User Tag List

First 5678 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 77

  1. #61
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mask Manifest View Post
    Very few people can be trusted with guns? Seriously? The majority of people who legally own guns don't use them unlawfully.
    Maybe not necessarily unlawfully but irresponsibly: not keeping guns properly locked up, not adhering to basic safety practices etc. People are extremely fallible in their judgement when it comes to weapons.

    Because the military and law-enforcement officials are not susceptible to corruption like the rest of these immoral, degenerate civilians? If history has taught us anything, it's that power corrupts.
    Of course, things can go wrong in even the most ideal circumstances when it comes to guns - thats why I want them restricted. Civilians neither have the training nor the need for such weapons. Why do civilians to need to posses guns that are purely designed to kill people? Thats just crazy, not to mention sickening. I do acknowledge that there are some people that join gun clubs to shoot targets and thats fine but these people should be limited. However, the major factor in gun crime is guns that are designed to be concealable and easily wielded in order to assist you in shooting people more effectively. Why wouldn't anyone want to restrict this?
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  2. #62
    Epiphany
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    Maybe not necessarily unlawfully but irresponsibly: not keeping guns properly locked up, not adhering to basic safety practices etc. People are extremely fallible in their judgement when it comes to weapons.


    Of course, things can go wrong in even the most ideal circumstances when it comes to guns - thats why I want them restricted. Civilians neither have the training nor the need for such weapons. Why do civilians to need to posses guns that are purely designed to kill people? Thats just crazy, not to mention sickening. I do acknowledge that there are some people that join gun clubs to shoot targets and thats fine but these people should be limited. However, the major factor in gun crime is guns that are designed to be concealable and easily wielded in order to assist you in shooting people more effectively. Why wouldn't anyone want to restrict this?
    For reasons that have already been stated: protection against criminals and government.

  3. #63
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mask Manifest View Post
    For reasons that have already been stated: protection against criminals and government.
    - Guns have proven to be a very poor form of protection against attackers. I read somewhere (I don't have the source I'm sorry) that 80% of those that use a weapon (whether gun, knife, baseball bat) to attack an intruder to their house, are injured or killed by that same weapon. And how many stories to you hear about an ordinary person saving themselves with a gun? The number is infinitesimal in comparison to the problems caused by easy access to guns (ie. violence and crime), not to mention deaths by gun accidents.
    - If you restrict the number of guns out there, you reduce the attacks themselves. To diseminate guns in order to counter the large number of people with guns is backwards logic. Its an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff mentality
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  4. #64
    Epiphany
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mask Manifest View Post
    These gun debates never go anywhere,
    I should've taken heed of my first post in this thread.

  5. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Since you have easy access to the original article, perhaps you could support the veracity of the study by rebutting these specific allegations:

    "In fact, none of the evidence presented by the authors actually has any relevance to the issue of the effectiveness of defensive gun use, for the simple reason that at no point do they ever compare crime victims who used guns defensively with victims who did not. Instead, they made only the essentially irrelevant comparison between people who were shot in assaults with the rest of the population, noting whether gun possession was more common among the former than among the latter."

    "Previous published research, however, has directly compared crime victims who used guns with victims who used other self-protective strategies (including doing nothing to resist), and reached precisely the opposite conclusions from those at which Branas et al. arrived (Kleck 1988; Kleck and DeLone 1993; Southwick 2000; Tark and Kleck 2004). Significantly, Branas et al. ignore all but one of these studies, and do not share with readers the main finding of the one study they do mention in passing (Kleck and DeLone 1993) – victims who resisted with guns were less likely to be injured that those who did not. Indeed, all published research to make such direct comparisons has yielded the same conclusion."
    I'll start by addressing the problems in the studies you're mentioning here...
    For starters Kleck uses an astronomical number of 2.5 million gun defenses a year and then goes on to nail his credibility coffin shut by adding that 207,000 times a year the person using the gun in self defense thought he wonded or killed the attacker with his gun - too bad that is double the number of people treated each year in the ER for gunshot wounds at the time of his study... another interesting issue is that most of the people treated each year in the ER for gunshot wounds are suicide attempts, accidental shootings with their own gun, victims of assualts... typically they are not criminals shot by someome they attacked with a gun.. This is why Kleck's studies are not referenced by most... Many researchers have stated that Kleck's stuides are not plausible due to the aforementioned facts...

    The following is from an article published in the Journal of criminal law and criminology -

    "Many problems exist with the survey conducted by Kleck and Gertz. A deficiency in their article is that they do not provide detailed information about their survey methodology or discuss its many limitations. For example, the survey was conducted by a small firm run by Professor Gertz. The interviewers presumably knew both the purpose of the survey and the staked-out position of the principal investigator regarding the expected results.

    The 2.5 million estimate is based on individuals rather than households. [19] But the survey is randomized by dwelling unit rather than by individual, so the findings cannot simply be extrapolated to the national population. Respondents who are the only adults in a household will receive too much weight.

    K-G oversampled males and individuals from the South and West. [20] The reader is presented with weighted rather than actual data, yet the authors do not explain their weighting technique. K-G claim their weighted data provide representative information for the entire country, [21] but they appear to have obtained various anomalous results. For example, they find that only 38% of households in the nation possess a gun, which is low, outside the range of all other national surveys. [22] They find that only 8.9% of the adult population is black, [23] when 1992 Census data indicate that 12.5% of individuals were black. [24]

    The above limitations are serious. However, it is two other aspects of the survey that, when combined together, lead to an enormous overestimation of self-defense gun use: the fact that K-G are trying (1) to measure a very low probability event which (2) has positive social desirability response bias. The problem is one of misclassification.

    Using a gun in self-defense, like having contact with an alien, is an interesting, potentially exciting event that might well be heroic. In the K-G survey, many of those who report a self-defense gun use apparently see themselves as quite heroic. Were we to accept their claims, people using guns in self-defense are saving about 400,000 people each year from being murdered. Yet most people do not have guns and there were only a total of 27,000 homicides in 1992. [35]" - Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology


    Thus:
    Kleck's criticism of the study I quoted is very tarnished by his personal bias and really doesn't deserve rebuttal.. He is ranting like an enraged todler thus what he's written is hardly a scientific critque.... The study I quoted addressed the issues of reverse causation by having a long list of confounders... moreover they made simulated adjustments for high levels of misclassification bias and still found no net protective effect of gun possession.... The same cannot be said for the studies done by cleck no attempt was ever made to adress the obvious issues with his work... Moreover Kleck's "research" relied on surveys where the subjects were self reported and the statisitcal analysis was done by the other author's firm... The study I have quoted was based on actually gunshot events not self-reporting surverys and the statistics were done by an independent firm...

    So as I have been saying and saying... clearly we do not agree on what constitutes actual science and reliable research...
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  6. #66
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    So as I have been saying and saying... clearly we do not agree on what constitutes actual science and reliable research...
    Indeed...I generally view a researcher that has won coveted honors (not to mention withstanding decades of critical challenges from researchers specializing in this field) from the American Society of Criminology as an eminently reliable source, especially when said source is cited in ground-breaking Supreme Court cases.

    Incidentally, here is Kleck's response to Hemenway: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

    A more thorough response can be found here: Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls (H) claims, we

    Edit: Here's some relevant quotes for those who want me to get to the point, which is that Hemenway's stance on the frequency of defensive fire-arm use (usually without a shot being fired) is anomalous:

    "If Hemenway really did believe that the NCVS estimates are approximately accurate, he may well be the last scholar in this field to cling to this belief. After touting the NCVS estimates of DGU for years, even authors as strongly wedded to the rare-DGU position as Philip Cook (Cook 1991; Cook and Moore 1994) and David McDowall (McDowall and Weirsema 1994) have ceased portraying the NCVS estimates as valid. Instead, they have shifted to the agnostic views that (1) no survey, including the NCVS, can yield meaningful estimates (Cook and Ludwig 1996; 1997) or that (2) “the frequency of firearm self-defense is an issue that is far from settled” (McDowall 1995), views incompatible with the position that the NCVS estimates are at least approximately valid and therefore have settled the matter. By December of 1994, Cook had taken a position directly contradicting Hemenway’s seeming acceptance of the NCVS estimates, stating that there are “persuasive reasons for believing that the [NCVS] yields total incident figures that are much too low” (Kates et al. 1995, p. 537, quoting a December 20, 1994 letter from Cook). Echoing these views, another strongly pro-control scholar, Tom Smith, has written that “it appears that the [DGU] estimates of the NCVSs are too low” (1997, p. 1462).

    Kleck and Gertz provided a detailed explanation of why the NCVS grossly underestimates DGU frequency, and noted that its DGU estimates had been repeatedly disconfirmed by other surveys (1995, pp. 153-157). Still, Hemenway gave the impression that he was using the NCVS estimates as a standard against which he judged the DGU estimates of other surveys (Hemenway 1997b, pp. 1431-1432). In this connection, he falsely claimed that the NCVS asks “about self-defense gun use” (p. 1432) when in fact, as Kleck and Gertz pointed out, one of the many problems with the NCVS as a vehicle for estimating DGU frequency is that it never directly asks respondents about DGU (1995, p. 155). Instead it merely provides respondents with an opportunity to volunteer information about a DGU in response to a general question about self-protection actions.

    As Tom Smith, Director of the National Opinion Research Center, has noted, specifically in connection with the NCVS: “Indirect questions that rely on a respondent volunteering a specific element as part of a broad and unfocussed inquiry uniformly lead to undercounts of the particular of interest” (Smith 1997, pp. 1462-1463).

    Nor did Hemenway acknowledge that the NCVS is the only survey that has ever yielded annual DGU estimates under 700,000, and that its estimates, centering around 80,000, are far below those generated by at least fifteen other surveys (Kleck and Gertz 1995, pp. 153-159). Instead, he inverted reality by falsely hinting that it was the NSDS estimate that was the deviant result.

    It is tempting to think that the NCVS estimates should be given greater credibility than any one survey because the NCVS has been continuously fielded since 1973, and thus could be regarded as, in some sense, a series of surveys rather than just one survey, which have provided independent confirmation of low DGU estimates. Hemenway himself, however, noted that “consistency of findings is irrelevant when the methodology among...the surveys is similar.” He made this point with respect to the DGU surveys, but it is far more applicable to the NCVS, since great care has been taken to keep the NCVS, despite periodic revisions, consistent over time. In contrast, there was, contrary to Hemenway’s claims, great diversity in methodology among the DGU surveys (Kleck and Gertz 1995, pp. 157-160).

    The NCVS is more accurately viewed as a single ongoing survey, with interviews conducted monthly since 1973 by the same government agency, using methods intentionally kept extremely consistent from 1973 right up to a redesign in 1992. Thus, the flaws that afflicted the NCVS for measuring DGUs in 1973 were, for the most part, still with it in 1992 when the McDowall and Wiersema (1994) and Cook (1991) estimates that Hemenway favorably cited (1997b, p. 1432) were generated. We can only heartily agree with Hemenway that reproducing the same result over and over with the same flawed measurement tool does not provide much evidence about anything. Hemenway just got it wrong as to which surveys this observation is best applied to."
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 07-05-2010 at 03:40 PM. Reason: more to add

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Indeed...I generally view a researcher that has won coveted honors (not to mention withstanding decades of critical challenges from researchers specializing in this field) from the American Society of Criminology as an eminently reliable source, especially when said source is cited in ground-breaking Supreme Court cases.
    LOL!

    sigh... for starters the other researchers in the articles I've quoted have also had very distinguished careers, work in relevant fields, and have won honors... moreover they're also at more prestigious institutions. Not that any of that trumps science and Kleck's "science" is just crap... Oh and looky looky seems like Prof Hemenway hails from Harvard... - David Hemenway - Professor of Health Policy - Department of Health Policy and Management - Harvard School of Public Health

    and has more issues with Kleck's research - Powered by Google Docs

    Poor Kleck - guess these people at Harvard have nothing better to do with their time then pick on poor old Prof. Kleck. Why oh why does this poor bastard get such a raw deal from the general scientific community..
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  8. #68
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    I'd add I think its cool that you can still pull a topic and thread title like this, I used to refer to things, particularly behaviour, as "retarded" but I got into real shit about it.

  9. #69
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    Not that any of that trumps science and Kleck's "science" is just crap...
    "Crap" that is broadly consistent with the findings of just about every survey that actually asks people about the defensive use of fire-arms, the veracity of which was vouched for by famous criminologist (and strong gun-control advocate) Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, and which is frequently cited by criminologists to this day. One would think that "crap" science would be grounds for a retraction for all those articles you and Hemenway dispute* (you know, because its so easy to get a retraction under such conditions), but such is apparently not the case.

    *The long-standing feud between Kleck and Hemenway reminds me of the much more entertaining feud between William Easterly and Jeffrey Sachs; the two of them have apparently been sniping at each other for years:

    Letters

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    "Crap" that is broadly consistent with the findings of just about every survey that actually asks people about the defensive use of fire-arms, the veracity of which was vouched for by famous criminologist (and strong gun-control advocate) Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, and which is frequently cited by criminologists to this day. One would think that "crap" science would be grounds for a retraction for all those articles you and Hemenway dispute* (you know, because its so easy to get a retraction under such conditions), but such is apparently not the case.

    *The long-standing feud between Kleck and Hemenway reminds me of the much more entertaining feud between William Easterly and Jeffrey Sachs; the two of them have apparently been sniping at each other for years:

    Letters
    your lack of reading comprehension is perplexing - as I've stated numerous times already retractions ARE NOT issued for outdated research when new evidence appears that discounts it. To simplify this further.. Nobody is accusing Kleck of faking his data or of using blatantly defective methodology (he used acceptable methods at the time and misinterpreted his data by current standards) then in 1997 4 years later other scientists tested different methods that verified flaws in the research used by Kleck thereby rendering his research outdated... he responded... more science was done and in 2004, 2008 and 2009 numerous studies refuting his additional work via different methodology also came to the conclusion that the numbers he obtained from his data was flawed...
    A example from the hard sciences would be - researcher A thinks the atom is constructed this way - he presents his evidence and publishes a paper. 4 years later researcher B discovers new evidence and researcher A's work is found to be obsolete in fact the atom is constructed differently than originally assumed. Researcher A finds more data that supports his original claim.. he publishes again... more researcher is done by researcher B as well as C, D, E and F... combined they find a magnitude of evidence that shows why researcher A's version of the atom is incorrect. Consensus is reached in the scientific community researcher A's model of the atom is obsolete. <--- this is how science works.. no retractions are listed for anyone's papers during this time... Kleck's methods are obsolete therefore his science is crap - just as researcher A's science is crap...

    Now, fast forward to current time and within a year of the publications by resercher B,C,D,E, and F researcher A publishes a new paper stating that his model of the atom is in fact correct... following a few months of independent review other scientists blatantly disagree with him saying that his current science constitutes "blatantly defective methodology" not "outdated methodology" but "blatantly defective" - there is a difference between those two and Kleck is claiming that the 2008 and 2009 studies are the latter not the former... in this case a retraction will be issued because it is not a case of outdated methodology but rather "blatantly defective" methodology...
    Kleck is a scientist thus he should know that he can simply request a retraction of the 2008 and 2009 studies rather than ranting about them on the internet - he refers to no current methodology when making the claims regarding the flaws in their research and only uses outdated references in his rebuttal thus his only option is to claim "blatantly defective methodology" - which is always grounds for retraction...

    sigh I'll post the link again -
    "It is conceivable that an error could be so serious as to vitiate the entire body of the work, but this is unlikely and should be addressed by editors and authors on an individual basis. Such an error should not be confused with inadequacies exposed by the emergence of new scientific information in the normal course of research. The latter requires no corrections or withdrawals." - ICMJE: Corrections, Retractions and "Expressions of Concern"

    Problem # 2 with your logic - All of your studies predate the study that I quoted which addresses the issues that gun owners are more likely to get shot during an assault if they have their gun in possession. The study has not been retracted and is not outdated... thus until evidence refutes it (current evidence - not outdate evidence) - it remains valid. Thus outdated studies (Kleck's work) cannot be used to refute more recent studies (the links I've provided) that render them obsolete... I really can't simplify this any further for you...

    And since you've now degenerated into circular nonsense likely fueled by a combination of ignorance and blind bias there is really no point to continuing this discussion... Clearly you are only engaging to "win" thus if it will end the nonsense I will simply concede... Guns aren't dangerous, Harvard is a horrible institution filled with petty researchers who have no idea what science actually is and Kleck is the final authority on all things guns.. so much so he need only reference himself and double check himself (to meet the independently verifiable criteria for valid scientific research)...

    LOL! You can have your version of valid science and I'll take mine. I prefer a little objectivity and reproducibility in my science - and since you clearly aren't trying to achieve either and have now chased your tail all the way back to the beginning of your starting argument - I'm thoroughly perplexed, but more importantly bored. As I stated before I'm only interested in engaging with you so long as you can produce something intelligent that actually contributes to the conversation. I don't do pissing contests thus this officially concludes all participation on my end..
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

Similar Threads

  1. Black Rhino Is Officially Extinct
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 10-11-2014, 03:19 PM
  2. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-29-2012, 11:34 PM
  3. Mental retardation IS a gift, It is NOT a disability
    By INTP in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 02-28-2010, 07:13 PM
  4. I'm officially emotionally retarded...
    By Halla74 in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 07-22-2009, 07:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO