Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seagull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Theo520 said:
If guns are significantly causal, which you’ve indicated, they there should be a dramatic change…
Click to expand...
Honey, in econometrics, one driver is hugely causal if it’s beta is as large a 0.1. That’s means that driver tells 10% of the story… Usually? They’re never that high except in classroom exercises to help the dullards understand the concept.
That’s just basic statistics on cause and effect.
Click to expand...
At a 6th grade level. Yes.
Only if guns weren’t causal would you see the same trend continue with minimal disruption. The lack of change shows me guns aren’t correlated and thus aren’t causal.
Click to expand...
Or they contributed to a lower settling point than would have otherwise occurred and you’re emotionally, dogmatically unable to see the possibility of it.

That’s my bet.
By and large, places where guns are harder to get are safer. Sorry man.
The exceptions like Chicago help to show the rule. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
What you have is wishful thinking combined with your own logic.

You have nothing to support removing guns “contributed to a lower settling point than would have otherwise occurred”
You are rationalizing when the data doesn’t show there is a return on the action you want logically.
You ignore people readily substitute their method, when suicide is their objective.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
You have nothing to support guns “contributed to a lower settling point than would have otherwise occurred”
Click to expand...
It’s merely a suggestion. Econometrics is a social science for a reason, Theo.

But when one looks at all the data, these places where guns are harder to get typically experience less blight related to them. Japan. Europe. We consider ourselves as “civilized” as these places, but we experience, in some cases, nearly 16 times the homicide.

Insisting that the easy availability of firearms in the US isn’t a driving factor, at this point, is textbook stupidity.
You ignore people readily substitute their method, when suicide is their objective.
Click to expand...
I merely said that when you make suicide harder, fewer people do it - in line with the economic laws of scarcity.
And guess what the suicide rate charts for Ozzland and Britain show? Reduction, good sir.
 
And it’s interesting that the argument has now shifted to suicides. But I’ll entertain this straw man for a moment.

Is it right to take away practical means of self defense from everyone in order to reduce suicides?
 
Vonsalza said:
But when one looks at all the data, these places where guns are harder to get typically experience less blight related to them. Japan. Europe. We consider ourselves as “civilized” as these places, but we experience, in some cases, nearly 16 times the homicide.

Insisting that the easy availability of firearms in the US isn’t a driving factor, at this point, is textbook stupidity.
Click to expand...
You are raising many complex issues that go well beyond guns. I think japan is different because they are isolated and very homogeneous. Their culture also emphasizes being cohesive and fitting in. Adopting some of their virtues is far more complicated than removing all guns.

You keep insisting on your logic but can’t find evidence to support it. But the evidence would readily exist if your point was valid.

I did a correlation with gun availability and homicide rates by state and there wasn’t even weak correlation. This is appropriate analysis since the data was collected by similar means and the language/culture is predominantly the same, we aren’t talking completely different countries. We also had markedly different levels of legal gun ownership across the states, so the comparison of impacts should show up, if it was real…
There should have been correlation if your argument was valid.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
I did a correlation with gun availability and homicide rates…
Click to expand...
Oh. Like this one?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Of course, I’m sure your numbers were far more reputable and reproducible than mine. Right?

Or are you going to say “Gun Law Stringency” is a terrible analogue for “Gun Availability”?
 
Escabrosa said:
Is it right to take away practical means of self defense from everyone in order to reduce suicides?
Click to expand...
When it doesn’t reliably function to that end and also supplies the scourge that you perceive the need to defend yourself from?

Yeah.

But we need not make this about all guns. I’m just for controlling semi-autos.
 
Last edited:
Shifting the goalpost yet again. Did it stop with semi-autos in other countries? Can every law abiding Brit in London conceal carry a revolver? The answer is no, they cannot. They can’t even carry pepper spray. That’s where your line of reasoning leads. The goalpost is continually shifted until you can’t even carry a Swiss Army knife in your pocket.

It’s immoral to prevent a person from defending themselves, and that’s what your position leads to. We have numerous historical examples.
 
Last edited:
Escabrosa said:
Shifting the goalpost yet again. Did it stop with semi-autos in other countries?
Click to expand...
Not at all shifting the goal posts. You just haven’t been following - or you’ve been generalizing me. But I’m pretty dogged toward that particular stance, even if I don’t tediously spell it out in nuance every single time.

But this reveals probably your greatest logical error - you want to generalize all of them a gun-grabbers so you don’t have to go through the work of analyzing their individual points.

It’s this philosophical laziness that’s going to award victories to folks like me who favor restrictions. People are finally getting tired of the talking ideological head that doesn’t think, only spews.
Can every law abiding Brit in London conceal carry a revolver? The answer is no, they cannot. They can’t even carry pepper spray. That’s where your line of reasoning leads. The goalpost is continually shifted until you can’t even carry a Swiss Army knife in your pocket.
Click to expand...
What you’re identifying is a slippery slope fallacy and while I’m not aware of British laws in the same way I am with Aussies, in Ozzland can and do have gun clubs where folks - GASP! - go out to gun ranges and shoot rifles that are appropriate to sporting events (as opposed the the slightly neutered military rifles that Americans seem to prefer).
It’s immoral to prevent a person from defending themselves, and that’s what your position leads to. We have numerous historical examples.
Click to expand...
You have vague handwaving.

The fundamental fact of the matter is that in a combat situation, the attacker has the advantage of surprise. If I pull a gun on you and say “Gimme your wallet!!!”, when I see you begin to draw a weapon, I’m discharging rounds at you as fast as I can for my own safety. I mean, I’m a petty thief, but I don’t want to get shot!

For self defense, they’re nearly useless. Anecdotal stories aside, the man standing his ground to valiantly defend his home from perps is a statistical fantasy and oddity.

If you want a gun to indulge this fantasy with, lets keep it to bolt, lever, pump and wheel guns. No auto-loaders.
 
Last edited:
upant said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Oh. Like this one?
Click to expand...
the brady campaign cook the numbers +5 for what they like and a -12 for not having feel-good laws. john lott shows more guns equal less crimes.
Click to expand...
This isn’t from the Brady Center. So your objection is possibly irrelevant?
 
You are playing the apples and oranges game again.
You must compare at the homicide rates independent of the tool used.
You must compare the suicide rates, independent of the method used.

Your chart is blatantly dishonest in presenting the data.
You can’t ignore substitution if you are trying to prove causality
This is middle school math sense.
 
Theo520 said:
You are playing the apples and oranges game again.
You must compare at the homicide rates independent of the tool used.
You must compare the suicide rates, independent of the method used.
Click to expand...
I did. Both the Ozzland and Britain charts were general and used the same scale.

You’re just grasping for anything to counter with here…
Your chart is blatantly dishonest in presenting the data.
You can’t ignore substitution if you are trying to prove causality
This is middle school math sense.
Click to expand...
God in heaven, there are no people upon the planet with a greater mastery of denial than devout conservatives…
 
Last edited:
I think having a gun is a good thing. What happens when the economy goes splat and you have to defend yourself
 
feed_me said:
I think having a gun is a good thing. What happens when the economy goes splat and you have to defend yourself
Click to expand...
SHTF is a good reason, I’ll admit and I’ve said that.

But what you give a citizen, you also give to the criminal. And he has the element of surprise.

Ban/control semi-autos.
 
Vonsalza said:
But what you give a citizen, you also give to the criminal. And he has the element of surprise.

Ban/control semi-autos.
Click to expand...
because you don’t believe in the black market

even the aussies are having to contend with black market semi-autos and they are an island. read up on melbourne and its gun violence. i have posted it before.

yup, when you take away the guns only the lawful obey.
 
The criminal is going to get the gun one way or the other, gun control is not going to do anything when you have a huge black market to get it from. By the way what is SHTF???
 
upant said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
But what you give a citizen, you also give to the criminal. And he has the element of surprise.

Ban/control semi-autos.
Click to expand...
because you don’t believe in the black market
Click to expand...
I do. Intimately. Econ was one of my stronger suits in university.

What you apparently fail to realize is that things can become too expensive for the petty criminal even on the black market.

I’ve no idea how many times I’ve said this…
even the aussies are having to contend with black market semi-autos and they are an island. read up on melbourne and its gun violence. i have posted it before.
Click to expand...
Sure. It’s great evidence for how rare it is in Ozzland.
yup, when you take away the guns only the lawful obey.
Click to expand...
It’s the market that makes the perps “obey”. Can’t get around greed. Why sell it to a perp for an affordable $500 when I can get $5k?
 
feed_me said:
The criminal is going to get the gun one way or the other,
Click to expand...
He’s gotta risk stealing it or he’s gotta buy it off the black market. That still puts fewer guns in fewer hands.
gun control is not going to do anything when you have a huge black market to get it from.
Click to expand...
It does when prices get too high.
By the way what is SHTF???
Click to expand...
Google it. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top