Gun Control lobby losing credibility ...

[spin]

Following publication this week of an MSNBC.com report about the record number of American citizens who are now legally licensed to carry guns for personal protection, there should be little mystery remaining about why the gun prohibition lobby has lost so much traction and credibility in recent years.

The American public has realized that everything the gun prohibition message is fundamentally fraudulent. Anti-gunners repeatedly opposed concealed carry laws with forecasts of Wild West shootouts, widespread mayhem and more homicides. That has not happened.

Instead, growing interest in personal protection confirms that Americans now understand that everything gun rights groups have been saying for years—that more guns does not equate to increased violence, and actually coincides with a reduction in homicides—is true. The statistical data is available to back that up, and MSNBC.com senior news editor Mike Stuckey made good use of it in his report.

The story noted that Washington, D.C.—where handguns were banned for a generation—has had the nation’s highest homicide rate, with more than 20 slayings per 100,000 population. Conversely, Utah—a state that anti-gun extremists at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence grade as the worst for their brand of so-called “gun safety”—has the lowest homicide rate, at slightly more than 1 per 100,000. Recall that the Utah Legislature passed a law to allow concealed carry on college campuses and the state had to force one university to comply with the statute by going to court.

While gun prohibitionists engage in manufactured hysteria against Starbucks Coffee because the chain allows armed customers on its premises so long as they comply with local and state laws, armed citizens—including those who openly carry—are a pretty responsible lot. They are proving statistically that increased gun ownership does not lead to more violence. Data from the FBI suggests quite the opposite.

According to MSNBC.com, there has been a 28 percent decline in firearm homicides during the same period that the number of Americans licensed to carry grew from 1 million to an estimated 6 million, and “shall-issue” statutes swept the nation. This drop in the murder rate also came at a time when gun sales across the country have skyrocketed. During the past four years, background checks for firearms purchases have gone up 55 percent.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/26/gun-ban-lobby-losing-its-shot/#ixzz0jJ1asSrH

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. Losing??? more like hemorrhaging. (n/t)

[shadowrider]

4. Yea, ain't it wonderful?

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Correlation is not causation.

Population: Washington DC 600 thousand
Population: Utah 2.6 million

Land area: Washington DC 61 sq miles
Land area: Utah 84,904 sq miles

Think that SOME of the difference in crime rates might have something to do with population density?

[shadowrider]

3. No. You can be be a kind, decent and an upstanding citizen

Regardless where you live. You can choose a good path, or a bad path. Density hasn't a thing to do with it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Anybody who knows anything about uban dynamics knows that

population density has EVERYTHING to do with it. You get ONE asshole with an attitude in Utah, and he will cross paths with maybe a couple hundred people at most in a day. In DC he will cross paths with that many on a walk to the bus stop. The chances of any TWO running into each other are intensely magnified if they are within blocks of each other, rather than within a couple counties of each other.

Today, there are as many people living with 6 blocks of me as there were living in the entire town I lived in back in Missouri. Yet, I knew far more of those people in town than I know in my neighborhood, because population density is inversely related to community - the 1200 people in my neighborhood may work anywhere within 20 miles, over thousands of businesses. In the town of 1200, there were two restaurants (a restaurant and a diner), one hardware store (also farm supplies, feed store) three churches, two gas stations -- you couldn't help but know almost everybody. And THIS place doesn't have the population density of DC, by a long shot.

You simply CANNOT call a comparison between urban and rural environments valid.

[PavePusher]

6. What is it about population density...

that causes more people to commit crime?

And why should the intended victims be denied effective tools for self-defense because there are more criminals?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. More liklihood of human interaction coupled with a greater sense of anomynity. (n/t)

[PavePusher]

18. I'm not sure I agree with that.

I grew up in both rural and urban areas. I could go commit a crime in a rural area right now and be perfectly anonymous.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. It's a matter of 'public anonymity'. In heavily urbanized areas

you could commit a public crime with 50 witnesses, and the odds are very good nobody would know who you are. In a rural area, a small town, even a medium sized town, you get fifty witnesses and the odds are very good somebody would recognize you. The old truism that there are no secrets in small towns is very valid - everybody knows everybody else and all their business. The only way to be sure of anonymity is to not be seen.

[tburnsten]

15. That does seem like an awfully backwards way of going about things N/T

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. A comparison BETWEEN cities is valid, however - and DC still fails

I got the data from the FBI's "Crime in the US" website:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

More specifically, this subpage:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_06.html

Crime in the United States
by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2008 (with cities broken out so as not to include the burbs and satellite cities, which would lower the rates)

The first number after the city name is its population, followed by the number of murders. 2009 figures aren't out yet.

Washington DC 592k pop 186 murders
Salt Lake City UT 181k pop 12 murders

The following cities have both liberal gun laws AND a high index of poverty:

Indianapolis IN 808k pop 114 murders
Richmond VA 200k pop 31 murders
Pittsburgh PA 310k pop 72 murders
Columbus OH pop 752k 109 murders
Toledo OH pop 317k 18 murders

Doesn't speak too well of DC, now does it?

[tburnsten]

16. HA! Three times the population, over fifteen times the murders! N/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Wrong.

DC has 3x the population of Salt Lake City, and half the area - obviously, that comes to 6x the population density. Of course, such density increases individuals' contacts exponentially, which is why DC's murder rate in not simply 6x that of Salt Lake City.

[tburnsten]

22. WRONG

for assuming that the entire area in city limits is the same as the inhabited area within city limits. Doesn't take things like parks, individuals with large amounts of property, office buildings, anything like that into account.

Either way it doesn't explain how D.C. came to be populated exclusively by massive dicks and Salt Lake came to be populated by decent people.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

27. Meanwhile back

on the ranch where Molly was doing Roy

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. So why does densely populated New York City have a far lower murder rate?

No shortage of crowding and poverty in the Big Apple. Yet New Yorkers don't kill each other at anywhere near
the rate of Washingtonians...

For that matter, why do such dense, unlovely burgs as Indianapolis and Columbus also have remarkably lower
murder rates than DC?

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. You tell me. NY's Sullivan Act should make NY a wide open

hunting ground for gun toting criminals, according to the current theory.

Maybe because guns are so easily available right next door to DC in VA, but criminals in NY have to go much further out of their way to get their hands on guns? Ya think?

If one out of three 'illegal' guns in NY comes from VA, what do you think the proportion in DC must be?

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. Richmond is *in* Virginia. Ohio and Indiana have fairly lax gun laws

Richmond, Columbus, and Indianapolis are all densely populated cities with high rates of poverty.

So why are their murder rates so much lower than DC's?

[russ1943]

58. Nonsense

Cherry picking statistics to make the point that those statistics don’t “speak too well of DC” is a distortion routinely used by gun enthusiasts.
Why are the NUMBER of murders considered significantly less relevant when compared to the murder RATE? What is the difference between gun laws or the poverty index, say between Indianapolis and Gary?
Do the gun laws vary to such a great extent within say the state of Indiana to consider one city’s liberal and another more restrictive?
What do the cities of New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, Jackson, Birmingham, Camden, Gary, Youngstown, Wilmington, Pontiac, Irvington, Saginaw and Pine Bluff all have in common in comparison to Washington DC?
If, as you state “a comparison BETWEEN cities is valid” then Washington DC compares quite favorably to many cities you seem to have chosen to overlook.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Let's look at four poor, densely populated cities close to DC then.

All with dysfunctional city government.
All within two hour's drive of each other and DC. Camden is next to Philly. You can figure out the murder rates for yourself

(Figures from the FBI CIUS 2008 page)

Camden NJ 76k pop 54 murders
Newark NJ 280k pop 67 murders
Baltimore MD 635K pop 234 murders
Philadelphia PA 1441k pop 331 murders

The first three are in states with restrictive gun laws- but Newark's murder rate is roughly equal to Philly's,
Baltimore's is almost double, and Camden's is grotesque.

Now, lax gun laws != lower crime and muder rates necessarily, look at New Orleans or Memphis (672k pop 138 murders)

I don't argue that. What I am saying is: Restrictive gun laws will not save you from crime, competent police work
does. Anybody who tells you otherwise is mistaken or bullshitting you.

[spin]

10. A question ...

Do you believe that the draconian gun laws in large cities with a high population density such as Chicago are effective in reducing crime?

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. No I don't. Nor do I believe that issuing guns to every mother's son

will reduce it either. What WILL reduce crime is relieveing the crowding, reducing poverty and improving education. Very few people who have full time jobs sell crack on street corners.

Guns are simply irrelevant.

[tburnsten]

29. Where in any of this did anyone suggest issuing guns to anyone?

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. The same place where I said the problem is with CC permits. nt

[tburnsten]

34. Oh so the "problem" of D.C. having an astronomical murder rate is CC permit holders

from other states? How dumb do you think the people reading this are? You really think that people with a carry permit are flocking to other states to participate in gang warfare, or leaving pistols unattended by the millions which in turn fuels gangs and other criminals who just happen to burglarize dozens of cars per criminal per week?

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Try again when you learn how to read. nt

[tburnsten]

42. I can read just fine,

you have a personal issue with concealed carry, and you somehow think that people in other states with carry permits are responsible for D.C.'s murder rate, or you would like others to believe that is the case, regardless of whether or not it is true. Well let me kick some knowledge to you, people with carry permits in Florida, have no impact on the ridiculous murder rate in D.C.

End of story. Prove me wrong if you can, without an emotional argument or hyperbole, or suppositions about every single permit holder leaving loaded guns in their glove boxes at all times, or uncited studies stating that people are actually doing that in any place.

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. Where, WHERE did I EVER say ANYTHING like what you claim to

read in my posts?

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

[spin]

40. Obviously we need to create good jobs in our nation ...

improve education so that people can qualify for these jobs and improve policing techniques to catch the bad guys.

We also need to end the drug war before the Mexico drug cartels turn our country into North Mexico with kidnapping, murder and corruption. Legalization of drugs could help to stop the threat from the drug gangs.

But watching the battle over heathcare, I can predict that the needed changes in education, creating jobs and halting a useless failed drug war are far off in the future if ever. The people we have elected are for the most part corporate lackeys and have little interest or ability to face and solve our problems. Both parties fight for political advantage like two football teams fighting for points on a scoreboard. Neither appears to have the interest of the county at heart. The game is: first get the money for reelection, second support your parties attempt to stall any good ideas the other presents.

But violent crime has been decreasing in our society during the same period of time that the quantity of firearms, the number of concealed weapons permits and liberalized self defense laws such as "castle doctrine" were sweeping across our nation. During that same period of time poverty has increased, our system of education has failed many students and many well paying jobs have left our shores. Could it be possible that the liberalized gun laws in our nation were part of the cause?

No one here is saying that guns should be issued to everybody. That statement is ridiculous. Still an honest citizen with a clean criminal record and in good mental health should be able to buy a firearm for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Those who are willing to meet the requirements including the classes and qualifying on a range should also be allowed to carry concealed. The program has proved successful in all states who adopted "shall issue" concealed carry. In many cases, people with concealed carry permits have used their concealed weapons successfully to defend themselves from violent attack or to stop crime or attacks against others. Those who carry concealed are not cops and their job is not to ferret out crime and arrest criminals. Still, they are a consideration and concern for the violent predators on our streets. The old fart with a bad limp might not be quite as easy target as he looks, the good looking chick walking down the street might not be a easy victim for rape.

I will admit that it seems logical that more guns = more crime and it's a bad idea to let people who are not police to carry firearms in public. But statistics show both conclusions to be false. Strange but true.

[tburnsten]

44. You reminded me of a saying I learned long ago

Goes something like this- The only thing you know about the crippled old man with a limp, is that he survived.

Pretty important thing to remember. When I'm too old to run, best believe I'll have a plan B for when staying out of trouble and confrontations isn't a viable option.

[spin]

48. Reminds me of an old saying ...

Never mess with an old man, he might just kill you.

[eqfan592]

13. Way to completely miss the point.

The point is that people such as your selves love to try and make the argument that the primary factor in violence is "gun proliferation." Yet when people point out how this is bull shit, you say "Well, this area has all these other factors at play that this other area doesn't." Doesn't it then stand to reason that maybe it's those OTHER FACTORS that are at play when it comes to violence, and it actually has exactly JACK SHIT to do with guns?

It's time to wake up and smell what it is you're shoveling.

[tburnsten]

17. Too bad we can't Rec individual posts... N/T

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. No, I have NEVER said that the primary factor is gun proliferation.

I have ALWAYS said, as I do here, that it is a matter of population density and poverty. That is why communities which have that malevolent combination often try to restrict the number of guns in that community - because things are already bad, and adding in unknown numbers of guns only makes it worse.

The more guns available means the more guns to fall into the hands of criminals. It is self-evident that EVERY "illegal" gun started out perfectly legal before being diverted into the criminal world. When one out of every ten cars in Florida has a pistol in the glove compartment, how many car burglaries and car jackings does it take to put 10,000 "illegal" guns on the street?

[tburnsten]

23. 100,000?

Is that a trick question?

[tburnsten]

25. And one in ten adults with a carry permit

is NOT the same as one in ten cars with a pistol in the glovebox, no matter how you think you would carry. Generally the only time someone with a carry permit would not have their gun on their person is if they are going to be entering a building where it would be illegal for them to carry. So I guess the question is, how many car burglaries of cars that are temporarily parked outside of a Post Office, Courthouse, or school would it take to result in 10,000 stolen firearms?

I think the answer is going to be very difficult to tabulate.

And depends on criminals having a magic gun-dar.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. I said nothing about carry permits - only about the number of guns

that can currently be found in cars. It is a actual estimate from four or five years ago. No doubt, some of them would be just stashed there temporarily by CC holders.

A professional car thief stealing 300 cars a year would come up with 30 guns to dispose of - and he is certainly not going to throw them away or try selling them at pawn shops. They go to a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy... It's just a matter of the odds.

[tburnsten]

35. OK, and if the person doesn't have a carry permit

in most states, having a loaded (not an unloaded though) gun in the glovebox is a crime known as carrying a concealed weapon. It is a misdemeanor, but it is still a crime. And since an unloaded gun is an expensive and poorly designed paperweight, generally unless the owner is headed to the range and puts the gun in the glovebox, ammunition in the trunk, there are no unloaded guns living in gloveboxes.

What estimate? How did the researchers come up with that estimate? Did they just try to discern the number of people with a concealed carry permit and then extrapolate that they must all leave guns in their gloveboxes?

Oh and I missed your other comment before it was deleted, must have been pretty bad for the mods to delete an anti-gun comment.

[spin]

47. In some states such as Florida ...

people can and do carry loaded firearms in their cars without a permit.

I know quite a few people who do and yet none of them has ever lost a firearm in a car break in. For years, I had a loaded .357 in a glove box or in the console beside my seat. Since I got my concealed carry permit, I carry the weapon on my person, unless I was at work. In that case I left the firearm in my car in the employers parking lot, since employee rules forbade carrying firearms in the workplace. Just before I retired the company I worked for developed a policy that forbid firearms on their property. It was a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I continued to leave my handgun in my car while at work and I'm positive management knew I had one. Many other employees also ignored the new policy. No parking lot inspections were ever run, no one was fired.

After several years, Florida came out with a law that allowed an employee with a concealed carry permit to have a firearm in his car while in the employers vehicle. Certain companies are exempt from the new law.

While in Florida, I never heard of a major problem with firearms being stolen from vehicles. I'm sure it does happen occasionally.

[Euromutt]

46. "Self evident" is such a misunderstood term

Jefferson really did that English language a disservice when he used "self evident" to mean "no evidence exists to support my opinion, but I feel really strongly about it." In Jefferson's case, of course, he had the advantage that his opponents' argument had no evidence to support it either.

It is self-evident that EVERY "illegal" gun started out perfectly legal before being diverted into the criminal world.

It is not. In places like China, Croatia and Bulgaria, organized criminals acquire guns (both for their own use and for resale) directly from corrupt individuals at the factory; flaws in inventory-keeping mean that on paper, the guns don't even exist. A lot of weapons (including automatic weapons and even grenade launchers) used in organized crime hits in western Europe originated in south-eastern Europe in this fashion.

The more guns available means the more guns to fall into the hands of criminals.

Another lesson from the College of It Stands To Reason. In fact, criminal use of firearms is driven by demand, not supply. Once supply is sufficient to meet demand, any supply over and above that isn't going to make a difference.

By way of illustration, from 1993 to 2001, the number of violent crimes committed with firearms declined from ~1,072,000 in 1993 to ~478,000 in 2001 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.cfm and http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm). During the same period, the number of guns reported stolen in the United States declined from 221,322 in 1993 to 138,035 in 2001 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-guns-usat_x.htm), even as--to the best of the ATF's ability to estimate--the number of guns in private ownership rose from ~220 million to over 260 million.

[tburnsten]

14. A little, but not a 20:1 difference

And besides, shall-issue concealed carry laws are not an anti-crime measure, they are a self-defense measure for citizens who are not felons and have no history of violence.

[Euromutt]

33. Correlation is a necessary condition for causation, however

For years, the gun control lobby has been promulgating a message that boils down to "more guns in private hands means more dead and injured from gunshot wounds."

It's pretty damn evident that in spite of a massive increase in both the number of firearms in private hands, and the number of people licensed to carry a firearm in public, the number of people harmed by GSWs not only has not increased, it has actually decreased, as has the number of incidents of nonfatal violent crimes committed with a firearm. While it cannot be demonstrated that the latter phenomena are the result of the former, it does show there's not even correlation between the prevalcne of privately owned firearms on the one hand and GSWs and firearm crime on the other, thereby proving the gun control lobby's core message false.

[Glassunion]

62. I tried to find some numbers that would put it into perspective.

So I looked at the crime rates by population density. I compared DC to other cities with almost identical population densities.
What I found was the following:

Population Density: Washington DC = 9,884 per sq mi.
Population Density: Hialeah, FL = 9,792 per sq mi.
Population Density: Baltimore, MD = 9,109 per sq mi.
Population Density: Miami, FL = 10,072 per sq mi
Population Density: Santa Ana, CA = 10,839 per sq mi.


2003 Murders: Washington DC = 248
2003 Murders: Hialeah city, FL = 13
2003 Murders: Baltimore, MD = 270
2003 Murders: Miami, FL = 74
2003 Murders: Santa Ana, CA = 17


2003 Per capita Murder Rate: Washington DC = 5.57 times the national average
2003 Per capita Murder Rate: Hialeah, FL = 0.73 times the national average
2003 Per capita Murder Rate: Baltimore, MD = 5.48 times the national average
2003 Per capita Murder Rate: Miami, FL = 2.53 times the national average
2003 Per capita Murder Rate: Santa Ana, CA = 0.64 times the national average

I'm not sure what these numbers show, but you have very similar population densities, however you run the full scale of bad to worse murder rates.

Maybe it is the population differences? Maybe it's the laws? Maybe it is the culture? Maybe it is the police? Maybe it is something else? Maybe it is all of the above and more?

[spin]

9. If one right wing loon shoots a member of Congress ...

the gun control lobbies will be restored to their former status. It may not even have to be an attack involving a firearm that will lead to new draconian gun laws.

There's a developing level of hatred towards the government that is beginning to remind me of the days when we were fighting in Vietnam and we had protests on the street. While we are nowhere near that level of discontent, we are heading in that direction.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. The realist in me says people with *that* much hatred will not turn in their guns,

nor will they stop buying them, even if made illegal.

[PavePusher]

52. I don't have that much hate in me...

And I wouldn't give mine up, or stop procuring either.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. Not referring to you, PP- but I do agree with your point.

I might choose to obey a law that is un-Constitutional, but I wouldn't if others are freely doing so with the intent of harming people like you or me. Survival would outweigh any idea of malum prohibitum in such a case.

[tburnsten]

12. Wait, they have credibility left to lose?

Just kidding, it's good to see that in general people are finally starting to realize, after twenty years of insane hyperbole from people like Paul Helmke, that the gun ban groups are just not right. And that they make up the vast majority of their data, along with the fact that all of the places they give high marks to are crime-ridden hellholes, while the places they decry as the birthplace of slaughter are generally very nice places to live.

Or do people get a concealed carry permit in Utah then illegally bring their guns to NYC and D.C. to go commit gang murders?

Those people are mental midgets.

[Euromutt]

20. You beat me to it

My gut reaction was "you can't lose what you don't have."

But yeah, it's nice to see that the credit given them by the general public is starting to run dry.

[depakid]

31. Up is down, black is white-

Tick toc until the next mass shooting, cop killing, family murder and gun violence at the workplace.

Probably the very worst element of the gun proliferation crowd is the extent that they ill go to avoid taking responsibility for the consequences of their own policies.

Rather like children- frightened children, in that regard.

[tburnsten]

36. Right. So many concealed carry permit holders commit mass murders

it's just unbelievable that anyone could support concealed carry.


Oh wait...

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. We'll listen when *you* accept responsibility for bad stuff that happens in Australia.

Go peddle your "collective guilt" horseshit elswhere.

To quote a line seen at Comment is Free at the Guardian Online:

"Used to be, the sun never set on the Empire. Now, then sun never sets on people bitching about Yanks."

[proteus_lives]

41. You talking about avoiding responsibility?

:rofl:

[cowman]

49. Yeah

you would like that huh?

[Euromutt]

51. (Looks at watch) Nope, wrong. Again.

"Tick tock" went by several times and none of those things happened, let alone all three. They didn't happen since the last time you said that, in fact, and given how you mindlessly regurgitate that line at every opportunity, probably the last few times you've soiled this board with that smug, brainless bullshit.

I know you're very proud that you think you've had an original thought, and I'm sorry to have to disillusion you, but making vague predictions isn't all that clever to begin with, and it's even less clever when you keep repeating them even when they repeatedly fail to come to fruition.

"'Tick tock' until the next familicide in Japan and South Korea, which will both be committed by means other than a firearm" is a more solid prediction, frankly, given that these occur at an average rate of one every 36 hours in South Korea, and more than one per day in Japan. But since they aren't committed, they aren't real murders, right?

[depakid]

53. New Britain Police Release Identies in Triple Shooting

Someday that will be people on this board.

http://www.wtic.com/New-Britain-Police-Release-Identies-in-Triple-Shoo/6666955

Who knows- maybe (and maybe especially) you.

Tick Tock.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. The old AU-US double standard still works for you, eh?

Report of murder in the US: Sign that US culture is sick.
Report of murder in AU: A random tragedy that could happen anywhere.

You're easier to read than Sarah Palin's cuecards.

[PavePusher]

55. I beg your pardon...

Did you just accuse people on this board of being criminals?

Where is your evidence?

Why have you not reported it to the police?

Why are you slandering innocent people?

Please retract your statement immediately.

[Euromutt]

56. One of out four, with a very charitable interpretation

One guy killing his ex-wife, one of her friends, and himself isn't exactly a familicide. You could call it a "family murder" in the sense that it's one member of a family killing another, but the term "spousal killing" is more usual, precisely because it avoids ambiguity between a murder within a family or a murder of a family.

Of course, bad predictions thrive on ambiguity. Ambiguity allows you to make a non-specific prediction and claim after the fact that meant the specific thing that happened.

The RationalWiki page on pseudoscience (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Pseudoscience) contains a paragraph that is germane here:

One of the easiest ways to avoid being proven false is to not make any specific claims at all. Predictions in science are all about specificity and exactness. Operational definitions have to be clearly defined and shared, what you are measuring, how you will measure it and how you will determine if any results are significant are all hallmarks of good science. Pseudoscientific claims are never specific but rely on vague and ambiguous language, often encompassing grandiose claims.

Let's have a look at a prediction relying on vague and ambiguous language, encompassing grandiose claims:

Someday that will be people on this board.

Who knows- maybe (and maybe especially) you.

"Some day," "maybe"; boy, that's nice and specific all right.

I've been in a relationship with my wife for over nine years; we've been married for over seven. In that time, I have on no occasion verbally or physically threatened her with violence, or inflicted violence upon her. In fact, I have never threatened or inflicted violence on any intimate partner or housemate. So what makes me "especially" likely to kill my wife (and possibly child) and then off myself?

Your contention, after all, is that a given person might become enraged, lose control, and attempt to inflict physical injury on a family member, and all other things being equal, the results will be nastier if there's a firearm available than if there isn't. Of course, not everything else is equal. In a combined 17 years of living with friends, lovers and one spouse, I have never become physically violent with any of them (and heaven knows there have been some furious arguments). I have never struck any of them with an empty hand, attacked them with a kitchen knife, hammer, candlestick, or any of the other myriad improvised weapons that could be found in the households. Why would I act any differently with a firearm?

And have you even looked at the statistics for intimate partner homicide? Take a dekko at this http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/intimates.cfm
In past thirteen years, the number of intimate partner homicides in the U.S. committed with firearms has been under 1,000/year. According to the (soon to be superseded) 2000 census, there were ~105 million households in the U.S., of which 71.8 million were family households. Depending on who you ask, 35-50% of American households contain a firearm. Doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and assuming an even spread of gun-owning households between family households and other kinds, that means there are at least 25 million households that contain both a pair of intimate partners and one or more firearms. Let's take 2000 as the index year, we have 906 intimate partner homicides committed with firearms, out of at least 25 million households containing both a pair of intimate partners and one or more firearms, yielding a 1-year risk of intimate partner homicide with a firearm kept in the household of ~0.0036%. If there were in fact more households containing one or more firearms (which is entirely possible), the risk is even lower, by up to 1/3.

And that's accepting the epidemiological premise that guns are a pathogen, and that only biological factors can affect how it affects a given individual. Which is, not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit. As if some guy who's never raised a hand to his wife is just as likely to kill her as some fuckwad with multiple arrests for domestic violence.

It comes down to this: the chance that I'll shoot my wife and child to death before killing myself is, going by statistical averages, much smaller than the chance that you'll kill your whole family along with someone else's in a motor vehicle collision (even gong by Australian MV death statistics). And that's based just on statistical averages.

Tick tock.

So how long do I have to go without killing my family before you admit your prediction was wrong? Weeks? Months? Years?
See, if the answer is that you won't admit that there's any way you could ever be wrong, then there's no way to prove you're not wrong, because you've just discounted that empirical evidence could ever clinch the issue.

[jazzhound]

61. Poor, poor hyper-rational Euromutt........

...........don't you know that the BAD JU JU of your evil gun will eventually infect your body, leaving you helpless to visit a violent act upon your wonderful and loving wife?!?! WTF is the MATTER with you?!?!?!?!?!

:sarcasm:

[Euromutt]

63. I know, I'm deluding myself

That is, I'm deluding myself (or so I suspect) that I'm ever going to get a coherent response to my objection to the "you might lose your temper" argument. Contrary to popular belief, most spousal killings are not the result of a loss of control, but are premeditated and deliberate. Seventy-five percent of spousal murders occur after the wife has left her husband (and Christ only knows how much of the remaining 25% occurs when he finds out she intends to leave him), which is a strong indication that spousal murder is not something that "just happens." It is the culmination of a pre-existing pattern of abuse (not always physical).

Absent any coherent response to my objection, I can only tentatively conclude that people who express the "you might lose your temper" argument--protestations to the contrary--do indeed ascribe magical powers to firearms. How else to explain the contention that, even though you've never attacked a family member with a knife or an empty bottle or any other common household object, if there were a gun in the house you'd shoot a family member without hesitation?

[jazzhound]

60. Iowa's passage of concealed carry provides yet more evidence

that gun control is losing credibility, despite the dishonest and hypocritical hand-wringing from some on the left.

"Well, I guess I can't go shopping in Iowa anymore". :eyes:

Boo F'in Hoo.