What do we do to prevent another Las Vegas?

[Aldebaran]

So you don't have any really good reason to ignore statistics other than you don't like it when they don't support your position? (Don't worry, that's pretty common. That coupled with a general lack of education in statistics are two quite common issues when statistics come up.

Your pet statistics can tell you what percentage of homes have a gun in it and what percentage of them were used in crime or suicide, but they don't tell you which of the owners had training, how prepared they were, what actions were done by the perpetrator, whether or not a particular home was burglarized in the past or what experiences the homeowner has had in dealing with criminals, etc.
Life is more complicated than what numbers tell you. But if you like doing things by percentages, then what do you think happens to the percentage of likely hood of a rapist successfully raping a woman before and after she puts a bullet into him? Does the percentage of success increase or decrease?

 

[Aldebaran]

So when I try to use actual data and numbers you decree that statistics is for dictators and you think that's a reasonable discussion?

Look, I get it. A lot of folks go their entire lives not doing statistics. It is one of the hazards for people like me who got a PhD and make our living doing research and development in industry.

Take a look at the sources that uses statistics to their advantage:

https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/

Statistics | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

All they show are the numbers for are the negative items that favor anti-gun rhetoric we hear so often. Sure, they use numbers and statistics, but they clearly don't tell the whole story. What are the statistics of a home invader who has been shot by a potential victim versus one who wasn't? Was the home invader more likely to kill the homeowner after he'd been shot versus before he was shot? Or was a burglar who was confronted by the homeowner with a gun more or less likely to harm the homeowner than if the homeowner was unarmed? Was a hunter more or less likely to bring home a deer with a gun than without one?

Don't just look at negative statistics and assume they tell the whole story. Otherwise, we could look at all the negative stats on things like car ownership and assume we shouldn't own a car. After all, you're far more likely to be killed or injured in a car accident if you drive than if you don't. However, that statistic is overlooked by those of us who drive.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Your pet statistics can tell you what percentage of homes have a gun in it and what percentage of them were used in crime or suicide, but they don't tell you which of the owners had training, how prepared they were, what actions were done by the perpetrator, whether or not a particular home was burglarized in the past or what experiences the homeowner has had in dealing with criminals, etc.

You do realize that so many things in your life are actually undertaken based on statistics, right? I mean, even if you don't know how the statistics are arrived at you do realize that many things in your life are there (or not there) precisely because of statistical analysis, right?

Like the vaccination example I gave earlier. Society is made safer by vaccination, yet there are a small number of people who may have a bad reaction. Same with traffic laws. Yes I could conceivable be such a great driver that I would never need my seatbelt. But if seatbelt laws are mandatory we don't have to see the countless numbers of people who are badly hurt or killed for lack of using seatbelts. Drugs that save lives sometimes have side-effects. The list goes on and on. In fact statistics underlay just about everything you buy from the store. And a huge amount of the things you are allowed to do in daily life by laws are predicated on statistics.

Life is more complicated than what numbers tell you. But if you like doing things by percentages, then what do you think happens to the percentage of likely hood of a rapist successfully raping a woman before and after she puts a bullet into him? Does the percentage of success increase or decrease?

-sigh- I can attempt to explain this to you. While it stands to reason that a rapist would have a harder time if a woman has a gun and has proper training with the gun and has the ability to get the gun and effectively utilize it. Same for a home break in.

No one is denying that a gun, when properly used, can be a significant deterrent to crime. BUT the fact of the matter is we clearly have more guns than we have proper application of those guns. This is probably why the NRA felt the need to inflate the numbers on the "good guy with a gun" idea, and why the NRA actively pushed legislation making it ILLEGAL for the CDC to even study gun death and injury statistics. In fact the numbers we do see show it is reasonable to assume that when you greatly increase the number of guns in society you do the following things:

1) increase the likelihood that a gun will make it out of the hands of a "good" owner and into the hands of someone who wants to commit a crime with it (loss of gun, theft of a gun etc.) More guns = more opportunity for guns to get into the hands of those who would do bad things with them.

2) increase the likelihood of women being abused in domestic situations

3) increase the likelihood of a successful suicide in the home

Now I am willing to say that if guns lead to more safety and our society was, in fact, a SAFER place because of our increased gun ownership I would be A-OK with saying more guns = good. BUT the fact of the matter is that our nation has among the highest rates of gun ownership AND among the highest rates of gun homicides and deaths of any developed nation on earth.

How many little kids need to get their faces blown off because they played with a gun that dad accidentally left unattended in his house to call it a "negative"?

Sure it's a balancing act. That's the way statistics always work out. I'd be willing to put up with the occasional bad action happening with guns if our society as a whole was made more safe by their presence at the numbers we have. So far that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Take a look at the sources that uses statistics to their advantage:

https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/

Statistics | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

All they show are the numbers for are the negative items that favor anti-gun rhetoric we hear so often. Sure, they use numbers and statistics, but they clearly don't tell the whole story.

And again: why did the NRA push legislation that would make it ILLEGAL for the CDC to study gun deaths and injuries?

If you feel the statistics you see are often skewed why wouldn't you want the BEST statistics out there?

We know why the NRA doesn't want this. Because they actually know what the game is. Perhaps you do not.

 

[Aldebaran]

And again: why did the NRA push legislation that would make it ILLEGAL for the CDC to study gun deaths and injuries?

If you feel the statistics you see are often skewed why wouldn't you want the BEST statistics out there?

We know why the NRA doesn't want this. Because they actually know what the game is. Perhaps you do not.

Probably because they (CDC) have a history of collecting and reporting only the data that is negative. Those 2 links I posted are examples of that type of reporting.

 

[Aldebaran]

In fact the numbers we do see show it is reasonable to assume that when you greatly increase the number of guns in society you do the following things:

1) increase the likelihood that a gun will make it out of the hands of a "good" owner and into the hands of someone who wants to commit a crime with it (loss of gun, theft of a gun etc.) More guns = more opportunity for guns to get into the hands of those who would do bad things with them.

2) increase the likelihood of women being abused in domestic situations

3) increase the likelihood of a successful suicide in the home

Now I am willing to say that if guns lead to more safety and our society was, in fact, a SAFER place because of our increased gun ownership I would be A-OK with saying more guns = good. BUT the fact of the matter is that our nation has among the highest rates of gun ownership AND among the highest rates of gun homicides and deaths of any developed nation on earth.

If those 3 points are all there is to it, then why have gun deaths been falling while the number of guns has greatly increased? We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.
This is why I point out that you can't just look at the negative numbers.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Or Orlando? Or San Bernardino? Or Columbine? Or Newtown?

Political action? Legal action? Social action? Personal action?

Or should we even bother? Do we simply resign ourselves to going through these motions again in another 6 months or so? Or are we counting on these kinds of incidents to just go away?

Thoughts?

A start would be to recognize that the stereotyped persons who look a certain way are not primarily murderers/rapists/terrorists/etc. That is not something the States believe; they wont even call the attack killing 50 people/injuring 500+ a terrorist attack because of the profile. Yet, they applaud when police kill unarmed persons and even champion their president when he says blatantly obscene things. If one cannot even admit that there is a problem, then there is no hope for change - except unconsciously. This is the main reason why there is violence in general - stereotypes turned into institutional and systemic racism, which become psychological paradigms

After that, you would have to de-program people out of believing that they can escape negativity - especially by re-association. It is unrealistic to say that you don't want to confront negativity because you like to keep from negative things. IT EXISTS. Deal with it.

After that, you would need to enlighten the population about the dog and pony show they believe is real politics, and proper legislation. But, eve before that people would have to read every single law in the country - especially the ones passed after 2002. And, they would have to be familiar with the process of legislation in their country.

Then, you would have to show people how to apply that knowledge - how to properly judge a situation without stereotyping, or submitting to prejudices. How to properly execute legislation that is for the betterment of the nation rather than a class or group of people.

Right now, all of this is completely impossible in the States, because of a reason no one would believe (and I won't say.) But, making more laws against law abiding citizens wont do anything of merit against gun violence. It only helps criminals.


Did nuclear determent/sanctions prevent N. Korea from getting a nuke? Despite the activity of most adults, they aren't child-like. We humans have an amazing ability to completely ignore logic, and exploit the worst possible qualities within ourselves.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Change avatar pictures, post sad comics on twitter, have a futile debate about gun regulations, focus on the fact that some of the victims helped other victims and celebrate them, get distracted by the next catastrophe.

This is the human process for everything. Just replace "gun" with "left/right, legislation, planetary health/weather, etc."

The population needs to be educated, deprogrammed and then re-educated. That is impossible.

 

[Obliquinaut]

If those 3 points are all there is to it, then why have gun deaths been falling while the number of guns has greatly increased? We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.
This is why I point out that you can't just look at the negative numbers.

Looks to me like the most likely factors are those listed in the article. NONE OF WHICH WERE "MORE GUNS IN THE HANDS OF REGULAR FOLKS!"

More police,
Less Booze,
Better Economy

Granted there is still some unexplained variance and who knows, maybe it is more guns?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Probably because they (CDC) have a history of collecting and reporting only the data that is negative. Those 2 links I posted are examples of that type of reporting.

What is your opinion of the CDC when ebola or other diseases are threatening the US? Do you ignore the CDC often? Or just when it comes to the CDC studying guns?

 

[Aldebaran]

A start would be to recognize that the stereotyped persons who look a certain way are not primarily murderers/rapists/terrorists/etc. That is not something the States believe; they wont even call the attack killing 50 people/injuring 500+ a terrorist attack because of the profile.

This narrative perpetuated by the Left in this country is exactly why there is so much division. The sooner they decide to abandon this type of rhetoric, the sooner real solutions can be discussed.

 

[Aldebaran]

What is your opinion of the CDC when ebola or other diseases are threatening the US? Do you ignore the CDC often? Or just when it comes to the CDC studying guns?

I didn't know this was suddenly about me. You asked why the NRA didn't want the CDC to do a study.

 

[Aldebaran]

Looks to me like the most likely factors are those listed in the article. NONE OF WHICH WERE "MORE GUNS IN THE HANDS OF REGULAR FOLKS!"

More police,
Less Booze,
Better Economy

Granted there is still some unexplained variance and who knows, maybe it is more guns?

I'm glad you're willing to at least admit that the idea of "more guns means more crime". So why do people on the more liberal side of the political spectrum still believe that reducing the number of guns in society is the answer when it clearly hasn't been shown to be the problem.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I didn't know this was suddenly about me. You asked why the NRA didn't want the CDC to do a study.

YOU made the claim that CDC only reports negative data. I'm sorry if you forgot what your post was.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I'm glad you're willing to at least admit that the idea of "more guns means more crime".

Yes more guns can often lead to more crime as the statistics show. And if not more crime then more harm to others.

So why do people on the more liberal side of the political spectrum still believe that reducing the number of guns in society is the answer when it clearly hasn't been shown to be the problem.

I don't know how you drew that conclusion. The data seem to show that more guns in a society leads to worse outcomes overall. As noted a billion times now: the US has among the highest rates of gun ownership per capita in the developed world and among the highest rates of gun deaths in the developed world.

Almost no other developed first world nation on earth has as many mass shootings as frequently as we do and almost no other has as high a rate of per capita gun homicides as the US. Most of our peers in the developed world have gun homicide rates almost 5-10X lower than ours.

How on earth would you justify drying the conclusion that guns aren't at least a significant part of the problem?

 

[Aldebaran]

You do realize that so many things in your life are actually undertaken based on statistics, right? I mean, even if you don't know how the statistics are arrived at you do realize that many things in your life are there (or not there) precisely because of statistical analysis, right?

If one is going to make your decisions by statistics, then you'd better consider ALL of them, or you won't have accurate numbers. For example, you could look up the average number of years Americans live, which is roughly 79 years. Don't forget that this number is an average, which includes people who smoke, drink, engage in risky behavior, eat junk food all the time, etc. If you decide not to do those things, then you most likely will "beat the odds" and live longer.

Same goes for your statistics concerning guns. If you know you're not depressed, don't engage in gang activity, keep your guns stored safely, and get some training in their use, then the statistics about the presence of guns increasing your use of them in crime, suicide or negligence will not apply to you. Remember, the statistics take ALL gun owners and lump them together. Do you really think you should make a personal decision based on statistics that include people who are reckless, drug addicted, gang involved, or untrained? You see, that's where personal decisions and individuality come in.

 

[daleksteve]

Or Orlando? Or San Bernardino? Or Columbine? Or Newtown?

Political action? Legal action? Social action? Personal action?

Or should we even bother? Do we simply resign ourselves to going through these motions again in another 6 months or so? Or are we counting on these kinds of incidents to just go away?

Thoughts?

That's easy.

Ban guns or tighten the law.

I still don't get why Americans think they need to own all these guns. It's just simply nuts.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes more guns can often lead to more crime as the statistics show. And if not more crime then more harm to others.

My mistake. I meant to say, "I'm glad you're willing to at least admit that the idea of "more guns DOES NOT mean more crime". That seemed to be the case based on what you were saying.

 

[Aldebaran]

YOU made the claim that CDC only reports negative data. I'm sorry if you forgot what your post was.

Go back to post 922 and look at the links I showed you. Those were examples of the skewed numbers (negative "statistics" only) that are shown when the CDC does their studies. Also, you can refer to the following link again: Why we can't trust the CDC with gun research

 

[PeachyKeane]

This narrative perpetuated by the Left in this country is exactly why there is so much division. The sooner they decide to abandon this type of rhetoric, the sooner real solutions can be discussed.

Yeah, the right has no responsibility for the division...