Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. and try this.  Basically blowing up lots of things is cool. Blowing up a kid’s head is bad. I think most legal gun owners know this.

    <

    p>
    The Watermelon especially reminded me of Gunny Ermey whose chief rival in life is the Watermelon, at least that is how it seems on Mail Call.

    <

    p>

    <

    p>

    • One of the most gangerous of weapons is the .22 Cal. The round will enter the skull and ricochet around and destroy all the soft tissue rather than exit. A larger calibre travelling at a higher speed may eneter and exit without causing catastrophic injury. Many variables.

       One could make the inference that if someone points a firearm at another and discharges that firearm, that that person wishes ill upon the intended target. Bottom line: A firearm is meant for one purpose and it ain't digg'n potatoes. 

  3. This director who envisioned this really understands the seductive power of destruction.  There is a beauty in the images of these things tearing and flying apart.  It is very easy for someone to forget just how dangerous a bullet is.

    • that I think the military uses the same kind of seductive beauty when selling itself to young people.  The glory of the warrior, the immaculate uniform, the satisfying sounds of the metallic parts of armaments being snapped with precision into place, the fawning and adoration of the citizenry for your bravery and selflessness, easy sex.  You get all those strokes and you let someone else do the deep thinking.  How does anyone manage to resist?

      • …the last time we went to a movie theater (I believe it was in Burlington, I was astonished at the advertisement that was run for the military before the film.  It had a fellow, all decked out in full dress uniform climbing a flight of stairs, and, when he reached the top he would draw his sword (!) and be the equivalent of anointed by a flash from heaven. 

        <

        p>
        I’m sorry, but such an ad was preposterous.  If they had shown the flash from heaven putting him on his butt, that would have been more realistic.

      • You may find something like that fascinating. I never did and I did it for twenty eight years.

         The problem with our society is that no one goes into the service any longer. No one to go back home and tell everyone on the block what is BS and what isn't.

         Everyone one wants the bennies of a safe society. Only a few are willing to get off their ass and do something about it. Like the guys in WWII. Where would we be today without them. You certainly wouldn't be here pontificating because you likely wouldn't be on planet earth. The Reich fuhrer or the Emperor wouldn't have allowed it.

         Tojo and the Nazis weren't fond of folks who were “different”—-don'tcha think?

        • are you still on this hobby horse?  tell me, MCRD, if no one goes into the service any more, who are all those people running around iraq in american uniforms?

          <

          p>
          but i will agree that fewer are going into the service now than during ww2.  surely you can see the obvious reason why: then we had a massive enemy directly attacking us and our closest allies.  at present we are not defending our territory or our allies.  we are merely using our valuable and irreplacible service people for [check the bushco weekly memo for the current excuse].  no friggin surprise people aren’t singning up in droves – not all americans are sheeple.

          <

          p>
          can i ask you a question?  how do you feel about the gov’t paying all those mercenaries to do the military’s job?  why are we paying them to do what our good soldiers are completely capable of doing, and for less money and with greater accountability?

    • …destruction is kewl.  And it creates jobs, rebuilding after the destruction, providing income to those who have the jobs.

      <

      p>
      The problem is that destruction is wasteful.  It may create jobs, but it doesn’t create wealth.  In fact, it destroys wealth.  That is a point that is often overlooked.

      <

      p>
      Destruction is useful with urban renewal, though.  If Munich hadn’t been destroyed by Allied bombing during WWII, we probably wouldn’t have a modern city here now.

    • I've never thought of a weapon as anything but an instrument of death. It's a tool like a paint brush or a shovel—except it is used to effect death.

      You may thank Hollywood for sanitizing death by gunshot . You should avail yourself of photos of folks post having been struck by large and small kinetic weapons of varying weight, size and velocity. It's quite startling. 

       Watching a slo mo photo sequence of a piece of fruit being penetrated by a kinetic weapon is nonsense.

      http://www.gofish.com/player.gfp?gfid=30-1085925

      Above URL will demonstrate the real thing.

       

  5. and all the rest of the ways people kill and maim each other.  Now it seems as though the guns are the weapons of choice for the criminal.  Since the honest, law abiding person can’t get help from the impotent police and can’t get an effective defence weapon, those people are just fresh meat. 

    <

    p>
    The lip service of the politicians to wage war on legal weapons of self defence over war against criminals is, well, criminal.  Guns are seeming more like a solution than a problem.

    <

    p>
    The politicians had their chance for gun control.  All it did was prevent honest people from defending themselves.  Should we stay with the failed philosophy?  All the items in the film couldn’t protect themselves.  The child could be protected by an armed citizen.

    • can you point us to any statistics about the number of crimes averted by citizens using their guns on or showing their guns to attackers?  i personally can’t be swayed by suppositions such as you stated above.  however, firm statistics could give me second thoughts.  anyone tried to compile them?  if not, why not?

      • … by the supposition that leaving the good people without a means to defend themselves will promote their defence?  Maybe you should get out more. 

        • Just expecting something is true doesn't make it true. If our intuition were always right, we would have no need for science.

          Similarly here.

          Now you might think that this is just a simple matter of rights, but Laurel seems to be and I am thinking about consequences. I want to think about consequences because the libertarian impulse must be weighed against our need for safety and security. So for me, it's not just enough to know that we should have that right. I want to know whether you need that right. Is there any objective evidence to support the argument that you need it?

          • ..with rights that you champion.

             I need not defend a right that is fundamental to my existance, the right to protect myself from harm.

            If you beleive that I should be denied the means to fairly defend myself, then it is incumbent on you to explain why.

      • can you point us to any statistics about the number of crimes averted by citizens using their guns on or showing their guns to attackers?

        <

        p>
        A few years ago, he and a co-author (whose name I don’t remember) wrote a book extolling extensive defensive use of firearms.  The book was based in part on statistics a survey that he (Lott) allegedly had had conducted.

        <

        p>
        The problem was, that Lott apparently never released the raw data from the survey, claiming that he couldn’t since the data was lost in a computer crash.  (I guess he never heard of back-ups.)  Moreover, he was hard-pressed to remember the names of any of the surveyors.  (If memory serves, they supposedly were from a university in Chicago where Lott was lecturing at the time).  Those facts led more than a few of Lott’s critics to conclude that his alleged survey was actually never conducted. 

        <

        p>
        But his book apparently did contain statistics.  Take them for what they are worth.  Again, if memory serves, the alleged survey produced a statistic of on the order of over two million successful defensive use of firearms (I forget the time period) merely by brandishing a firearm.  That statistic strains credulity.

        • bona fide statistics, preferably presented in peer-reviewed articles.  not “statistics”.  thanks for reminding me to clarify!

          • My parents lawn looks brown today.  Do I need to write a paper take pictures and get five of my friends to concur before you would believe me that my lawn is brown?  Your fascination with peer review is somewhat comical to me.

            <

            p>
            Guns and other weapons as a means of self defense have been used by people since civilization began. 

            <

            p>
            Disclaimer: I don’t have a gun, not because I don’t believe in them but because I’m clumsy and no I shouldn’t have one.

            • EaBo, yes, when it comes to scientific, academic studies of real world social phenomena, especially those of considerable controversy — indeed, nothing is true unless it’s peer-reviewed.

              <

              p>
              Your total dismissal of the scientific process is very telling. John Lott vs. peer review? I’ll take peer review, thanks.

              • …indeed, nothing is true unless it’s peer-reviewed

                <

                p>
                Not exactly.  I’ve observed the peer review process in the hard sciences, and, although peer review can improve the quality of a paper, the degree of improvement depends on the effort that the reviewers put into their effort.  Some check for analytical flaws.  Some check for missing data.  But some merely check for missing citations.  There is a huge bit of difference among peer reviewers.

                <

                p>
                Lott’s problem was that, after his conclusions were challenged, he was unable to produce the data on which the conclusions were allegedly based.  And he obfuscated.  And, what was worse, he developed a well-known sock-puppet (Mary Rosch) by which he extolled his own book on, for example Amazon.com.  That last is what really did him in.

                • especially if your peers also like to fabricate “data” to fit their preferred conclusions.  however, if the journal is reputable (another stipulation i failed to make in my request – sad these things must be spelled out…), the likelihood of this diminishes.  a well-designed study based on sound assumptions and published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal is a start.  what is really needed are a set of studies which are comparable.  this will help remove the possibility of fluke results or some hidden experimental error leading us to an erroneous conclusion.

                  <

                  p>
                  or, we can just have EaBo tell us that guns look safe enough to him, and deem that a good basis for decision making.  the choice is ours.  not a hard one.

                  <

                  p>
                  oh, and EaBo?  when’s the last time your parent’s lawn blew a guys head off, either deliberately or by mistake?  different problems require different levels of scrutiny.  pathetic that this needs to be explained to a putative college grad.

              • Man made or a natural occurence. Just ask Al Gore and his peer review board. Of cours we will ignore the physicists at MIT.

                 The only certainties are those that can be calculated mathematically. Every thing else is subjective conjecture.

          • …I got most of my information about Lott from Tim Lambert’s site Deltoid.  I don’t have the URL here in Germany (actually, there are two of them), but I’m sure that you could find it doing a google search.

            <

            p>
            Lambert is a computer scientist out of australia and knows more than a bit about statistics.  His posts have made mincemeat out of Lott.

      • You make a good point.  The weakness with gun control is that more is said than done.  We need firm action.  We must outlaw all civilian sales of guns and the government must confiscate all stocks.  At the same time all civilian owned guns must be turned in to collection points.  The penalty for a civilian to own or carry a gun after this time must be severe.  Death.  The crime committed with a gun should be punished by summary execution.

        <

        p>
        All dwellings and businesses can then be searched for guns.  The military has gained experience overseas on this and should be initially charged with the task then it can be turned over to Homeland Security.  Swift and forceful entry into property will decrease the possibility of violence. Weapons found during this time will be assigned to the property owners or renters and the violators executed.  At this time the public should be relatively safe.

        <

        p>
        Local police can be disarmed at this point and the various state police integrated into a national police force.  National police forces work well in Europe and around the world. 

        <

        p>
        I think enough laws or executive orders are now in place to make this a reality no matter which political party is in power on the national level.  The time to act for public safety is now.  The nation is too large and complex to be run by the same rules of 200 years ago.  We are at a new age.

          • I was just about to comment to MCRD that if s/he or anyone wants to change minds, they’ll have to do a little bit o’ homework for us.  MCRD, I am not going to wade through NRA’s website.  If there is anything factually pertinent there that you think we should know about, by all means, bring it forth and explain why we should take the time to read it.

            • Why ask the question?  What's with everyone wanting someone else to do everything for them?

               Is this new new manner in which doctoral dissertations are researched and written? One asks/hires someone to do all the work. I didn't realize that academia had fallen on such tough times—or easy times.

    • That you must justify to total strangers, (who care little for you and yours), your own God given right to provide for the safety, and if necessary, the defense of yourself and your household.

  6. There's some good information on the defensive use of firearms here.

    It references several studies, including Dr. Gary Kleck's work at the University of Florida and a DoJ study done in 93.

    Also, as a gun owner and enthusiast, I'd like to go on record as saying the ad was very well-done, and that I am completely and totally against shooting children.

     

     

    • that links to studies on how many times people drew their weapons.  those studies do not measure whether the drawn weapon successfully deterred a crime.  that was my original question, and the reason you gave for needing guns: self-protection.  if i am not seeing information that is there, please point me to it.

      <

      p>
      an interesting state in there though – that 40+ percent of gun owners own them for recreation, not self defense.  this would imply to me that 40+ percent of gun owners don’t routinely carry their gun, and so self-defense via gun is not important to them.  it would seem that not all gun owners are on the same page when it comes to a burning need to have guns for that purpose.

      • That links to studies on how many times people drew their weapons.  those studies do not measure whether the drawn weapon successfully deterred a crime.  that was my original question, and the reason you gave for needing guns: self-protection.  if i am not seeing information that is there, please point me to it.

        Click through to Kleck's study and read the section on “Methods,” especially the part about the the National Self-Defense Survey. Responses had nothing to do whether someone “drew a weapon,” they were asked the following: “Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard.” If they answered yes, they were asked further question.

        an interesting state in there though – that 40+ percent of gun owners own them for recreation, not self defense.  this would imply to me that 40+ percent of gun owners don't routinely carry their gun, and so self-defense via gun is not important to them.  it would seem that not all gun owners are on the same page when it comes to a burning need to have guns for that purpose.

        I'm sure that's partially true. Some people own guns for competition, some own them for hunting, some own them for protection. I own guns for all three reasons.

        However, even if 40%+ own them for recreation, I don't see how that implies they don't carry or care about guns for self-defense. Self-defense and carrying a weapon  can be two different things, as using a gun defensively often occurs in the home.

        • i skipped Kleck’s study and went right to the Dept of Justice study that your link also links to.  basically, it repeated Kleck’s study, and then went into great detail explaining as to why the results of such phone survey studies are worthless and prone to major error!  It’s a fascinating read.  Check it out.

          • …I was unable to find confirmation, but I believe that he was the co-author of Lott’s book in the late 1990s.

            • …I was unable to find confirmation, but I believe that he was the co-author of Lott's book in the late 1990s.

              Kleck never coauthored a book with John Lott.

               

      • Peace of mind because they are essentially defenseless? These foolish classes obviously do not deter crime.

  7. i skipped Kleck's study and went right to the Dept of Justice study that your link also links to.  basically, it repeated Kleck's study, and then went into great detail explaining as to why the results of such phone survey studies are worthless and prone to major error!  It's a fascinating read.  Check it out.

    Worthless? Prone to major error?

    I didn't find anything that said that in the study. Here is a description of the methodology taken directly from the study (bold mine):

    The NIJ-sponsored National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF) was conducted by Chilton Research Services of Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania, during November and December 1994. Data collected by the survey were analyzed by the authors of this Research in Brief.

    The telephone survey employed a list assisted random-digit-dial sampling method, in which every residential telephone number had the same likelihood of being selected. Each household selected in this fashion was scheduled for as many calls as needed (up to a maximum of six)  to make contact with the appropriate personand complete the interview.

    When a household was first contacted, the interviewer asked to speak with the adult in the household who had the most recent birthday. Because this method randomizes the selection of respondents from among the adults living in the household, the NSPOF was a probability sample of adults in the United States.*

    Minimums were established for the number of completed interviews with racial minorities and gun-owning households. Such households were more likely than others to be included in the final sample. Sampling weights were calculated to adjust for this design feature and for other sociodemographic differences between the sample and the U.S. adult population.

    Although these adjustments improved the quality of population estimates based on the NSPOF, some types of estimates may still be biased. As in every survey, some sample members refused to cooperate and others were never home when the interviewer called. The concern is that these nonrespondents may tend to differ from the general population (and the completed sample) in relevant ways. The scope of that potential problem is usually indicated by the response rate.

    In the absence of a single accepted definition of “response rate,” two reasonable rates range up to 1.4 percentage points, somewhat higher for prevalence estimates within subpopulations. definitions yield figures of 44 and 59 percent for the NSPOF. Thus, nonresponse bias in our estimates is a real possibility.

    Nonetheless, the response rate for this survey is no lower than for other well-executed telephone surveys, and there is no reason to believe that this survey used a less representative sample than others.**

    Most of the estimates contained in this Research in Brief rely on the responses of those who personally owned firearms. The estimates do not rely on the reports of those who did not personally own a gun but lived in a gun-owning household because our analysis of the NSPOF data suggests that the survey respondents were often unwilling or unable to report on guns owned by other adults in the household. For example, we find that in households headed by married couples, women were much less likely to report a gun in the house (which in most cases would belong to their husbands) than were men. 

    • you won’t find criticisms in the Methods section, because that is not the proper place for them in a structured paper.  Go to the discussion of the findings, which starts about page 7 iirc.  there are subsections called some troubling comparisons and false positives, for example.  The following is from page 9

      For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense.  It does not make sense then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more that the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8).  For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults.  If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!

      Again, I also urge you to read the section on false positives.  then you will understand that the methodology used is highly prone to grave error.

      <

      p>
      Clearly, no one has yet been able to set forth reliable, believable data showing that crime was measurably thwarted by people drawing their guns (and that was my original request).  The very study you provided to convince me actually criticizes itself into irrelevance!

      • One may assume that the alleged perpetrator's intent was thwarted or significantly altered.

         Of course this assumption is only conjecture as I am only assuming that the deceased would be physically unable to continue in his/her aggressive act. But again, this is pure conjecture which should be subject to peer review. 

        • If a firearm was fired and the alleged assailant was killed or wounded…One may assume that the alleged perpetrator’s intent was thwarted or significantly altered.

          <

          p>
          One may only be able to presume that someone, who the shooter wanted to characterize as an “alleged perpetrator” was killed or wounded by the shooter’s firing a gun. 

          <

          p>
          I doubt that you understand the difference, but the difference should be quite obvious.

  8. Is it even possible to find research that will unequivocally show that X amount of crimes were prevented by defensive firearms use? It seems that the stuff I linked to doesn't meet Laurel's rigorous requirements so she can find her own from now on.

    However, we all must agree that defensive firearms use must exist at some level. So the real question is this: should people be deprived of the means to defend their lives because others use firearms illegally?

    I say no.

Archives