve gotten some education on it doesn’t mean I’m unchallengeable. But replying to statistics with an anecdote is pointless. They are not the same domain. And when I explain why the FBI data is not “helping us understand the day to day risk of being a victim”, and yet it’s still just up there in your article, you’re misusing statistics in something that would be, in an academic setting, dishonest. The FBI doesn’t make that claim, in fact, they caution anyone against even using these stats to try to assess risk on a more granular level.

Each year when Crime in the United States is published, some entities use the figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, tribal area, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction.

And they clearly state what the purpose of these statistics are, and their intended audience:

Program staff are committed to improving their annual publications so that the data they collect can better meet the needs of law enforcement, criminologists, sociologists, legislators, municipal planners, the media, and other students of criminal justice who use the statistics for varied administrative, research, and planning purposes.

Claiming that these stats are so we can assess day to day risk of being a victim is not true. That is not something you possibly could do with statistics. It is a misrepresentation of what statistics is. The day-to-day risk of being a victim depends on a thousand contingent factors. It is as foolish as using US cancer statistics to try to figure out whether you’ll get cancer.

Do you understand this part?

41 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 4, 2014 11:42:59am

re: #40 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Claiming that these stats are so we can assess day to day risk of being a victim is not true. That is not something you possibly could do with statistics. It is a misrepresentation of what statistics is. The day-to-day risk of being a victim depends on a thousand contingent factors. It is as foolish as using US cancer statistics to try to figure out whether you’ll get cancer.

Do you understand this part?

Of course I do. To a degree. the rest you get to put in the category of “you lost me there”.

My paragraph in large part-Does include the call for personal detail.

What should one make of the crime clock? Or the DGU incidents? That’s up to each of us. The FBI interest in disseminating these numbers includes helping us understand the day to day risk of being a victim, and assisting police in choosing priorities. To me any national statistics are just the start. We each have to consider our own local conditions and personal circumstance. Our risks, and our aptitudes. our willingness and ability to use whatever we decide upon really well. Irresponsible use of an alarm system wastes police resources and results in fines. Bars on the windows intended to keep a burglar or robber out must yield in a big hurry and possible panic in the event of a fire. And so on. .

42 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 4, 2014 11:44:41am

re: #41 Rightwingconspirator

Of course I do. To a degree. the rest you get to put in the category of “you lost me there”.

My paragraph in large part-Does include the call for personal detail.

But you say:

The FBI interest in disseminating these numbers includes helping us understand the day to day risk of being a victim

This is not true. Do you understand that? You are making a false claim about why the FBI disseminates these numbers.

43 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 4, 2014 11:46:34am
Sure, whatever. I’m not going to take your word that their purpose is discouragement, but I don’t have any interest in a law that just makes it harder for people to get guns.

How do you interpret the motive to criminalize possessing harmless bits of gun paraphernalia, like an empty brass casing?

44 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 4, 2014 11:48:55am

re: #42 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

See since we disagree about the utility of those numbers this is pointless. For the sake of discussion, I’ll make this modification here-

The general interest in disseminating these numbers includes helping us understand the day to day risk of being a victim, and assisting police in choosing priorities

Do you acknowledge my call for personal details (where we perhaps agree somewhat) and that I pointed out as a caveat the national stats are just a start?

45 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 4, 2014 11:55:02am

re: #43 Rightwingconspirator

How do you interpret the motive to criminalize possessing harmless bits of gun paraphernalia, like an empty brass casing?

Accidental fallout from criminalizing things in a broad class. I really don’t give a shit about brass casing. If it’s a case where a guy isn’t loading up his own ammo but just has a few left over or something, then they should be let off. There should be an ‘intent’ bit that’s considered.

re: #44 Rightwingconspirator

See since we disagree about the utility of those numbers this is pointless.

What do you mean about disagreeing about their utility? You think they are meaningful for figuring out day to day risk of being a victim?

For the sake of discussion, I’ll make this modification here-

The general interest in disseminating these numbers includes helping us understand the day to day risk of being a victim

This is a false claim. The FBI, nor any general public, nor anyone, does not have that interest because you cannot use those statistics to figure out the day to day risk of being a victim.

What is it about that you don’t get? The reason why the statistics are released is so that people who work with statistics can use them in their research and practice, including law enforcement. THat’s why they say the numbers are released, and they include a caveat about using it at the municipality level without thorough professional analysis to take into account contingency.

So why do you think what you’re saying is true? Why claim the FBI is saying that the statistics can help us understand our day to day risk of being a victim? The FBI doesn’t claim the statistics can do something they can’t.

There were two false claims, really: That the FBI said that, when they didn’t, and that these national or regional statistics can help us figure out our day-to-day risk of crime, which they can’t. At the very, very fucking least, you would need data at the precinct level of granularity, and as I did in my own rough analysis above, you’d need more than that, detailed breakdown of the precinct data.

The FBI numbers which you cite are absolutely meaningless for figuring out day to day risk. They are great numbers for looking at broad, broad trends: they are useless for assessment of day to day risk. Worse than useless: Misleading.

46 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 4, 2014 1:31:32pm

re: #45 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Few if any of the factors that go into risk assessment are perfect or readily available in an accurate form. I see some limited utility.

You point is noted. And available for the readers.

47 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 4, 2014 1:44:58pm

re: #46 Rightwingconspirator

Few if any of the factors that go into risk assessment are perfect or readily available in an accurate form. I see some limited utility.

You point is noted. And available for the readers.

Do you understand, then, that you’re wrong, both to say that the FBI releases stats to help us understand our day to day risk of being a victim, and that national or municipal stats cannot help us calculate day-to-day risk?

48 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 4, 2014 2:19:44pm

re: #47 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Ahem. Quite a leading question. I made an edit that addressed the first contention.

To the second, no. We disagree on the utility of the numbers as presented. Especially when one considers the exact way I described the use in context with what should happen next.

see here is a thing that exists. people that fit your description of no or very low risk actually do wind up defending themselves. One way or another. I do not accept your conclusion that the choice to get a gun and all that goes with it depends on your assessment of the low risk.

These are the places we part ways. And I would sincerely suggest that “agreeing to disagree” might work just fine with us on this topic at this point.

I just don’t think we are adding worthwhile content to the blog or the issue now that we have had our mutual say in such a numerous run of comments.

49 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 4, 2014 2:30:28pm

re: #48 Rightwingconspirator

Ahem. Quite a leading question. I made an edit that addressed the first contention.

To the second, no. We disagree on the utility of the numbers as presented. Especially when one considers the exact way I described the use in context with what should happen next.

Then please don’t say you don’t challenge my authority on statistics. I’m saying very clearly that you’re misusing statistics. Since I think you’re a good guy, I’m going to assume that this misuse is still based on a misunderstanding, but you can’t claim that you don’t challenge my authority on statistics and then, when I tell you authoritatively you’re fucking up your statistics, say “We disagree”.

see here is a thing that exists. people that fit your description of no or very low risk actually do wind up defending themselves. One way or another. I do not accept your conclusion that the choice to get a gun and all that goes with it depends on your assessment of the low risk.

I am not going to be the one making the assessment, I have no fucking clue where you got that idea from. Can you please explain? And again, yes, some people do wind up defending themselves. Again, this is using anecdote to respond to statistics.

I just don’t think we are adding worthwhile content to the blog or the issue now that we have had our mutual say in such a numerous run of comments.

I think I’m doing fine. If this is some way to ask me to stop pointing out when you misuse statistics or I think your argument is bad, I’m not going to stop.

You also have failed to answer this extremely straightforward question:

Do you accept that having a gun in the home is a risk?

50 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 4, 2014 2:32:49pm

The thing is, you’re completely right that the VPC is an untrustable source that fucks with statistics in order to make its point. I criticized it in pretty absolute terms.

The VPC looks like a shitty advocacy group intentionally cherrypicking only research that agrees with them. Their argument is a weak one.

I’m completely willing to say that anti-gun places are bullshitting on statistics. I’d love it if you could reach a higher quality than they do. But by misusing statistics, you’re not aiming any higher than they are.

51 Rightwingconspirator  Jun 4, 2014 5:16:48pm

re: #50 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

You find my alleged misuse of that one chart to be comparable to the VPC? Sorry that’s just nonsense.

And I am drawing a distinction you don’t recognize. The utility of statistics vs their construction or rigor. My challenge is in the former not the latter.

Well played dude, well played. You do have the endurance to run this out to a pointless marathon.

You decided that the very low risk the average Joe faces means he should not have a gun and all that goes with it-for defense. if he gets one anyway you fault his logic. Yeah that’s YOUR assessment of his situation. Mine differs.

Get over it dude. let us abide in our separate opinions. This is getting just weird. Ordinarily I refuse debate with those unable to agree to disagree from time to time.

I have made my points to my satisfaction. If you can say the same let’s move on.

52 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 4, 2014 5:36:36pm

re: #51 Rightwingconspirator

You find my alleged misuse of that one chart to be comparable to the VPC? Sorry that’s just nonsense.

It’s not alleged, and it’s not mainly the misuse of the chart. It’s the claim that you can use national statistics to calculate day-to-day risk. This represents a fundamental misrepresentation of what statistics can and can’t be used for.

And I am drawing a distinction you don’t recognize. The utility of statistics vs their construction or rigor. My challenge is in the former not the latter.

No, I fully recognize this. The utility of statistics is exactly what I am telling you you are wrong on. You cannot take general, national statistics, or even city-level statistics, and use it to make any prediction at all for an individual, or help calculate risk. There is too much variation between different places and different walks of life for such statistics to be valid in the way you are claiming. This is what statistics is about just as much as their ‘construction’, but their use as well.

Well played dude, well played. You do have the endurance to run this out to a pointless marathon.

I think that you are wrong and I am going to point it out when you are. I engage with your arguments, I present rebuttals, I lay out what I’m saying clearly. I don’t attack you personally or impugn any bad motives. And yet for some reason, you always allege that our conversations are pointless. How can you say that you want honest debate and yet have such a problem with me disagreeing with you and providing my reasons and methodology for disagreeing with you?

Get over it dude. let us abide in our separate opinions. This is getting just weird. Ordinarily I refuse debate with those unable to agree to disagree from time to time.

Again, ‘agree to disagree’ is a meaningless phrase. I agree that we disagree. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to stop posting on your pages when I think you’re wrong. It’s not ‘weird’ to do that. That is, in large part, what LGF is for. Honest, forthright debate.

I have made my points to my satisfaction. If you can say the same let’s move on.

Please at least no longer claim that you don’t challenge me on statistics, when you do. Saying you only do it on the ‘utility’ of statistics is eye-rollingly silly. You challenge me on statistics. And it’s okay to do that: the fact that I’m educated in their use doesn’t mean that I’m always right. However, given what you know of me, I’d think that you’d listen to me when I’m telling you you’re fucking up in the way you’re using statistics.

And again, one of my frustrations with our conversations is that you dodge even perfectly straightforward questions over and over, and then declare that it’s a tiresome marathon, or that it’s useless, or a waste of time. I really do my best to answer the questions you present with the best I have to offer. You don’t return that.

53 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 4, 2014 5:37:14pm

Did you read the paper cited by Renaissance Man, by the way?

54 CuriousLurker  Jun 6, 2014 7:33:32am

Nice Page, RWC. As you know, I mostly don’t participate in the gun debates, but the format you used for this Page made the info much easier to digest.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Well, There Go the Trump Voters … Most viral flu-like illnesses hit people with compromised immune systems. Usually, this means old folks & kids bear the brunt, with the exception of the 1918 Spanish Flu, that weaponized our own immune systems against us. However, according to ...
Khal Wimpo (the extinguisher of tiki torches)
17 hours, 9 minutes ago
Views: 156 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 200216This is last week’s update. Just as well because this was a lull week due to no liner yet, still bailing, and some poorly timed rain. We're happy that there's no more heavy sand lifting, and even if the liner ...
#thegreatpoolpondconversion (dangerman)
3 days, 12 hours ago
Views: 400 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Man Man - Cloud Nein [LYRIC VIDEO] "Cloud Nein" from Man Man's album 'Dream Hunting in the Valley of the In-Between' (Release Date: May 1, 2020)smarturl.it Man Man manmanband.comInstagram - @manmanbandband @HonusHonus FaceBook - facebook.com VIDEO CREDITS Director: Ryan Kattner Video Production House: Pootie's Onions Editor: ...
Thanos
3 days, 14 hours ago
Views: 413 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
All Time Low: Some Kind of Disaster [OFFICIAL VIDEO] All Time Low's official music video for 'Some Kind Of Disaster' from their upcoming album Wake Up, Sunshine - available everywhere April 3rd via Fueled By Ramen. fbr.lnk.to Listen to 'Some King Of Disaster' here: atl.lnk.to Follow All Time ...
Thanos
1 week ago
Views: 728 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
I Am There for You - Huey Lewis Provided to YouTube by BMG Rights Management (US) LLC I Am There For You · Huey Lewis & The News Weather ℗ 2019 NEW HULEX, LLC under exclusive license to BMG Rights Management (US) LLC Drums, Percussion: Bill GibsonBackground ...
Thanos
1 week ago
Views: 797 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 200209The the last six months or so was “sand, sandbags, pounding, sand, sand, sand”... it was by far the most physically grueling (54,000 pounds of sand we moved - just the two of us), and the longest on the timeline. ...
#thegreatpoolpondconversion (dangerman)
1 week, 6 days ago
Views: 884 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
AP VoteCast: NH Democrats Angry, Seek Alternative to Trump While everyone does the usual horse race comparisons as if NH results really matter, this journalist focuses on the essential. WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic voters in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary were angry at President Donald Trump’s administration and eager ...
Thanos
2 weeks ago
Views: 1,062 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
James Taylor - American Standard: Teach Me Tonight (Official Music Video) Order James Taylor’s upcoming album American Standard here: found.ee Written in 1954, “Teach Me Tonight" has become a jazz standard and been covered dozens of times. Dinah Washington’s version, an R&B hit in 1954, was inducted into the GRAMMY ...
Thanos
2 weeks ago
Views: 1,112 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 18 • Share to Facebook
Oh Wonder - in and Out of Love (Official Video) 'In And Out Of Love from the upcoming album ‘No One Else Can Wear Your Crown’, out 7th February 2020. Pre-order the album on signed vinyl, CD and cassette - ohwonder.lnk.to Tickets for Oh Wonder's 2020 World Tour are ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Views: 1,048 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Summertime - Billy Strings & Marcus King A pair of today's best performing a timeless tune! Billy Strings and Marcus King play "Summertime" live at Carter Vintage Guitars in Nashville, TN. Billy is playing a '36 000-28 and Marcus is playing a '54 Telecaster cartervintage.combillystrings.commarcuskingband.com ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Views: 1,175 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 20 • Share to Facebook