RE: What about the other victims?

RE: What about the other victims? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 10:48:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen One measures opinion the other attempts to measure facts. Bullshit. It's just a survey, and one that is fraught with serious flaws (I'm from the government, tell us about your guns). K.

DomKen -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 11:02:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen One measures opinion the other attempts to measure facts. Bullshit. It's just a survey, and one that is fraught with serious flaws (I'm from the government, tell us about your guns). Are you saying no one lies when surveyed on gun use over the phone?

jlf1961 -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 11:05:54 AM)
what are you saying, no one ever lies on political polls?

Kirata -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 11:06:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Are you saying no one lies when surveyed on gun use over the phone? Are you saying no one lies when asked questions by some government apparatchik? K.

Kirata -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 11:16:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro To me it only shows what little value human life has for some here. That's exactly how I felt when I read your post. K.

Yachtie -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 11:48:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 what are you saying, no one ever lies on political polls? Well, surely not those of leftist persuasion[8\|]

Powergamz1 -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 1:11:28 PM)
Not being skeptical isn't the definition of 'open minded'. There are all sorts of charts, all sorts of surveys, and all sorts of research, some of which even dispute each other. And crime is a notoriously difficult social problem to gain a clear picture of. Too many people who commit and who are victims of, crime have a good reason to not provide accurate information. Even counting dead bodies isn't as accurate as science needs to be, since many suicides don't make their intention clear, and we don't even know how many missing persons are actually dead somewhere else. The best thing that can be said about the NCVS is that it doesn't suck quite as bad as the UCR. Pretending that 'the facts' can be derived from quibbling over those stats is like pretending that one religious sect is 'truer' than another. The data on defensive gun uses in particular needs to treated as exactly what it is, heavily anecdotal, and mostly used to provide a partial observation. quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen FR The one and only even remotely accurate survey of defensive gun use, the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is based on face to face interviews done by Census Bureau employees shows that the defensive use of guns is much lower than the phone surveys used in this journal article. As a matter of fact the article spends an early section trying to handwave away the facts and trying to justify using a random phone sample with no attempts to verify the claims made which is a valid survey about opinions but not about facts. So. . . the chart does not count because it does not fit your reality. Great. Good of you to open your mind.

DomKen -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 3:06:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Are you saying no one lies when surveyed on gun use over the phone? Are you saying no one lies when asked questions by some government apparatchik? K. No, I'm saying that the NCVS is more accurate because they collect enough identifying info to allow them to verify the claims made. I will also point out that the anonymous phone surveys claim that an enormous, hundreds of thousand per year, number of unreported weapons discharges are occuring. Does that really sound likely?

TAFKAA -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 3:24:35 PM)
Christ, what a crock of shit. The majority of these don't exclude use against animals or in military contexts and you're trying to provide this as proof of anything? Is this the best you've got? The other problem here is that you're extrapolating a homicide from each case, whereas in the vast majority of contexts a homicide was probably extremely unlikely. Last I heard, animals don't carry guns (although I contend the second amendment would have been better written 'the right to arm bears') and we positively encourage the military to carry weapons. This survey would also include contexts where some gun nut THOUGHT someone was after his stuff and he put his hand on his weapon and grunted loudly. It's this kind of bullshit the NRA tries to use to pull the wool over the eyes of the unthinking. But I understand fully that gun fanatics will do anything to avoid confronting the reality of their addiction.

Yachtie -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 3:46:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TAFKAA ... in the vast majority of contexts a homicide was probably extremely unlikely. That's the way to make a point. Though I find it probably extremely unlikely you have any clue at all.[8D] [sm=popcorn.gif]

jlf1961 -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 3:48:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 what are you saying, no one ever lies on political polls? Well, surely not those of leftist persuasion[8\|] I happen to be a democrat.

Yachtie -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 3:50:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 what are you saying, no one ever lies on political polls? Well, surely not those of leftist persuasion[8\|] I happen to be a democrat. My condolences[;)]

Powergamz1 -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 3:52:03 PM)
Feel free to provide a link to any reputable study that tries to equate each and every defensive gun use with a homicide. I suspect you'll produce that right after you come up with the proof that they include military combat in such research. quote: ORIGINAL: TAFKAA Christ, what a crock of shit. The majority of these don't exclude use against animals or in military contexts and you're trying to provide this as proof of anything? Is this the best you've got? The other problem here is that you're extrapolating a homicide from each case, whereas in the vast majority of contexts a homicide was probably extremely unlikely. Last I heard, animals don't carry guns (although I contend the second amendment would have been better written 'the right to arm bears') and we positively encourage the military to carry weapons. This survey would also include contexts where some gun nut THOUGHT someone was after his stuff and he put his hand on his weapon and grunted loudly. It's this kind of bullshit the NRA tries to use to pull the wool over the eyes of the unthinking. But I understand fully that gun fanatics will do anything to avoid confronting the reality of their addiction.

Powergamz1 -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 3:54:23 PM)
Are you seriously claiming (I really should start skipping right past that part), that every single one of the defensive gun uses was a gun discharge? Are you even trying to engage in rational discourse? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Are you saying no one lies when surveyed on gun use over the phone? Are you saying no one lies when asked questions by some government apparatchik? K. No, I'm saying that the NCVS is more accurate because they collect enough identifying info to allow them to verify the claims made. I will also point out that the anonymous phone surveys claim that an enormous, hundreds of thousand per year, number of unreported weapons discharges are occuring. Does that really sound likely?

Kirata -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 4:09:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No, I'm saying that the NCVS is more accurate because they collect enough identifying info to allow them to verify the claims made. What makes you think they "verify" anything? How could they possibly? K.

Yachtie -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 4:12:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No, I'm saying that the NCVS is more accurate because they collect enough identifying info to allow them to verify the claims made. What makes you think they "verify" anything? How could they possibly? K. They plug in their crystal ball[8D]

Politesub53 -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 4:13:59 PM)
Nice to see the heads in the sand crowd avoiding what the gun debate is actually about......Massacres. [8\|]

DomKen -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 4:39:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No, I'm saying that the NCVS is more accurate because they collect enough identifying info to allow them to verify the claims made. What makes you think they "verify" anything? How could they possibly? K. Checking police reports to start with.

DomKen -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 4:41:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Are you seriously claiming (I really should start skipping right past that part), that every single one of the defensive gun uses was a gun discharge? Are you even trying to engage in rational discourse? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Are you saying no one lies when surveyed on gun use over the phone? Are you saying no one lies when asked questions by some government apparatchik? K. No, I'm saying that the NCVS is more accurate because they collect enough identifying info to allow them to verify the claims made. I will also point out that the anonymous phone surveys claim that an enormous, hundreds of thousand per year, number of unreported weapons discharges are occuring. Does that really sound likely? No, I'm basing that on the claims of gun discharge made in those polls that asked if they fired.

Kirata -> RE: What about the other victims? (1/26/2013 4:59:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Checking police reports to start with. Unh huh. And did they? Add to that, defensive gun use where the gun isn't fired would not in most cases be verifiable, and those are the best of all possible outcomes. Face it, as the authors remark, when the NCVS comes up with results that are so wildly divergent from more than a dozen other surveys, there's something wrong, and it's unlikely to be "everybody else". K.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875