Alrighty, I think I get the prize

[iverglas]

Best use of a firearm by a law-abiding gun owner.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090810/METRO04/908100386/1361/Gunman-is-holed-up-in-Howell-barn

Howell -- The Livingston County Sheriff Department is sending in an armored vehicle to rescue two adults and two children trapped inside a barn not far from where a barricaded gunman is holed up with an M-16 fully automatic weapon and other weapons, according to Sheriff Bob Bezotte..

"He has not threatened anyone yet," he said.

... The man, who Bezotte identified as Wesley Gilson, operates ProSoldier, a military training company contracted by the U.S. Army.

Okay, maybe he really is ineligible to possess a firearm ... . We'll have to look into that.

[iverglas]

1. Gunman a "class act" according to friends, neighbors

http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20090810/NEWS01/90810012/Gunman+a++class+act++according+to+friends++neighbors+(WITH+VIDEO+and+PDF)

Howell resident and National Guard Staff Sgt. Sean Knudsen called barricaded gunman and veteran Wesley Gilson a “real class act guy,” and that it was a “complete shock” that Gilson is at the center of the crisis.

... Knudsen, an Iraq war veteran, said he knew Gilson through weapons training circles, and that Gilson served at least one tour of combat duty in Iraq.

... “I’m shocked to hear this but this is becoming the norm for a lot of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans that are coming home. It’s just too much handle all the stuff that we deal with over there” Knudsen said.

“War is hell and it’s the hardest thing to describe to anybody,” he added. Scott Morrison, who lives across the street from Gilson, called his neighbor a “nice guy.”

[iverglas]

2. BREAKING NEWS: "Suicide by cop" takes down gunman

http://www.livingstondaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090810/NEWS01/90810011

A gunman was killed in what is being subscribed as suicide by cop at approximately 2:16 p.m. after the gunman approached a deputy and raised his gun

The gunman, U.S. Army veteran and President and CEO of ProSoldier, Wesley Gilson was barricaded in a 4,000-square-foot barn on Burkhart road between Marr and Warner Roads in Howell according to Livingston County Sheriff Bob Bezotte.

... Bezotte said police were on scene when Gilson ordered everyone off the property and brandished the handgun. He then went to get his M-16, according to the sheriff.

... Gilson had just returned from Iraq and was a contractor of the U.S. Army. Bezotte said he was very proficient with weapons.

ProSoldier is a local company dedicated to enhancing professional warrior’s ability to move, shoot and communicate.

And an honest citizen.

Obviously suffering from extreme problems. And in possession of multiple firearms.

[rd_kent]

9. You want the prize but have no point.

I love how you post stuff, don't have a point, then when others point their opinion, you argue that they are wrong or misguided. If only we were as old and wise as you iver. Perhaps you should go back to changing the kitty litter in the boxes placed throughout your house. It helps keep the smell down.

[benEzra]

3. If he's a military contractor, I suspect that M16 is government owned.

There are not all that many Title 2/Class III restricted M16's in private hands (all of them pre-1986), and given his occupation, it is likely that he has professional access to military-only restricted weapons.

[iverglas]

4. wot e ver

Doesn't much matter who owned it.

He had access to it, and I doubt his access was unlawful.

[TPaine7]

5. Help me understand, iverglas...

the President and CEO of a military training company contracted by the U.S. Army has access to military grade weapons. How is that surprising?

Would the management of a military training company contracted to train the Canadian military forces not have access to military weapons? If employees of such a company couldn't maintain their own proficiency, how could they be expected to train the military? And who could you trust to control access if not the management of the company?

Is a single isolated incident supposed to prove that the trainers of soldiers shouldn't have access to the weapons they train the soldiers on?! One strike and everyone is out?

We have to trust someone with arms. Police have murdered innocents, as have CCW holders and soldiers and military trainers. That does not mean that we need to disarm police, citizens, the military and their trainers.

Zero tolerance is an insane standard.

[iverglas]

11. just playing dumb?

If the President and CEO of a military training company contracted by the U.S. Army has access to military grade weapons AND THIS HAPPENS, what does it tell us about the efficacy of "background checks" for ordinary firearms purchases for ordinary people?

Perhaps that there's something lacking? If this super-duper person gets access to these super-duper weapons, despite what everybody can see in hindsight was drug abuse and serious psychological problems, what hope is there?


Would the management of a military training company contracted to train the Canadian military forces not have access to military weapons?

Not in their barn, they wouldn't. Unless maybe they ILLEGALLY removed the firearms from where they were authorized to be possessed and stored. Or had the kind of special licence that allowed them to have private possession of such as this individual had. Which I pretty much doubt they would. They'd have business licences.

Funny thing is, I've never heard of such a thing here -- private contractors training the military in combat. It just sounds totally weird to me. DND here has training packages included when it purchases weapons, but combat? And employees of the companies contracted having the product in their barns? Headscratch. Not.


Is a single isolated incident supposed to prove that the trainers of soldiers shouldn't have access to the weapons they train the soldiers on?! One strike and everyone is out?

Maybe if you rest your own head, you can bring yourself to say something about what my obvious point was. (Apart from the fact that the oversight of his firearms possession was, from any reasonable perspective, sorely lacking. I have simply no idea why he would be in private possession of firearms like that one, and who knows what else.)

No screening system is going to "prevent" all incidents like these from happening. Likely only honesty and integrity on the part of people who knew this guy, at least one of whom must have had some inkling of the problem (knowing of his drug abuse), could have prevented this one -- if there were mechanisms in place for that purpose.

Here, there is a mechanism. It's the database of firearms permit holders and the registry of firearms. You know someone with a firearm who is presenting elevated risk, you can report your concerns. And police can investigate, and take action if it appears necessary. Like removing firearms from the possession of a depressed drug abuser.

Not all depressed drug abusers are going to manifest as such. But some will.

And of course there is the initial mechanism -- the screening process for obtaining firearms. Again, it isn't going to "prevent" all incidents like this. It didn't prevent Kimveer Gill from accessing even restricted firearms. And it has to be used - an intimidated woman who doesn't report her partner's behaviour can't be protected, by having him denied a permit or having his firearms removed, if someone doesn't report the problem. But *some* risk situations are dealt with.

Google the title: "Firearms registry helps protect women"
and read the cached version.

Although it is difficult to prove prevention, we do know that in 2008 alone more than 2,200 licences were refused or revoked for safety reasons and thousands of calls were made to the spousal-notification line.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Facts/facts.quickfacts.aug08rev.pdf

22,140 firearms licences have been refused or revoked by Chief Firearms Officers for public safety reasons between December 1, 1998 and April 2008.
• 7,490 applications have been refused
• 14,650 firearms licences have been revoked.
• Reasons include: a history of violence, mental illness, the applicant is a potential risk to himself, herself or others, unsafe firearm use and storage, drug offences and providing false information.

Primary source:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/facts-faits/index-eng.htm

Licensing of an individual to possess firearms requires a variety of background checks. Applicants are screened to detect potential public safety risks based on information provided with a firearms licence application. Continuous eligibility screening is conducted over the term of the licence to identify any public safety risks that may arise over time. A licence may also be revoked following a court order or a Chief Firearm Officer’s investigation resulting from a call to the CFP’s public safety line (1-800-).

The Registrar of Firearms is notified of all licence revocations, is responsible for revoking all associated registration certificates, and works to ensure proper disposal of the firearms. For more information on refusals and revocations, please consult the Firearms Act.

Public oversight. It operates to reduce the risks, and no one except the pig-ignorantly selfish would object to it.



typo fixed

[TPaine7]

12. No, I don't think you are playing dumb, iverglas.

You're not playing at all.

Here, there is a mechanism. It's the database of firearms permit holders and the registry of firearms. You know someone with a firearm who is presenting elevated risk, you can report your concerns. And police can investigate, and take action if it appears necessary. Like removing firearms from the possession of a depressed drug abuser.

Not all depressed drug abusers are going to manifest as such. But some will.

And of course there is the initial mechanism -- the screening process for obtaining firearms. Again, it isn't going to "prevent" all incidents like this. It didn't prevent Kimveer Gill from accessing even restricted firearms. And it has to be used - an intimidated woman who doesn't report her partner's behaviour can't be protected, by having him denied a permit or having his firearms removed, if someone doesn't report the problem. But *some* risk situations are dealt with.

Here there are mechanisms too. I'm sure this guy had security clearances. The mechanisms obviously failed. So what--would you have us believe that's never happened in Canada (not that I--or anyone else--actually care, mind you)?

Google the title: "Firearms registry helps protect women"

No, I'm bored now. I don't think I'll waste my time. But it has been amusing watching you flail and sputter and grasp at straws. Mildly amusing.

[benEzra]

14. So Kent State, My Lai, and the Kathryn Johnston shooting

were all perpetrated by "law abiding gun owners". Got it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting

The NSA's warrantless wiretap program was conducted by "law abiding computer owners" too, I'll bet...

[iverglas]

15. I'm sure you know what you're talking about

Well, one would hope.

[benEzra]

17. People working for the government using government owned weapons to do nefarious things

does not equal "law abiding gun owners" doing things with their "lawfully owned guns."

Personally, I suspect you posted the article not realizing that this was likely a government owned weapon, and then didn't want to backtrack, but that doesn't necessarily make this guy a "law abiding gun owner" with regard to the M16.

[iverglas]

21. who knows?

Personally, I suspect you posted the article not realizing that this was likely a government owned weapon

Personally, I don't give a crap who owns it. He was IN POSSESSION OF IT. That's pretty much what I was talking about. Hey - it's exactly what I was talking about. How about that?!?

but that doesn't necessarily make this guy a "law abiding gun owner" with regard to the M16

Right. The government gave possession of the M16 to a lunatic / criminal / child.

People working for the government using government owned weapons to do nefarious things

were

- in one case, allegedly rogue members of the military, but in fact doing exactly what the US military in Vietnam was doing day in and day out
- in one case, members of the military acting under orders
- in one case, members of a police service acting in the course of their duties who were shot at by a member of the public and fired back in the course of their duties

All tragic, none of them anything to do with individuals who should not have been in possession of firearms.

I'm not seeing anything else there, but maybe you'll explain it.

[JonQ]

44. Don't you know?

Governments, and their military s never abuse their power.

That is why we can trust them with a monopoly on lethal force; because 10,000 years of human history has shown that the one infallible, incorruptible, and trustworthy agency out there is the government and it's tools of enforcement.

Also the cops will always show up in time.

[Katya Mullethov]

31. While you're at it

Don't forget ol' Lon !


http://www.flickr.com/photos/31873086@N08/3066521217/sizes/o/

An HS-Precision press release from the SAR Show last year .
Marketing GOLD !!

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Likely not.

If you are in the business of manufacturing or repairing class 3 weapons, possession is um... required? Sounds (and this is EXTREMELY preliminary) like he may have had an undiagnosed mental health issue, possibly from the war.


I'm glad it was ONLY suicide by cop, but sure would rather he'd gotten some help when it could have done some good.
They are working to change the attitude, but currently our military is pretty gung-ho and mental health problems are frowned upon as weakness, etc. People are uninclined to ask for help.

[TPaine7]

6. This is your brain on gun control, boys and girls...

poor iverglas, she still doesn't know what prize she took!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


You are funny, iverglas, if nothing else.




Hint: you're supposed to put that special hat on and sit in the corner.

[TPaine7]

7. For posterity...

iverglas (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-10-09 12:58 PM
Original message
Alrighty, I think I get the prize


Best use of a firearm by a law-abiding gun owner.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090810/METRO04/9081003...

Howell -- The Livingston County Sheriff Department is sending in an armored vehicle to rescue two adults and two children trapped inside a barn not far from where a barricaded gunman is holed up with an M-16 fully automatic weapon and other weapons, according to Sheriff Bob Bezotte..

"He has not threatened anyone yet," he said.

... The man, who Bezotte identified as Wesley Gilson, operates ProSoldier, a military training company contracted by the U.S. Army.



Okay, maybe he really is ineligible to possess a firearm ... . We'll have to look into that.

[iverglas]

8. uh ... I can't tell here ...

You quoted me:

Okay, maybe he really is ineligible to possess a firearm ... . We'll have to look into that.

presumably for some purpose. Damned if I know what.

I know that dry humour isn't big in the US, but for pete's sake, make an effort. This is the worldwide web.

[TPaine7]

10. Recommended

For cautionary purposes.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[virginia mountainman]

13. I hear buzzing.......NT

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

69. hahahahahahaha

Delicate sensibilities for somebody who uses the language of genocide. Or one of his pals.



typo fixed

[spin]

18. K&R... Interesting but tragic story. (n/t)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. He doesn't sound very law abiding.

[iverglas]

22. oh, Dave

oh Dave oh Dave oh Dave.

You really don't read for comprehension, do you.

He didn't kidnap anybody. The other individuals in question were in a barn on another property that happened to be in the possible line of fire. Oh my, it's sad to see how little comprehension you have of a few short paragraphs. Or how willing you are to pretend out loud that they said something they didn't say.

Funny thing, though.

If he had kidnapped somebody, right up to the splitnanosecond when he did it, he would have been a law-abiding gun owner. Am I right or am I right, eh?

And I'm sure you'll agree that this makes the entire "law-abiding gun owner" meme a mere useless bit of demagoguery.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. One incident doesn't make years of reliable statistics useless.

Unless you have the complete background and history of the man it would be hard to say how law abiding he had or hadn't been. Point of fact you are the only person that I have seen refer to him as law abiding.

[iverglas]

26. yeah, that govt security clearance

that's always the best indication that someone is a lunatic / criminal / child. Certainly not law-abiding.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. I didn't know the government got confessions of all wrong doing when they did a background check.

I was under the apparently mistaken impression that it ascertained whether people had been arrested or convicted of crimes not whether or not they had ever committed any.

[iverglas]

32. oh, no, Paco!!!

I didn't know the government got confessions of all wrong doing when they did a background check.
I was under the apparently mistaken impression that it ascertained whether people had been arrested or convicted of crimes not whether or not they had ever committed any.

Tell me it ain't so!!!

You mean THE WHOLE LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER MEME is nothing but The Big Lie?

That NOBODY REALLY EVER KNOWS whether someone legally in possession of a firearm IS ACTUALLY LAW-ABIDING???

No, surely, that can't be. I mean, that would have to be the death knell for the meme. No one could ever again refer to someone as a LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER, because NO ONE WOULD EVER KNOW, and so the meme itself would be a mere tool for, er, obfuscating.

Gosh. I would never have suspected that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. Breath into a bag, calm down. A background check doesn't ensure much of anything.

Come back and read it again when your heart rate slows down.

[iverglas]

34. so where do I find this mythical beast,

the Law-Abiding Gun Owner?

If I can't rely on background checks, how do I take the measure of the gun owner?

I'm feeling like Diogenes here. Whither the Honest Citizen??

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. How do you take the measure of the gun owner now?

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Unknown knowns.

It would be nice if we had a system that could pro-actively catch and deny firearms possession by certain people who are 'law abiding' but for want of a court catching them breaking a law.

Full background checks are somewhat good for this, if you have some unknown person that committed a crime, and prints were taken at the scene, and the case went 'cold' and unsolved, a full background check might tie the 'law abiding citizen' applying for the permit, to the crime. NICS is significantly less sophisticated, being go-no-go based on the output of the courts only.

But a full background check will only catch an unsolved crime if the perpetrator left prints or some other evidence behind, that can be tied to the crime, and the perpetrator. It cannot be a predictor of future crimes. The nature of our laws, specifically the 2nd amendment doesn't allow an 'attitude' litmus test for possession of a firearm. You are good to go, UNLESS.


Speaking hypothetically, a system that would require a person to prove they are 'stable' and unlikely to commit some crime in the future, would require a complete scrap of our existing laws, up to and including the 2nd.

[gorfle]

64. The absolute crux of the matter.

so where do I find this mythical beast, the Law-Abiding Gun Owner?

If I can't rely on background checks, how do I take the measure of the gun owner?

This is the absolute crux of the matter.

In the United States, we do rely on background checks to take the measure of a gun owner. We have decided that rather than exclude firearm ownership based on trying to predict what they might do in the future, we exclude firearm ownership based on specific things that they have done in the past.

In the United States, no attempt is made to interview and/or assess prospective firearm owners to make a subjective judgment call on whether or not they are suitable to own them. Instead, we check to see if they have one of the following exclusive traits:

* A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.

* Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.

* An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.

* A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.

* A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.

* A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.

* A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.

* A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.

* The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.

* A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.

* A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

Now I readily admit, this process needs to apply to all firearm sales, not just sales through dealers. But this is the metric we use to measure gun owners, and I find it quite satisfactory.

[iverglas]

65. sorry, non-responsive

me: so where do I find this mythical beast, the Law-Abiding Gun Owner?
If I can't rely on background checks, how do I take the measure of the gun owner?

You: In the United States, we do rely on background checks to take the measure of a gun owner. ... ... ... ...

That's nice.

Now, can you tell me how determine whether a gun owner is a Law-Abiding Gun Owner?

I'm pretty sure you know that's what my question was.

You may move straight on to the follow-up then:

Since there is no way of knowing whether a gun owner is law-abiding, why do people persist in using the expression "law-abiding gun owner" to refer to, like, millions of people they don't know anything about at all?



html fixed

[gorfle]

67. You can't.

Now, can you tell me how determine whether a gun owner is a Law-Abiding Gun Owner?

Without running a background check, you can't.

Since there is no way of knowing whether a gun owner is law-abiding, why do people persist in using the expression "law-abiding gun owner" to refer to, like, millions of people they don't know anything about at all?

Because given the fact that there are an estimated 40-80 million firearm owners in this country, but less than a million illegal things done with firearms every year, it is logical to deduce that the vast majority of firearm owners aren't doing illegal things with their firearms. They are colloquially known as "law-abiding firearm owners".

This is no different than talking about, say, people who are infected with HIV vs. those who are not. Unless I run a blood test on someone, there is no way to determine whether or not they are infected with HIV. Yet I can easily refer to millions of people as "HIV infected" people, or "non-HIV infected people", even though I don't know anything about them at all. And I can even say that for any given population how likely it is that any given person is or is not HIV infected.

[iverglas]

68. do we have to go in circles every time?

Now, can you tell me how determine whether a gun owner is a Law-Abiding Gun Owner?
Without running a background check, you can't.


You see, we have already established that a background check does not tell anything about whether an individual is LAW-ABIDING.

Nothing. Nada.

It will, hopefully, tell whether the individual has criminal CONVICTIONS.

That's all. Sum total.


Because given the fact that there are an estimated 40-80 million firearm owners in this country, but less than a million illegal things done with firearms every year, it is logical to deduce that the vast majority of firearm owners aren't doing illegal things with their firearms. They are colloquially known as "law-abiding firearm owners".

No, they are demagoguishly known as law-abiding firearm owners.

Nobody has any clue how many of them are law-abiding.

And you have absolutely NO basis whatsoever for saying:

less than a million illegal things done with firearms every year

You have NO idea how many illegal things are done with firearms every year, and NO way of knowing.

All you're doing is applying the same fallacy to a different thing.

No criminal convictions does not equal law-abiding.
Total reported firearm-related crimes does not equal total illegal things done with firearms.

These ones got caught because they were stupid enough to post video of their illegal hunting on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW_FzDvGrmA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-g7Ie0nr2k

I doubt that most people who do illegal things (using firearms or otherwise) do that.



html fixed

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Not entirely.

"It will, hopefully, tell whether the individual has criminal CONVICTIONS.

That's all. Sum total."

A full background check includes fingerprints, which may actually tie someone to an unsolved crime they committed, as a result of attempting the background check.

Of course, not all criminals leave fingerprints, but that's 'some' of the unknown quantity of unconvicted perpetrators of crime that might SEEM to be 'law abiding' per the NICS firearms purchase check. It's a matter of resolution. NICS is one bit, yes no. A background check provides much more detail, but it's still pretty low rez.

A security clearance background check goes even further, talking to people who know you, previous employers, etc. That might catch 'dangerous attitudes', etc. About as high detail as you could hope to get.

[iverglas]

73. please read 34

A full background check includes fingerprints, which may actually tie someone to an unsolved crime they committed, as a result of attempting the background check.

Yes, I saw your earlier comments.

I was replying to what gorfle said. Not the same thing.

He was citing how things are, not how they might be.

It makes no difference, though, to what I am actually talking about here.

I am talking about the LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER meme.


Did you watch the videos? I'll be looking to see whether the assholes in question had licences, and whether the firearms were registered (which they might have got away with not doing if they had not done so before the current Conservative Party amnesty).

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Can you specify which videos?

You mean the ones from the assholes with the .50 caliber rifle thread, or one of the videos in your first three posts of this thread or... Everythings marked 'read' so idunno which you mean, or whether I watched it.

[iverglas]

89. the assholes shooting ducks in Saskatchewan

in post ... dang ... 68.

They were from Ontario, they didn't know about migratory bird hunting rules.

Well, maybe if they were from a condo at Bay & Bloor or something, they could be believed. They seemed to have hunting rifles. They've been fined and had their rifles seized. And banned from having hunting licences for 3 years. I assume they have a firearms prohibition order too. If not, I'd wanna know why not.



http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jQqOxVcgJ4YZhVcw2viS3SutZvrw

They were charged with careless firearms use, allowing game meat to spoil, hunting waterfowl out of season and illegally hunting migratory birds with a rifle. One was also charged with firing a gun from a vehicle.

David Fraser, 30, his brother James, 23, and their brother-in-law Jeremy Rowlands plead guilty Monday in court to 15 counts of violating wildlife protection laws.

... "We had no idea that bullets ricocheted off water. And we made every effort at the time to make sure that there was nothing within eye view on the horizon of anywhere that we shot."

In one scene, one of the three shooters unloads a hail of bullets at an unsuspecting duck, ripping it apart.

They posted the video online "because at the time we thought it was funny," Fraser was quoted as saying by public broadcaster CBC. It was viewed by more than 60,000 people, and provoked a national outcry.

Sporting chaps.

[iverglas]

91. huh

I'm not seeing any reports of firearms prohibition orders, as the Humane Society called for.

http://www.rushprnews.com/2009/08/07/the-humane-society-of-canada-hsc-offers-reward-to-bring-duck-killers-to-justice/

Well, if they had licences, I think they'll be losing them. And if they didn't and they decide to apply, I don't think they'll be getting them.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Here in Washington, they'd never hunt again. Ever.

SOO many things wrong with what they did. Looks like your hunting and firearms safety laws are very similar to ours, actually. (I've never been hunting in Canada)

[iverglas]

99. I'm pretty sure they won't here, either

One of them says he won't, anyhow. ;)

I've never been hunting in Canada either. TXRAT fishes up here every summer. Should be right around now. Huh, I didn't get an invite this year. Of course, it's about as far from me to the wilds of Manitoba where he goes as it is to Texas where he comes from!

Knock on the door this afternoon, middle-aged guy in pick-up truck looking to buy my 94 Mazda van, which has obviously not been driven in a long time. Eye surgery, wasn't driving, came time for emissions test, licence and insurance, and I said fuckit.

I have no idea how it came up ... I don't actually initiate conversations about guns with complete strangers ... oh yeah, telling him the tale of why it wasn't being driven and how I still planned to get it back on the road, it came up that my driver's licence is up for renewal and he was reminding me I had a year before I would have to start all over again. Then he told me how he had guns, and his licence had expired, and he applied in time but they lost his renewal paperwork, and it took them two years to do the renewal. So in the meantime he carried around the acknowledgement of receipt when he went hunting.

So I said, but along with your PAL, they're registered, and he said Oh yes, and I said Odd, there's supposed to be cross-checking (guns registered, owner no longer has valid licence), and he said You know about these things? and I said Oooh yes. ;) We figured they may have cross-checked and saw what the problem was and just left it alone. Imagine that. A big bureaucracy that didn't screw the little guy. And a guy with long guns for hunting who had absolutely no objection to registering them and having a licence to own them.

When I said Oooh yes, I also said And I have a no-guns policy for tenants in this property. And he agreed forcefully, no guns in this neighbourhood. He goes around buying old vans and hunts, I assume he lives in the sticks someplace, and I'd bet he stores his firearms securely. And I said how probably the delay with his PAL renewal was it was right around then that the assholes in Alberta were trying to drive the system into the ground by overloading it (people were applying for licences for their dogs ...), and he shook his head at their antics.


And there, folks, I would bet went a law-abiding gun owner. ;)

[gorfle]

76. I thought we had been over this before?

You see, we have already established that a background check does not tell anything about whether an individual is LAW-ABIDING.

Nothing. Nada.

It will, hopefully, tell whether the individual has criminal CONVICTIONS.

That's all. Sum total.

Yes, this is true, but I don't see what you're getting at. That we have no way to see into the minds of men and predict their future actions? OK, I agree.

No, they are demagoguishly known as law-abiding firearm owners.

Nobody has any clue how many of them are law-abiding.

And you have absolutely NO basis whatsoever for saying:

less than a million illegal things done with firearms every year

You have NO idea how many illegal things are done with firearms every year, and NO way of knowing.

All you're doing is applying the same fallacy to a different thing.

I thought we had already been over this. Some months ago I compiled the number of all "bad things" done by with firearms annually in the United States, based on available published data. It was somewhere in the number of 800,000. This included things like robbery, rape, murder, assault, etc.

No, we have no way of knowing precisely how many bad things are done with firearms every year. This does not mean we don't know anything about how many bad things are done with firearms every year.

But again, what are you driving at here? That no one should own firearms because we can't know for certain if they are law-abiding citizens?

[iverglas]

77. oh deary me, oh fucking deary me

Start at the TOP of this subthread.

READ the posts in this subthread.

Read MY posts in this subthread.

And tell me, after you have done that, why you are saying to me:

But again, what are you driving at here? That no one should own firearms because we can't know for certain if they are law-abiding citizens?

And then tell me the answer to my question - the question this subthread is ABOUT:

Why do people use the meme LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER to describe millions of people about whom they know NOTHING, and about whom they have no basis for saying they are LAW-ABIDING?



THE ADHERENTS OF THE REPEATED MEME

[gorfle]

90. Already answered.

Why do people use the meme LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER to describe millions of people about whom they know NOTHING, and about whom they have no basis for saying they are LAW-ABIDING?

Because given the fact that there are an estimated 40-80 million firearm owners in this country, but less than a million illegal things done with firearms every year, it is logical to deduce that the vast majority of firearm owners aren't doing illegal things with their firearms. They are colloquially known as "law-abiding firearm owners".

This is no different than talking about, say, people who are infected with HIV vs. those who are not. Unless I run a blood test on someone, there is no way to determine whether or not they are infected with HIV. Yet I can easily refer to millions of people as "HIV infected" people, or "non-HIV infected people", even though I don't know anything about them at all. And I can even say that for any given population how likely it is that any given person is or is not HIV infected.

Data has been provided to you that indicates that most firearm owners are law abiding, or, at least, there are far more firearm owners than crimes committed using them annually.

If you disagree with the data supporting our position, feel free to provide counter-data supporting yours.

Do you believe that most firearm owners are or are not law-abiding? I'm not talking about breaking the speed limit now and again, either.

[iverglas]

92. not then, not now

Because given the fact that there are an estimated 40-80 million firearm owners in this country, but less than a million illegal things done with firearms every year, it is logical to deduce that the vast majority of firearm owners aren't doing illegal things with their firearms. They are colloquially known as "law-abiding firearm owners".

Your statement that there are "less than a million illegal things done with firearms every year" (FEWER than a million things, aargh) is quite simply false.

I'll place a reservation on my statement if you want to come up with substantiation for yours. Otherwise it stands.

But on the main point, you have done nothing but tacitly acknowledge the truth of what I am saying: YOU DON'T KNOW.

So anyone who does not know whether any one or ten or hundred thousand of all these firearms owners ACTUALLY IS law-abiding has no business calling them law-abiding.

It's quite possible to be non-law-abiding without using a firearm for the purpose, you know.

You could cheat on your taxes, or shoplift, or traffic in drugs, or pimp, or defraud thousands out of millions.

If you did any of those things, you would NOT be law-abiding.

And that's all we need to know. We don't know. "Law-abiding gun owner" is a deceptive meme used by demagogues.

[gorfle]

100. As I said.

Your statement that there are "less than a million illegal things done with firearms every year" (FEWER than a million things, aargh) is quite simply false.

I'll place a reservation on my statement if you want to come up with substantiation for yours. Otherwise it stands.

As I said before, I already did this some months ago. I'm not going to go dig up the thread nor the data again. Basically it was in response to your dissatisfaction with us pointing out that there are only 10,000 or so homicides annually from firearms. Then you went on about how homicides aren't the whole picture and there were many bad things done with firearms beyond homicide.

So I went and pulled data for all other kinds of firearm crime that I could find data on. Robbery, assault, rape, homicide, etc. All of that combined came to about 800,000 "bad things" done with firearms annually each year, and, as I recall, you even accepted my numbers.

But on the main point, you have done nothing but tacitly acknowledge the truth of what I am saying: YOU DON'T KNOW.

Again, iverglas, you're right - we can't know how many people, let alone firearm owners, actually break laws every year. All we know is how many people got caught.

So what?

So anyone who does not know whether any one or ten or hundred thousand of all these firearms owners ACTUALLY IS law-abiding has no business calling them law-abiding.

I have no way of knowing whether any one or ten or hundred thousand of Americans are HIV-infected, yet I can still call them HIV-infected.

It's quite possible to be non-law-abiding without using a firearm for the purpose, you know.

You could cheat on your taxes, or shoplift, or traffic in drugs, or pimp, or defraud thousands out of millions.

If you did any of those things, you would NOT be law-abiding.

And that's all we need to know. We don't know. "Law-abiding gun owner" is a deceptive meme used by demagogues.

Yes, iverglas, that is all completely true.

But nobody cares.

When we talk about firearm owners obeying laws, it is, or should be, understood by everyone that what we are mostly concerned with are laws concerning violence. I'm sure everyone has broken a speed limit law at one time or another in their lives. Thus, by this metric, there are no law-abiding firearm owners.

When we talk about "law abiding firearm owners", we are almost always talking about firearm owners who did not use their firearms in a manner that breaks the law. And the simple fact is, no matter how much you want to keep trumpeting the fact that we don't precisely know, what we do know is that there are 40-80 million firearm owners in this country and there aren't nearly that many bad things done with firearms every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

From the above, from 1973 to 2003 at it's maximum there were roughly 4.5 million violent crimes in a given year. Even if every single one of them was committed with a firearm, this means that 90% of firearm owners weren't involved.

So I ask again, do you believe that most firearm owners are law abiding (concerning violent crime law, now) or not?

How many firearms owners do you think are currently in the United States?

How many firearm-related crimes do you think are committed in the United States annually?

"Law-abiding gun owner" is a deceptive meme used by demagogues.

What term would you like to use to describe the 96+% of firearm owners who statistically probably aren't involved in violent crime each year?

[iverglas]

102. okey dokey

you're right - we can't know how many people, let alone firearm owners, actually break laws every year. All we know is how many people got caught.

And you do know that SOME people commit crimes and don't get caught.

And given the prevalence of firearms ownership, you have every reason to believe, and no reason at all to disbelieve, that quite a few legal firearms owners commit crimes and don't get caught. Just like loads of other "non-criminals" commit crimes and don't get caught.

So "law-abiding gun owners", when used to refer to large masses of unidentified people, is almost by definition false.



I have no way of knowing whether any one or ten or hundred thousand of Americans are HIV-infected, yet I can still call them HIV-infected.

Let me get this one straight. You can still call, what, everybody who lives in Boston HIV-infected, because some of them are? Wtf? Maybe you can call them all non-HIV-infected, because some of them aren't.


When we talk about firearm owners obeying laws

Who is talking about that?????

I am talking about WHO IS PERMITTED TO POSSESS FIREARMS. The circle just widens, doesn't it?



it is, or should be, understood by everyone that what we are mostly concerned with are laws concerning violence.

This guy had no record of violent crime, to stick to my point.

But to look at yours: you know what? He's not actually going to show up anywhere noticeable in firearms crime stats. Is he? No conviction, no shooting of third parties ... no problem. You could engrave "law-abiding gun owner" on his grave, because there's nothing in the records to say nay.



How many firearms owners do you think are currently in the United States?
How many firearm-related crimes do you think are committed in the United States annually?

What is your point?

Does it have something to do with the LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER meme?


What term would you like to use to describe the 96+% of firearm owners who statistically probably aren't involved in violent crime each year?

I have no interest in using a term for that.

I'd like the people who dishonestly refer to millions of people about whom they know precisely noting as "law-abiding gun owners" to stop playing the demagogue.

I know it ain't gonna happen, but it's one of those things just wants saying.

[gorfle]

142. Sure.

you're right - we can't know how many people, let alone firearm owners, actually break laws every year. All we know is how many people got caught.

And you do know that SOME people commit crimes and don't get caught.

And given the prevalence of firearms ownership, you have every reason to believe, and no reason at all to disbelieve, that quite a few legal firearms owners commit crimes and don't get caught. Just like loads of other "non-criminals" commit crimes and don't get caught.

Sure, iverglas, no doubt there are plenty of firearm owners who commit crimes, even violent crimes with firearms, who don't get caught.

So "law-abiding gun owners", when used to refer to large masses of unidentified people, is almost by definition false.

Not even close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/4meastab.htm


The serious violent crimes included are rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and homicide.

What we know is that there are 40-80 million firearm owners in this country, and that since 1973 the worst it has ever been are 5 million serious violent crimes a year, and most years it is considerably less. Since 2003 there have been less than 2 million serious violent crimes a year. And this isn't just the crimes that are reported, nor just the crimes where the perpetrator was caught. This is "total violent crime": "The estimated number of homicides of persons age 12 and older recorded by police plus the number of rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults from the victimization survey whether or not they were reported to the police. From NCVS + homicide from the UCR."

So even if every serious violent crime was done by a firearm owner, this is still only 3% - 12% of all firearm owners.

This means that every year 88% - 97% of firearm owners are not involved in serious violent crime every year.

So in terms of serious violent crime, we can absolutely say that somewhere in the neighborhood of 93% of firearm owners - certainly a "large mass" of "unidentified people" - are law abiding.

I have no way of knowing whether any one or ten or hundred thousand of Americans are HIV-infected, yet I can still call them HIV-infected.

Let me get this one straight. You can still call, what, everybody who lives in Boston HIV-infected, because some of them are? Wtf? Maybe you can call them all non-HIV-infected, because some of them aren't.

Of course not, but that's not what you suggested. You said:

So anyone who does not know whether any one or ten or hundred thousand of all these firearms owners ACTUALLY IS law-abiding has no business calling them law-abiding.

Your assertion was that I don't have any business calling the 90+% of firearm owners who don't commit violent crimes every year "law-abiding" because I don't know which of those 38 to 78 million people actually are law abiding.

But even if we consider people living in Boston, I can't say whether any one or ten or hundred thousand of people living in Boston are HIV-positive, but I can still talk about HIV-positive people living in Boston, because surely there ARE HIV-positive people living in Boston.

Your assertion is that we can't call certain people "law-abiding" firearm owners since we can't know precisely who they are. I assert that we can, just as we can call HIV-positive and HIV-negative people HIV-positive and negative even though we don't know precisely who they are. I can even use statistical data to make inferences about what percentage of a given population is HIV-positive and HIV-negative, just as I can use statistical data to make inferences about what percentage of firearm owners is law-abiding or not.

When we talk about firearm owners obeying laws

Who is talking about that????

You and I have been discussing whether or not it is incorrect to refer to any class of firearm owners as "law abiding". Necessarily this implies a discussion about which firearm owners obey laws and which ones do not.

I am talking about WHO IS PERMITTED TO POSSESS FIREARMS. The circle just widens, doesn't it?


And as I said early on, in the United States this is very easily defined, based on the known past criminal and mental history of an individual, rather than speculation on what they may or may not do. As I have also said, this needs to be expanded to cover all firearm sales, not just dealer sales, but nonetheless, the criteria is sufficient.


This guy had no record of violent crime, to stick to my point.

Then, assuming he had no other disqualifying problem, he was permitted to possess firearms, and he has become one of those minority of people every year with no criminal background who commits murder with a firearm. About 75% of murderers have a prior arrest record, more if you consider expunged youth records.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29826.html

But to look at yours: you know what? He's not actually going to show up anywhere noticeable in firearms crime stats. Is he? No conviction, no shooting of third parties ... no problem. You could engrave "law-abiding gun owner" on his grave, because there's nothing in the records to say nay.

And so...you don't restrict his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

How many firearms owners do you think are currently in the United States?
How many firearm-related crimes do you think are committed in the United States annually?

What is your point?

Does it have something to do with the LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER meme?

My point is that I have provided you with data that answers those questions, and I want to see if you understand the data that I provided you, or whether or not you disagree with the data I provided you.

So, do you dare answer?

What term would you like to use to describe the 96+% of firearm owners who statistically probably aren't involved in violent crime each year?

I have no interest in using a term for that.

Well, the rest of us who want to talk about "firearm owners who have committed no serious violent crimes" prefer a term that isn't quite so long to type. We will continue to refer to such people as "law-abiding firearm owners". Feel free to continue to type out the long version if you prefer.

I'd like the people who dishonestly refer to millions of people about whom they know precisely noting as "law-abiding gun owners" to stop playing the demagogue.

It is your absolute refusal to admit that 90+% of firearm owners don't commit serious violent crimes that reveals who is truly playing the demagogue. There is nothing dishonest about recognizing that there are less than 5 million violent crimes a year committed in this country and there are 40-80 million firearm owners in this country. Even if every single violent crime was committed by a firearm owner, that would still mean that 90+% of them are not involved in violent crimes.

What IS dishonest is to refuse to admit that firearm owners are, by and large, law-abiding, at least in terms of laws concerning violence. What agenda would be served by refusing to admit this? Perhaps the agenda of trying to paint firearm owners as being not law-abiding? Hmm?

[iverglas]

143. we can sum it up this way

Your assertion is that we can't call certain people "law-abiding" firearm owners since we can't know precisely who they are.

No, that is not my assertion. How you could sit there with your bare face hanging out and say it is, I will never know.

My assertion is that you cannot call any individual you don't know intimately, or any group that includes individuals whom you do not know intimately, "law-abiding firearm owners" because you don't know WHETHER THEY ARE.



How many firearms owners do you think are currently in the United States?
How many firearm-related crimes do you think are committed in the United States annually?
What is your point?
Does it have something to do with the LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER meme?

My point is that I have provided you with data that answers those questions, and I want to see if you understand the data that I provided you, or whether or not you disagree with the data I provided you.

And I'll tell you what time it is, if you like, and then offer you a short quiz to see whether you understood.

And that would be precisely as relevant to this discussion as your questions and your data.


Well, the rest of us who want to talk about "firearm owners who have committed no serious violent crimes" prefer a term that isn't quite so long to type.

I don't care what you want. You could call "firearm owners who have committed no serious violent crimes" Nancy if you'd like. That's even shorter. How about if I call "Martians with green toes heading directly to earth in a spaceship" Joe?

I don't know whether there are Martians heading for earth, and you DON'T KNOW whether any particular one of the tens of millions of strangers to you among the people you are calling "firearm owners who have committed no serious violent crimes" has committed any serious violent crimes. YOU DON'T KNOW. Get it? ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE.

You have NO BASIS for referring to ANYONE whom you do not know intimately as a "law-abiding firearm owner", or to any group of such people in the plural of the meme.


You sure are firmly wedded to this meme, aren't you? It is obviously a very valuable tool in the gun militant kit.

[Katya Mullethov]

147. Occam would call them Americans

And then go make a sandwich .

[iverglas]

148. jingoistic fellow, isn't he?

[gorfle]

153. Check and mate.

No, that is not my assertion. How you could sit there with your bare face hanging out and say it is, I will never know.

My assertion is that you cannot call any individual you don't know intimately, or any group that includes individuals whom you do not know intimately, "law-abiding firearm owners" because you don't know WHETHER THEY ARE.

As I have demonstrated time and again, I most certainly do know whether they are. I know, with a very high degree of certainty that ninety-plus percent of all firearm owners are not involved in serious violent crime every year.

This is a fact.

These people, by definition, are LAW ABIDING people, because THEY HAVE NOT BROKEN ANY LAWS REGARDING VIOLENT CRIME.

It's not that they just haven't gotten caught, either, because there are vastly more firearm owners than violent crimes committed.

I may not be able to pick any single firearm owner at random and know whether or not they are law abiding, but this does not mean that I cannot speak about individual firearm owners or groups of firearm owners as being "law-abiding", because clearly there are 38 to 78 million such people in the country every year.

And I'll tell you what time it is, if you like, and then offer you a short quiz to see whether you understood.

And that would be precisely as relevant to this discussion as your questions and your data.

Check and mate. You have been soundly beaten, and your refusing to acknowledge the facts I have provided proves it.

I don't care what you want. You could call "firearm owners who have committed no serious violent crimes" Nancy if you'd like. That's even shorter. How about if I call "Martians with green toes heading directly to earth in a spaceship" Joe?


LOL! Poor wittle iverglas with her fingers in her ears saying "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!". So pwecious.

I don't know whether there are Martians heading for earth, and you DON'T KNOW whether any particular one of the tens of millions of strangers to you among the people you are calling "firearm owners who have committed no serious violent crimes" has committed any serious violent crimes. YOU DON'T KNOW. Get it? ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE.

Yes, iverglas, I've already agreed to this. You are absolutely right. I don't know whether any particular one of tens of millions of firearm owners is law abiding or not. This does not mean that there are no law-abiding firearm owners, nor that I cannot or should not refer to the 38 to 78 million firearm owners who commit no serious violent crimes each year as "law-abiding".

I am not disagreeing with your assertion that you can't tell, individually, who is law abiding and who is not. Any more than I cannot tell, individually, who has HIV and who does not. I am disagreeing with your assertion that I can't call groups of firearm owners "law-abiding" just because I can't tell, individually, who they are. The fact is, STATISTICALLY, BASED ON THE DATA, we can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THEY EXIST.

You continue to refuse to acknowledge the data, because it would be acknowledging that I am right, and you lack the grace to do that.

You have NO BASIS for referring to ANYONE whom you do not know intimately as a "law-abiding firearm owner", or to any group of such people in the plural of the meme.

I have a VERY SOUND STATISTICAL BASIS for referring to 38 to 78 million firearm owners as being "law abiding" as it relates to laws concerning serious violent crime.

Quite simply, there are 8 to 15 TIMES more firearm owners than there are violent crimes committed.

Check and mate. You lose. I have provided you with pages of data, and not only can you not provide any counter-data, you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the data I provided. Do you get sand in your ears with your head buried in it?

[iverglas]

157. my doog dog

It's not that they just haven't gotten caught, either, because there are vastly more firearm owners than violent crimes committed.

Start with spousal violence and work your way across the board. Throw in child abuse.

Investigate how many women are sexually assualted in their lifetime, and then ask yourself whether there are three guys in the country doing all that assaulting.

Note how few POLICE-RECORDED incidents of each of those two crimes there are as compared to REALITY. And take the very short and easy leap to acknowledging that there are crimes upon crimes upon crimes upon crimes that ARE NEVER REPORTED to any official record-keeping body, and thousands upon thousands of people committing those crimes.


I have a VERY SOUND STATISTICAL BASIS for referring to 38 to 78 million firearm owners as being "law abiding" as it relates to laws concerning serious violent crime.

Quite simply, there are 8 to 15 TIMES more firearm owners than there are violent crimes committed.

Huh. It sure sounds like you're saying that because spousal violence and sexual assault and child abuse ... for starters ... are more unreported than reported, they aren't serious violent crime.

Huh.

[gorfle]

162. I did not use POLICE-RECORDED incidents.

It's not that they just haven't gotten caught, either, because there are vastly more firearm owners than violent crimes committed.

Start with spousal violence and work your way across the board. Throw in child abuse.

Investigate how many women are sexually assualted in their lifetime, and then ask yourself whether there are three guys in the country doing all that assaulting.

Now that you've been soundly trounced we're going to play the moving goalposts game, eh? I suppose by the time we're finished we'll be down to counting parking tickets, too, huh?. I mean fucking-A, iverglas, 95% of firearm owners don't commit rape, robbery, aggravated assault and homicide, so they must all be wife beaters and child molesters. Got any more straws you want to grasp at?

Note how few POLICE-RECORDED incidents of each of those two crimes there are as compared to REALITY. And take the very short and easy leap to acknowledging that there are crimes upon crimes upon crimes upon crimes that ARE NEVER REPORTED to any official record-keeping body, and thousands upon thousands of people committing those crimes.

If you read the citations I posted, you would note that I specifically did not use "police-recorded" incidents, which are much lower than the "total violent crime" numbers I actually used.

Total violent crime:

The estimated number of homicides of persons age 12 and older recorded by police plus the number of rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults from the victimization survey whether or not they were reported to the police. From NCVS + homicide from the UCR.

I'm sure the next straw you're going to grasp at is that some people, even when interviewed, won't admit they were the victims of a crime.

I tell ya what. Let's take the current total serious crime rate and multiply it by FIVE. Let's say instead of two million serious violent crimes committed annually there are actually 10. On top of this, we will add 900,000 child abuse cases annually ( http://pediatrics.about.com/od/childabuse/a/05_abuse_stats.htm ), and assume that every child abuse case is committed by a firearm owner. That means that only 72% to 86% of firearm owners are law abiding.

Huh. It sure sounds like you're saying that because spousal violence and sexual assault and child abuse ... for starters ... are more unreported than reported, they aren't serious violent crime.

Huh.

I am using the United States Federal Government's definition of serious violent crime. If you read the citations I posted, you would know that. Hell I even quoted that one for you.

The bottom line is that even when we take the current total violent crime rate and multiply it by FIVE, and throw in 900,000 child abuse cases, and assume that all of these crimes are committed by firearm owners, the vast majority of firearm owners are still unlikely to be involved in them.

[iverglas]

167. so the fuck what?

When will you answer that question?

the vast majority of firearm owners are still unlikely to be involved in them.

SO WHAT??

Why are you arguing with me about something I have not said and don't give a crap about?

The vast majority of PEOPLE are unlikely to be involved in violent crime.

That doesn't mean that you may refer to the entire population of the state of Idaho as "law-abiding".

As a GROUP, they may well be overwhelmingly law-abiding.

But when people say LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS, they are not talking about the law-abiding TENDENCIES of a GROUP.

Really. THEY ARE NOT.

They are referring to a specific set: LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS.

I am not and never have been talking about the law-abiding-ness of gun owners as a group.

I am talking about the MEME.

LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS.

****NOT*** "gun owners are law-abiding".

Can you not see the difference?????????????????????????

When somebody says "punish law-abiding gun owners", one of the favourite uses of the memes, they are not saying "gun owners are law-abiding".

They are saying that this set -- LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS -- are being persecuted by things like laws requiring that they register their firearms.

And I am saying: THERE IS NO SUCH KNOWN SET, because NO ONE knows who in the broader set, GUN OWNERS, is LAW-ABIDING.

Fooking eh.

[gorfle]

181. You completely don't get set theory.

The vast majority of PEOPLE are unlikely to be involved in violent crime.

That doesn't mean that you may refer to the entire population of the state of Idaho as "law-abiding".

But I can talk about the law-abiding gun owners in Idaho.

What you said was that it was nonsense to talk about law-abiding gun owners. And that, clearly, is wrong.

They are referring to a specific set: LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS.

That is because there IS a specific set of LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS. I am in that set!

You're just whining because that set of law-abiding gun owners is not identifiable individually. This does not mean they do not exist, nor that we can't talk in general terms about law-abiding gun owners.

I am talking about the MEME.

LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS.

****NOT*** "gun owners are law-abiding".

They are one and the same. If there are law-abiding gun owners, and statistically some 90% of them are, then we can talk about law-abiding gun owners.

When somebody says "punish law-abiding gun owners", one of the favourite uses of the memes, they are not saying "gun owners are law-abiding".

No, they are saying you are punishing 90% of firearm owners who don't break the law with their firearms.

They are saying that this set -- LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS -- are being persecuted by things like laws requiring that they register their firearms.

That is correct. Glad you finally got it.

And I am saying: THERE IS NO SUCH KNOWN SET, because NO ONE knows who in the broader set, GUN OWNERS, is LAW-ABIDING.

Guess you didn't get it. Iverglas, you are just absolutely, completely wrong concerning set theory.

There IS a set of law-abiding gun owners. Just because no one knows who is in the set does not mean the set does not exist.

I do not know who in this country self-identifies as a Democrat and who self-identifies as a Republican. This does not mean that there is no such set of people who self-identify as Democrats or Republicans, as clearly there are.

I do not know who in Boston is HIV-positive or HIV-negative. This does not mean that there is no such known set, because clearly there is a set of HIV-positive people and a set of HIV-negative people in Boston, and there is probably even statistical data from which we can infer the size of each set.

I do not know precisely exactly how many molecules of nitrogen and oxygen are in this room. Yet out of the superset of "air", there is a definite subset of "oxygen" and another subset of "nitrogen", and I can tell, from experimental data, that the set of nitrogen gas constitutes about 78% of the whole, and the set of oxygen gas constitutes about 21%. I know this even though I don't know anything about the individual atoms of nitrogen or oxygen. I can still talk about the set of nitrogen and the set of oxygen.

The bottom line is this:

There is a set of law-abiding firearm owners in this country, and statistically that set comprises over 90% of all firearm owners. It is 38 to 78 million people in size. It does not matter whether you can individually identify who is a member of this set. When you pass laws that, for example, require that they register their firearms, you are affecting this set of people.

Your assertion that it is absurd to talk about a set of people known as "law-abiding firearm owners" is as absurd as saying we can't talk about the set of people known as "HIV-positive Bostonians" or "Democrats". Just because you don't know who is in the set does not mean the set does not exist.

[iverglas]

182. and you keep on saying what you know is false

The rest might be worth considering if it were not based on this false premise:

There is a set of law-abiding firearm owners in this country, and statistically that set comprises over 90% of all firearm owners.

You keep saying that, and you keep proving my point every time.

YOU DO NOT KNOW this.

You do not know that over 90% of all firearms owners are law-abiding.

You do not know how many of them beat their children or spouses, or sexually assault their dates or strangers, or sell drugs, or do any of a myriad of other illegal things that have never come to official attention (or been reported in victimization surveys).

For sexual assault alone, women's lifetime experience estimates range from 1 in 6 to 1 in 3, generally, with most somewhere in between.

If at least 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime, then it is not reasonable to think that a substantially lower proportion of men will commit sexual assault in their lifetime. (We know that a large majority of women victims of sexual assault are victimized by people they know, not serial rapists with dozens of victims.)

Estimates of women who experience spousal violence in their lifetime fall around 1 in 4. Again, it is not reasonable to think that there are serial spousal abusers accounting for large numbers of these assaults.

People who commit sexual and other assaults are not "law-abiding". We are looking at no fewer than 1 in 4 women experiencing sexual and/or spousal violence in their lifetime. So we are not looking at 10% of the male population being "law-abiding".

(Does an overwhelmingly law-abiding population of female gun owners operate to mitigate the effects of the non-law-abiding male gun owners in the overall gun-owning population? I don't think so.)


There IS a set of law-abiding gun owners. Just because no one knows who is in the set does not mean the set does not exist.

WHAT IT MEANS is that references to "law-abiding gun owners" are disingenuous. It is INTENDED to conjure up the image of people with clean criminal records. That is what it DOES. When it is backed up by specious statistics like yours, that intent is more than obvious.

When it is used in opposition to a proposal to impose requirements on ALL gun owners, it is demagoguery.

The existence of the set is of no relevance. The fact that NO ONE KNOWS who is in the set is the specific, salient point.

It is PRECISELY BECAUSE no one knows who is in the set that certain requirements have to be imposed on ALL gun owners.

[gorfle]

186. It is true. If you believe it is false, prove it.

There is a set of law-abiding firearm owners in this country, and statistically that set comprises over 90% of all firearm owners.

You keep saying that, and you keep proving my point every time.

YOU DO NOT KNOW this.

You do not know that over 90% of all firearms owners are law-abiding.

Iverglas, this is for the last time, as I'm now tired of you.

I have provided plenty of data concerning the number of firearm owners in America, and the number of serious violent crimes committed in America. In terms of total serious violent crimes, as defined by and recorded by the United States government, I can say, with confidence, that more than 90% of all firearm owners are law-abiding. And this assumes that every serious violent crime was committed by a firearm owner! Serious violent crime is defined as "rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and homicide."

If you wish to refute this, then you will need to provide counter data. If you want to broaden the scope of crimes then you will need to provide the data. I will not respond to any more posts of yours on this subject that does not provide counter data to support your position.

WHAT IT MEANS is that references to "law-abiding gun owners" are disingenuous. It is INTENDED to conjure up the image of people with clean criminal records. That is what it DOES. When it is backed up by specious statistics like yours, that intent is more than obvious.

My data simply presents the facts as I have very clearly, and specifically laid them out. No one has claimed that there are any, even just one, firearm owners at all that have a completely clean criminal record. I myself got a speeding ticket when I was 18, and was convicted of improper left-hand turn when I was 16, and following too closely when I was 19. I'm sure most people have at least some criminal record.

But this is not what we are talking about when we are talking about firearm owners in a gun-control context. We are talking about firearm owners who should not be owning firearms because they have a dangerous criminal background.

To that end, I went and found data collected by the United States government concerning total serious violent crimes - both reported and unreported - in the United States, which include "rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and homicide." I compared this data against the number of firearm owners in this country - 40 to 80 million.

And bear in mind - my 90% doesn't include just firearm owners who didn't get caught and thus have a clean record. I compared the number of firearm owners to total serious violent crime, which includes both reported and unreported crime, not just arrests.

If you wish to expand the definition of violent crimes, that's fine - provide the data.

I'll point out here that attempted rape, threat of rape, and sexual assault, regardless of the victim's age, are all included in the serious violent crime data I used above. It also includes cases where the perpetrator was a family member.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html

The existence of the set is of no relevance. The fact that NO ONE KNOWS who is in the set is the specific, salient point.

I'm hopeful that this indicates that you concede that there is, at least, such a set.

The existence of the set is relevant because you claimed it was nonsense to speak in terms of "law-abiding firearm owners", which is clearly and demonstrably false. I do not dispute that no one knows who is in the set.

It is PRECISELY BECAUSE no one knows who is in the set that certain requirements have to be imposed on ALL gun owners.

Yes, and indeed all gun owners, especially the law-abiding ones, have had certain requirements imposed on them for this very reason. But when determining what is reasonable and fair, we need to take into account how large is the set of law-abiding firearm owners vs. the set of non-law-abiding firearm owners.

[TPaine7]

158. Sophistry

...you cannot call any individual you don't know intimately... "law-abiding..." because you don't know WHETHER THEY ARE.

You've laid bare the false foundation of your house of cards here, in typical "say nothing" fashion. Your statement is technically true (if you ignore the American and civilized presumption of innocence principle), but it is a twisted half-truth. Here's the other half:

...you cannot call any individual you DO know intimately... "law-abiding..." because you don't know WHETHER THEY ARE.

That last assumes the person you know intimately is not your conjoined twin, though even then you could have been sleeping...

Either the gun control reality distortion field has you, or you are intentionally trying to trick decent folks again.

[iverglas]

160. I'm cool with that

you cannot call any individual you DO know intimately... "law-abiding..." because you don't know WHETHER THEY ARE.

Absolutely. Feel free to modify the statement.

Then YOU can deal with all the yahoos and their I KNOW MY BROTHER-IN-LAW JIMBOB AND I KNOW HE IS LAW-ABIDING.

I was just trying to spare myself the boring grief.

My statement was correct.

The addendum is also correct.

The fact that the addendum is also correct does not mean that my statement was not correct.

You got some logic with that high school economics didya?

"There are no purple oranges" does not mean "there are polka-dotted oranges".

My saying "you cannot call any individual you don't know intimately 'law-abiding'" does not mean that I am saying "you can call any individual you do know intimately 'law-abiding'".

[TPaine7]

164. Apparently I didn't break it down small enough...

The fact that the addendum is also correct does not mean that my statement was not correct.

Apparently I didn't break it down into iverglas-sized pieces.

While your statement is technically correct (if and only if we ignore the civilized principle of presumption of innocence) the addendum does show it to be INSIGNIFICANT.

If presumption is disallowed, we need factual proof. This being impossible, NO ONE is qualified. Disarm the military, their trainers, the police, the president's security detail, EVERYONE.

That is the "logical" conclusion of requiring absolute certainty. You might want to be brushing up on your own logic, iverglas. That which proves too much proves nothing, as I've tried to explain to you before.

(And not that I care what you think about my education, but it entertains me to tell you that I had high enough scores going into the finals at the university that the teacher said I didn't need to take the final to get and A. And that my entire university was on an accelerated schedule. And that most of the people at the university were post-graduate professionals working on second or advanced degrees. And that it was rated in the top 10 nationwide for my discipline by TIME or Newsweek. Not that that's something I ever intended to talk about here, but whatever. The fact that I consistently decimate your BS and that everybody knows it is highly entertaining, though. So is the fact that you think the image of a adolescent wiping the floor with your arguments makes you look good.)

You are so funny, iverglas.

[iverglas]

168. "NO ONE is qualified"

"Qualified" for WHAT?

WHAT THE FUCK
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

[TPaine7]

170. For anything--obviously--

for ANYTHING WHATSOEVER that requires that one's law-abiding status be KNOWN rather than PRESUMED.

I tried to dumb it down enough, really, I did.

[iverglas]

171. well, I'll be back tomorrow

So you have all night to answer this one:

for ANYTHING WHATSOEVER that requires that one's law-abiding status be KNOWN rather than PRESUMED.

WHAT THE FUCK
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Maybe if you try starting at the beginning.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=245974&mesg_id=246056

If he had kidnapped somebody, right up to the
splitnanosecond when he did it, he would have been
a law-abiding gun owner. Am I right or am I right, eh?

And I'm sure you'll agree
that this makes the entire
"law-abiding gun owner" meme
a mere useless bit of demagoguery.

[TPaine7]

172. Yawn... Already covered,

those citizens who pass background checks are--barring errors in the system--actually law abiding in the only sense that actually matters.--post 110

Take as long as you need digesting that.

Maybe this will help you:

"Law abiding" and "convict" are antonyms.--post 161

[TPaine7]

110. I'm willing to presume that you are guilty, iverglas...

...everyone else is presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. They thus have their Second Amendment rights (and any state analogs) intact until there is a legitimate reason for them to be deprived of those rights.

So anyone who does not know whether any one or ten or hundred thousand of all these firearms owners ACTUALLY IS law-abiding has no business calling them law-abiding.

It's quite possible to be non-law-abiding without using a firearm for the purpose, you know.

You could cheat on your taxes, or shoplift, or traffic in drugs, or pimp, or defraud thousands out of millions.

If you did any of those things, you would NOT be law-abiding.

And that's all we need to know. We don't know. "Law-abiding gun owner" is a deceptive meme used by demagogues.

Utter and complete BS. If I saw a woman walking down the street hit from behind, knocked to the ground and her purse taken, I would feel very safe in saying that an innocent person had been victimized. I would have business calling her innocent (or law-abiding, or any other rough equivalent), no matter what drivel you might spout to the contrary.

Now the presumption could of course be proven incorrect. I might learn that the woman had herself snatched the purse from the young man, who was carrying it for his girlfriend/wife/mother, etc.--or who was a transvestite, for that matter. Or I might find that the woman was actually you.

In either case, I would acknowledge the falsity of the assumed law-abiding status. That does not mean that, sans evidence of guilt, I was wrong to assume innocence initially.

Self-defense is a right in America, despite lies about it being an excuse. The right to bear arms is just that. The vast majority of Americans agree. In order to strip someone of that right, the state needs legitimate justification. It must presume innocence. So those citizens who pass background checks are--barring errors in the system--actually law abiding in the only sense that actually matters.

Those who don't like that can try to change it. They can call their senators and representatives, or their president. They can call for changes to the Constitution. Those who--having no relevant senatorial, congressional, or presidential representation--wish to change our American system to "presumed guilty" can take their concerns and deposit them in an appropriate place.

The legal presumption and the personal presumptions we make are legitimate American traditions. "Law-abiding firearms owner" is perfectly appropriate language, and YOU have no business telling us differently.

[iverglas]

111. huffety huffety huff

If you puff yourself up into enough of a huff ... will you blow up?

"Law-abiding firearms owner" is perfectly appropriate language, and YOU have no business telling us differently.

I speak English. I have respect for the meanings of words. I have respect for the people being deceived by words.

And it is my business, as a decent human being, to point at the words and the deceivers whenever I see them.


In either case, I would acknowledge the falsity of the assumed law-abiding status. That does not mean that, sans evidence of guilt, I was wrong to assume innocence initially.

What planet do you live on?

There's no moral element here, just in case you were trying to inject one.

Facts. Facts are in issue here.

You were 100% wrong -- you "assumed" something that was FALSE. Fucking great big bleeding DUH.

You are free to ACT ON whatever weird and wonderful assumptions you want to make. And you are also free to object to people acting on their own weird and wonderful assumptions.

None of which affects the FACTS about which you are making assumptions.


Now go assume a can opener.

And if you don't get that joke, go take an economics course.

[TPaine7]

149. This house is too strong...

I speak English. I have respect for the meanings of words. I have respect for the people being deceived by words.

That's some sick humor, given the fact that you're the one trying to deceive them.

And it is my business, as a decent human being,...

:rofl:

That is very funny--and harmless too. I'm sure it didn't fool anyone.

What planet do you live on?

Earth. (As a rule of thumb, you can assume that all of us have spent our entire lives on earth. We don't flit between universes like you.)

There's no moral element here, just in case you were trying to inject one.

I understand that your worldview is profoundly amoral, but that doesn't mean that there is no moral element here--here in human, earthly reality. Given your moral challenges, I will spell out the moral element.

To begin with, there is the moral question of deception:

It's quite possible to be non-law-abiding without using a firearm for the purpose, you know.

You could cheat on your taxes, or shoplift, or traffic in drugs, or pimp, or defraud thousands out of millions.

If you did any of those things, you would NOT be law-abiding.

When I say "law abiding"--and I am sure I speak for the vast majority who use the term--I don't mean that I have shadowed the person her entire life and know for a fact that she never jaywalked, exceeded the speed limit, stole a pencil in third grade, or smoked pot. I don't even mean that I can attest that she never cheated on her taxes, or assaulted someone. I don't even mean that I can attest that she isn't secretly part of a terrorist cell, or that she doesn't have a missing baby in her freezer.

When you get down to brass tacks, people don't even "know" whether their good friends are murderers. We understand that, iverglas. The people we are talking to understand that.

So morally speaking, we who use that term are innocent of disseminating untruths--there is no intent to deceive. There is no possibility of deceit. Both speaker and hearer know the score. We are assuming the person is law abiding BECAUSE THAT IS THE DEFAULT ASSUMPTION FOR AMERICANS AND FOR PEOPLE OF GOODWILL EVERYWHERE, and because in many cases in order to get the gun the person has passed a criminal background check.

Now your morality in this is (probably) different. You are attempting to persuade us that you don't realize that deceit on this is neither intended nor possible. Your only possible moral out is the gun control reality distortion field. Unless you are not guilty by reason of distortion, you are morally culpable.

Facts. Facts are in issue here.

You were 100% wrong -- you "assumed" something that was FALSE.

To be factually wrong is not to be 100% wrong in this case--yes, it's that pesky moral dimension again. I was factually wrong in the example I gave. But as someone with alleged "respect for the meanings of words", you probably should look that word "wrong" up. I was not "wrong" in every sense--100%. I was right in the moral sense--I should have assumed she was innocent. And if I saw the same scenario again, I would be right (morally correct) to assume that the second woman was innocent, too--absent contrary evidence. There are many cases where one can make an incorrect assumption and be perfectly right to do so--it's sometimes called "playing the odds."

Now if I had assumed the woman was innocent while knowing full well that she was you, THEN I would have been 100% wrong--wrong morally and wrong factually. But that was not my scenario.

DUH.

Precisely.

You are free to ACT ON whatever weird and wonderful assumptions you want to make. And you are also free to object to people acting on their own weird and wonderful assumptions.

None of which affects the FACTS about which you are making assumptions.

The moral landscape is not a weird and wonderful assumption, your skepticism notwithstanding. Spend more time on earth and you may come to see that, though to be honest I don't hold out much hope.

Now go assume a can opener.

And if you don't get that joke, go take an economics course.

I aced economics, didn't even have to take the final. Maybe that joke was on the final. I don't think I missed much.

[iverglas]

154. there we go!

When I say "law abiding"--and I am sure I speak for the vast majority who use the term--I don't mean that I have shadowed the person her entire life and know for a fact that she never jaywalked, exceeded the speed limit, stole a pencil in third grade, or smoked pot. I don't even mean that I can attest that she never cheated on her taxes, or assaulted someone. I don't even mean that I can attest that she isn't secretly part of a terrorist cell, or that she doesn't have a missing baby in her freezer.

When you say "law abiding" -- and I'll let anyone else decide whether you are speaking for them -- you are making a claim for which you have no evidence, and that you know to a (wait for it) moral certainty is false, if you use it in reference to any group of strangers to you of any significant size.

I keep saying this. I keep being right.


I was not "wrong" in every sense--100%.

Nobody claimed you were.

But as a result of that little effort to equivocate, I can now confidently say that you are.


I was right in the moral sense--I should have assumed she was innocent.

Nope. You have no moral obligation to make any assumption about anything.

You do have a moral obligation not to act on an assumption that may be false if doing so would have harmful consequences.

Ah ... like "assuming" that people who have not been convicted of crimes are "law-abiding" ... and acting on that "assumption" by trying to influence people to agree with you on some issue, by portraying what you are saying as fact, when it is mere baseless assumption.

Gosh. Once again, that's what I keep saying.


I aced economics, didn't even have to take the final. Maybe that joke was on the final. I don't think I missed much.

Please tell me that's high school, and that postsecondary institutions don't hand out exam exemptions where you are. Or maybe: please tell me you are not boasting about a high school economics class.

Whatever it is ... if you don't get an economics joke about assumptions, you must have been going to school on Mars.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22assume+a+can+opener%22

My own invention (although it has been done better since by others):

Q. How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. None; they all went for a beer and let the invisible hand take care of it.

On weekend, while being bored at a murder mystery weekend my friend/client the economics prof paid me with, and knowing that the detective character I was flirting with out of boredom was a friend of the economics prof, who ran the show as a sideline, I told him the can opener joke. He stared at me with a straight face, staying in character. Then I told him the lightbulb joke and he burst into guffaws. Turned out he too was an economics professor and he'd heard the can opener joke so many times he would have stared at me with a straight face even if not in character ...

Yes, egghead flirting. If you don't know how to assume a can opener, you're on the outside looking in.

[TPaine7]

166. Ok. I get the "joke"

It flew below my humor radar. It's also and engineering joke, and a physics joke... and yes I've heard it before, just like all those jokes in elementary school that I've forgotten and that are only funny when you're in the right mood anyway.

Ha ha

[rl6214]

176. Just wow

sounds like a bunch of fucking lawyer speak

or

a bunch fucking lawyers speaking

either way it's just a pile of bullshit.

[AtheistCrusader]

113. I think I see Iverglas's point here.

You know how we get all upset over 'assault weapon' or mischaracterization of assault weapons as assault rifles and all that? 'Law abiding gun owner' is a similar non-specific, useless descriptor.

Look at it another way. 'Law abiding knife owners'.

Are all crimes committed with knives, reported?
Are all people who commit crimes with knives knowable, if they haven't been caught?
How many knife owners are actually law-abiding?

Since we can't possibly know how many people may have stabbed, slashed, or threatened another person, or carried a knife where it was prohibited by law, or illegally damaged private property with a knife, or etc etc... assuming all non-felons who are eligible to possess a knife, are also automatically 'law abiding' is disingenious.

It's fluff. Unhelpful. Meaningless. I am certainly guilty of using the term myself, so take this assessment as you will, I guess.

[gorfle]

156. Nope, she has no point.

Since we can't possibly know how many people may have stabbed, slashed, or threatened another person, or carried a knife where it was prohibited by law, or illegally damaged private property with a knife, or etc etc... assuming all non-felons who are eligible to possess a knife, are also automatically 'law abiding' is disingenious.

Iverglas wants, quite simply, to disallow the acknowledgment that most firearm owners don't break laws regarding violent crime, because this would, and does, show the firearm-owning community at large to be made up of good, respectable people.

We know how many serious violent crimes are committed every year, to some degree of accuracy. This data is compiled by experts in the field of crime that work for our government. According to this data, since 1973 there have been no more than 5 million serious violent crimes in any given year, and most of the time it has been far less. Since at least 2003 there have been less than 2 million serious violent crimes in any given year.

We also know that there are between 40 and 80 million firearm owners in this country, by many estimates.

Thus we know that even if every single serious violent crime were committed by firearm owners, over 90% of them would not be involved.

What this means is that most firearm owners - over 90 percent - obey the laws regarding violent crime. Most people would say, then, that most firearm owners are "law-abiding".

Yes, it is absolutely true that I cannot point to any random firearm owner or group of firearm owners and say definitively that they are law-abiding.

But what I can say, and this is just simple statistics, is that any random firearm owner has at least a 92% to 98% chance of having never been involved in perpetrating serious violent crime. And when violent crime rates are low like they have been since at least 2003, that percentage is from 95% to 98%.

Put another way, for any random firearm owner, there is only a 2% to 5% chance that they have been involved in perpetrating a serious violent crime.

Oh, but we're not allowed to talk about "law-abiding firearm owners". :eyes:

[iverglas]

159. why don't you try truth?

If you want to refer to what I say, why don't you QUOTE ME?


Iverglas wants, quite simply, to disallow the acknowledgment that most firearm owners don't break laws regarding violent crime, because this would, and does, show the firearm-owning community at large to be made up of good, respectable people.

I have never said anything REMOTELY resembling this.

I call your meme what it is: a false representation of reality.

And just because I love the picture so much and it just says it all so well (and I know you have no idea what it is):

[gorfle]

163. Oh good grief.

I have never said anything REMOTELY resembling this.

I can't believe you actually have the gall to say this.

You won't even acknowledge the data I posted!

It's as plain as the nose on anyone's face but the Sphinx that you are simply terrified to admit that the data indicates that for any random firearm owner there is only a 2 to 5 percent chance that they have been involved in serious violent crime as defined by the United States government.

If you want to refer to what I say, why don't you QUOTE ME?

I've spent pages quoting you, iverglas, and it obviously doesn't matter a bit. When I finally pin you down you just say, "neener neener neener I don't care what you say I'm not paying attention!"

[TPaine7]

161. Ok, I'm willing to entertain that

but I have a couple of issues:

1) I don't think it's fluff at all. When I say it, it at least implies that I am speaking about a person who is "not a convict." A person who is, in America at least, supposed to be presumed innocent. "Law abiding" and "convict" are antonyms.

2) No one can be sure of another's ACTUAL--as opposed to PRESUMED--innocence. (See post 158. I would appreciate your comments.)

[AtheistCrusader]

175. True, they are antonyms

But 'law abiding' precludes illegal actions, whether you are convicted or not.

Presumption of innocence is a good point, but it's not enough. If I go into the Chelan Cafe through the nearest door to the parking lot, I will have to pass through the bar. Concealed Carry is prohibited in any part of any establishment with a posted license to serve liquor, in this state. Now, I could be lazy, and walk through that bar, and no one need ever know I just broke the law by carrying a concealed weapon through a bar.

But that would still make me not-law-abiding. I don't have to get caught, or convicted, but I can shuffle myself on out of that Law Abiding category, just by taking a step or two into a certain location while carrying.

[TPaine7]

185. "Presumption" is the core point

Simply put, "innocence," "law-abiding status," "responsible citizenship," or anything similar is always assumed (for normal adults). Always. Guilt alone can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Does this mean that if I call my friend "a solid citizen" or "the salt of the earth" or "a very decent person" I am being dishonest?

Presumption of innocence is a good point, but it's not enough. If I go into the Chelan Cafe through the nearest door to the parking lot, I will have to pass through the bar. Concealed Carry is prohibited in any part of any establishment with a posted license to serve liquor, in this state. Now, I could be lazy, and walk through that bar, and no one need ever know I just broke the law by carrying a concealed weapon through a bar.

But that would still make me not-law-abiding. I don't have to get caught, or convicted, but I can shuffle myself on out of that Law Abiding category, just by taking a step or two into a certain location while carrying.

But no one means, when they call you a law-abiding citizen, that they are personally certain that you didn't walk through the Chelan Cafe through the nearest door. Nor do they mean they are personally certain that you didn't drive 55.000000000000001 MPH in the 55 mph zone. Nor do they even mean that they are personally certain that you aren't a secret serial killer. They don't mean to convey that thought, and no one thinks that they do.

They mean that you are presumed to be law-abiding because they--and ostensibly the authorities given your CCW status--have no solid evidence to the contrary.

To make a big issue out of the fact that the law-abiding status of gun owners and CCW holders must be presumed is sophistry, in my not so humble opinion. All innocence is presumed. I believe that the head of Obama's security detail is not a serial killer. That is a presumption. I believe that Obama has not cooked and dined on human flesh. That is a presumption. I believe that the members of the Supreme Court have not sworn allegiance to Putin in a secret ceremony. That is a presumption.

All innocence is presumed. To presume innocence is not demagoguery; it is standard operating procedure. And it is especially appropriate to make the assumption regarding people like yourself who have been through an FBI check for CCW.

[Scout]

93. deleted, redundant

[iverglas]

94. in a nutshell - no it wasn't redundant, it was in a nutshell!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. Once again how do you take the measure of the gun owner now?

[iverglas]

106. YOU DON'T

What in the fucking fuck did you think my point was????????????

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. Then why did you ask how to do it if you can't rely on background checks?

[iverglas]

112. google "rhetorical question", Davey

[rd_kent]

114. So, rhetorical questions ARE allowed?

Seems like every time anyone else asks a rhetorical question, you berate them for it.

[iverglas]

115. a dictionary may help you here

It may take more.

Exhibit A: rhetorical question

Exhibit B: loaded question

Perhaps that will help.

[rd_kent]

116. Oh, I guess not.

[TPaine7]

173. In post 6 I explained what you were supposed to do with your prize...

A hundred posts later and you still don't understand???! You weren't supposed to post a picture of someone wearing it!

Come on iverglas...

Sigh.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. Self delete.

[paulsby]

49. early in the iraq war

an american muslim soldier fragged several of his fellow soldiers. iirc, he threw a grenade into a tent.

thus, using iverglas "logic", muslims can't be trusted to be soldiers.

sure, there are some incidents of ccw holders committing crimes. NOBODY with a brain denies that.

the facts are clear. those with CCW's are far LESS likely to commit violent crime than those who don't have CCW's.

nobody can dispute that claim with stats, and ample evidence has been presented to support it.

jim jones was a leftist preacher who poisoned his entire congregation.

therefore, leftist preachers are dangerous...

more "iverglas logic"

the relevant point is this - one can find all kinds of stats about relative levels of lawlessness (and in regards to certain types of crimes, especially)

i am sure i can find an example of a 70 yr old committing murder, for instance. it doesn't therefore follow that 70 yr olds are dangerous. statistically speaking, they are MUCH less likely to commit homicide than a 25 yr old.

[iverglas]

52. what the fuck does "CCW" have to do with this?

You don't keep up with much of anything well, do you?


You've accused me of implicit racism and bigotry.

What protected class did the individual in question here belong to, that you are analogizing from?

OxyContin abusers?

Maybe he was a Baptist, and THIS WAS SOMEHOW RELATED TO WHAT HE DID.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

107. Where did he accuse you fo racism?

[AtheistCrusader]

74. "jim jones was a leftist preacher"

If I may be so bold, you sound like Glen Beck...

[iverglas]

78. I missed that

Was he a Canuckistanian too?

:rofl:

I wish I knew who Glen Beck was ... but google will tell me.

[iverglas]

79. hee hee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (August 2009)

This article is missing information about notable controversies.. This concern has been noted on the talk page where it may be discussed whether or not to include such information. (August 2009)

You do have to kind of read between the lines there to know what you're looking at, but I've honed my between-line-reading skills. ;)

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Ah, I misspelled his name.

Glenn Beck is a hard right whack-a-doodle, and he describes this Jim preacher as a 'leftist preacher', which I find an odd callout, since is has no bearing on anything, incudling why he's 'famous'.

I find it odd someone on DU would go out of thier way to describe someone as a 'leftist'.

Again, non-maskable interrupt.

[paulsby]

117. you sound like somebody denying facts

do you deny that jim jones was a leftist? if so, i can provide ample evidence he was. my point stands. if you want to refute it, use logic and facts, not ad hominem attacks comparing me to some rightwing ninny. hth

[AtheistCrusader]

119. So you have no specific reason for calling him out as a 'leftist' then?

I sit here wondering if maybe he was a mammal, since you didn't specify the relevant fact.

[iverglas]

121. the utterly bizarre part

paulsby
Tue Aug-11-09 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #24

49. early in the iraq war

an american muslim soldier fragged several of his fellow soldiers. iirc, he threw a grenade into a tent.

thus, using iverglas "logic", muslims can't be trusted to be soldiers.

sure, there are some incidents of ccw holders committing crimes. NOBODY with a brain denies that.

the facts are clear. those with CCW's are far LESS likely to commit violent crime than those who don't have CCW's.

nobody can dispute that claim with stats, and ample evidence has been presented to support it.

jim jones was a leftist preacher who poisoned his entire congregation.

therefore, leftist preachers are dangerous...

more "iverglas logic"

the relevant point is this - one can find all kinds of stats about relative levels of lawlessness (and in regards to certain types of crimes, especially)

i am sure i can find an example of a 70 yr old committing murder, for instance. it doesn't therefore follow that 70 yr olds are dangerous. statistically speaking, they are MUCH less likely to commit homicide than a 25 yr old.

I have not the slightest idea how anyone could even think this related in even the remotest way to anything I said previously in this thread.

Just no clue at all.



html fixed

[paulsby]

127. i have plenty of them

mostly based on his statements and advocacy for causes. if you had asked for them, i would have provided them. if instead you prefer to make snarky evidence-lacking attacks then that is your right. do you DENY he was a leftist? or are you merely ignorant (iow you don't know one way or the other). i'm all about enlightening the ignorant.

[AtheistCrusader]

130. I believe I answered all your questions here in #120...

[paulsby]

135. actually not.

you merely made an evidence-lacking attack. my claim is simple . jim jones was a leftist. do you 1) deny this? 2) claim ignorance as to his political beliefs? you have answered neither question. your big problem is since glen beck apparently also recognized this fact, that this somehow makes me a suspect poster because i god forbid mentioned something that glen beck mentioned. for all i know, glen beck might have mentioned that the earth is an oblate spheroid. it doesn't make the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid any less true. so, answer the question, or are you more concerned with people (ie glenn beck) than facts. i personally don't care WHO has spouted that jones was a leftist. he WAS, and my point was that just because one leftist preacher murdered his flock doesn't mean we don't trust leftist preachers. that was the point about just because some assmunch with a CCW commits a crime, doesn't mean CCW holders are particularly prone to do so. the facts are that they are far LESS prone to do so. wouldn't be surprised if the same was true of leftist preachers grok it?

[iverglas]

137. you have lost the plot

my point was that just because one leftist preacher murdered his flock doesn't mean we don't trust leftist preachers. that was the point about just because some assmunch with a CCW commits a crime, doesn't mean CCW holders are particularly prone to do so.

Whew.

This thread isn't about "CCW holders".

It isn't about an individual "CCW holder".

It isn't about "CCW holders" committing crimes.

It isn't about anybody trusting or not trusting "CCW holders" or anybody else.

You didn't have a grip when you started, so I can't actually say you've lost it.

[AtheistCrusader]

140. I deny nothing.

Jim Jones was a self-proclaimed leftist.

I never questioned this 'fact'. I questioned the necessity to reference it. It reminds me of a co-worker who, when he states the word 'liberal' it has a subtle tone that implies an insult. Like a dirty word.

So yes, I think I do 'grok'. And I wonder if your use of THAT word was intentional, or a slip.

[iverglas]

145. he was attempting to construct analogies

The problem is: when you construct an analogy, you have to have a Thing 1 that you are likening Thing 2 to.

There was no Thing 1. There was just a rant asserting that "my" logic led inexorably to the things he asserted I must agree with, Things 2 and 3, because I had said Thing 1.

Except ... I hadn't. I really still have no idea what this Thing 1 is supposed to be, or where I am supposed to have said it.


Inexorably. Let's see whether that one shows up in the soup.


Btw, Jim Jones was a megalomaniac, and probably a psychopath. The most successful ones are very clever and very charming, and of course champion manipulaters. (Jones was no Sodini.)

My psychologist once advised me never to try to win against a psychopath ... because they make the rules, and you don't know what they are. And because they have absolutely no values, it is entirely incorrect to ascribe any label that implies values - like "leftist" - to them. Your instincts were completely correct here.

An awful lot of people - including people in the sincerely progressive community, not just his ultimate victims - could have used that advice.

[paulsby]

138. for christ' sake

i have AMPLE reason. as anybody who dared educate themself (clearly, this is not your forte) about jones would know. spend 5 minutes of your time, instead of making content-less attacks, in educating yourself about jim jones. that would be a productive use of your time. hth

[AtheistCrusader]

120. If you are wondering why I chose Glenn Beck

it's because the keywords "leftist preacher jim jones" on bing came back with this:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/18391/?ck=1

"Yesterday was the anniversary. November 17th, 1978, Jim Jones was a hero to some. November 18th, 1978, Jones had orchestrated the killings of 918 people. He was a leftist. Did you know that? Did you know what he really stood for, or are you just thinking that Jim Jones is a Christian cult leader? The parallels on Jim Jones and today are staggering."


I didn't know, offhand, who Jim Jones was. The name sounded generic so I used your words to tighten the search.

[paulsby]

132. lol. you didn't know offhand who JIM JONES was

and you are questioning me? lol. how about you google his name, maybe check some wikipedia, etc. and then form a oonclusion based on EVIDENCE as to whether he was left wing or not. i have no idea what glen beck said about jim jones. i do know that jim jones was a leftist. that's common knowledge. or should be. of course jim jones in general (ever heard the term "drink the kool aid?" that derives from the jones incident) is a very common cultural reference and well known historical figure. it's kind of like not knowing who charles manson is.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. Look at you and your righteous indignation.

Guess what, I wasn't BORN YET when that happened. I also said I didn't know who he was OFFHAND. All I needed was additional context to place the name.

And hey, nice, you suggest I 'google' the name, when I just said I used a search engine, using your OWN WORDS (which matches rhetoric from Glenn Beck, while he's trying to make a right wing political point) to place the context of his name.


While we're mocking people for not being 'up' on 'current' events, in case you were wondering, bing is a new search engine.

[paulsby]

136. politics are more important than truth to you

it is not a RIGHT WING POLITICAL POINT that jim jones was a leftist preacher. it's a FACT. do you care more about facts, or about name calling? it appears to me the latter. again, SEARCH jim jones and read about his advocacy, his sermons etc. if you can do that and dispute that he is a leftist, than more power to you. do you have any evidence he WASN'T? of course not. but because apparently glenn beck came up first on a google search as mentioning this, this somehow invalidates facts? it;s a ridiculous argument. kind of a reverse appeal to authority. iow, if glenn beck said it, it must NOT be true, and i must be a shill for daring to mention it. like i said, beck is a rightwing ninny and i had no idea WHAT beck's comments were regarding jones. if beck said he was a leftist preacher, he was correct. he was. if beck said that che was a murderous revolutionary would that be any less true because beck said it? how about if he said that hitler was a murdering fascist piece of garbage? again, facts matter to me. and thanks, i knew about bing.

[AtheistCrusader]

139. If you describe to someone, a glass of water, do you tell them it's wet?

Usually, when you add adjectives to a person, especially in a specific reference, the adjectives are somehow important to the subject. You are trying to convey additional meaning.

To an audience that consists of democrats, leftists, progressives, etc, why would you feel the need to specify a murderer was a leftist?


Just to be clear, I'm accusing you of a freudian slip. You conveyed exactly the meaning you would really intend to convey, but not to this particular audience.

[paulsby]

177. you have no understanding of how logic works. you completely miss the point

the reason i made the point that he was a leftist preacher is exactly because this is a leftwing website and we KNOW that rightwing preachers are usually the hateful and violent ones. that's the frigging point. my point was that AN OUTLIER is just that. an outlier. you need not fear leftist preachers merely because jim jones was one. get it? obviously not. keerist. some people are so frigging dense. anyway, the point remains. yes, i can find examples of leftist preachers committing murder, and 70 yr old men. it doesn't follow that either demographic are statistically dangerous. in fact, the OPPOSITE is true. duh

[AtheistCrusader]

189. Uh huh.

And that's why you explained this when I first pointed it out.

[iverglas]

134. yeah, eh?

Or not knowing who one of Tennessee Williams's most famous characters is.
Or not knowing that Paco is a parrot.
Or not knowing that "who 'we', white man?" is Redd Foxx speaking as Tonto.
Or not knowing that "I'm all right, Jack" is a classic formulation of the me-first attitude, not to mention a famous Peter Sellers flick.

At least AC had the wit to google what he didn't know rather than opening his yap and shoving both his feet in.

[Hugabear]

191. EVERY criminal is "law abiding" until they commit their first crime!

A man who has never committed a crime before killing his entire family with his gun would be considered "law abiding" up until the point where he snapped.

Saying that someone is a "law abiding citizen" doesn't mean jack shit, since just about ANYBODY can snap given enough mental pressure.

[iverglas]

194. and that has been one half of my whole point here

Saying that someone is a "law abiding citizen" doesn't mean jack shit, since just about ANYBODY can snap given enough mental pressure.

It is not useful for predictive purposes, EVEN IF it is true.

In addition, when used in the plural and applied to undefined sets of unknown individuals, it is just demagoguery, intended to conjure up visions of clean-livin' family folk just going about their business, when any number of the members of the set - where the set is people with no criminal convictions, as most ordinary people understand that expression to mean - could be violent spouses, parents or neighbours, just for starters. Or substance abusers. Or desperate gamblers.

It's demagoguery.

[TPaine7]

209. It is extremely useful for predictive purposes...

especially when combined with mental health indicators and substance abuse indicators.

See post 208

[TPaine7]

199. "Saying that someone is a 'law abiding citizen' doesn't mean jack shit"

On the contrary, it means a great deal. It means, among other things, that he is entitled to the full rights and privileges due to innocent human beings. Those rights and privileges are considerable.

Do you know much about criminology? I'm not being a smartass, most people don't. It may be true that just about everybody--or even literally everybody--could snap under enough mental pressure. You'd probably get 99.999% or thereabouts to snap after a few years under the tender mercies of sadistic nazis. What's more relevant is how many people snap under real world pressures.

Another scientific fact: ordinary people rarely murder. Very rarely.

Local and national studies dating to the 1890s show that in almost every case murderers
are aberrants exhibiting life histories of violence and crime, psychopathology, substance
abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. Looking only to prior crime records, roughly 90
percent of adult murders had adult records, with an average adult criminal career of six
or more years, including four major adult felonies.{37}

We are often told that most murder victims know their assailants. We are supposed to infer that normal,
law-abiding people kill their friends and loved ones because a sudden rage—accompanied by the
availability of a gun—is too severe a temptation. This may be true of gang members, drug dealers, and
armed robbers, but it is very rare among normal people. And we are never told the rest of the story—
national data on acquaintance gun murders in homes show that “the most common victim offender
relationship” was “where both parties knew each other because of prior illegal transactions.”{38}

The most rational response is to ban felons, the insane and habitual drug abusers from possessing guns.
Harsh general restrictions are inefficient. A National Institute of Justice funded study concluded that “there
is no evidence anywhere to suggest that reducing the availability of firearms in general likewise reduces
their availability to persons with criminal intent. . . .”{39}

Note: to follow the footnotes, you'll have to visit www.obamaonsecond.com

Of course this is just a start; you should do your own research. But I think you will find that the idea of ordinary people "snapping" and killing their families is greatly exaggerated.

With all due respect, what I find meaningless is the truism that no one is a criminal until their first crime. Let me file that factoid away where it belongs:

"True, but so what?" File

No one is a swimmer until they first swim.
No one is a singer until they first sing.
No one is a walker until they first walk.
No one is a runner until they first run.
No one is a painter until they first paint.
...
No one is a criminal until their first crime.



What is truly important is what we do with that "information." Therefore what? Should we treat people as guilty because they "could" snap? Should we deprive them of constitutional rights because they "could" misuse their freedom?

There's more. Should intelligent people be more restricted because they could cause more harm? A reasonably intelligent person could easily come up with dozens of ways to kill her family, none of them involving a gun, in a few hours of thought. A mentally challenged person could not.

I assume you have yet to commit your first rape, your first murder, your first cannibalistic act, your first kidnapping and torture, your first genocide. I also assume you are intellectually and physically capable of pulling off at least some of those crimes. What exactly does that say about how society should treat you?

[iverglas]

202. such a clever fellow

"Another scientific fact: ordinary people rarely murder. Very rarely."
... But I think you will find that the idea of ordinary people "snapping" and killing their families is greatly exaggerated.

I'll bet you've even heard of personality disorders -- all the way up to the biggie, psychopathy.

Maybe you even know how such people, all the way from narcissists to psychopaths, commonly appear to be "ordinary people" to the naked eye of the casual or non-expert observer - who will then have no explanation handy when they do something horrific, and fall back on the layperson's construct: "just snapped". ?

That Sordini fellow. Did he just snap? Or was he a malignant narcissist (an unsuccessful one) waiting to happen, as it were? How many previous convictions did he have? What diagnosis may have precluded him from legally acquiring firearms?

And so my question is: do you really find it productive to spend your time shredding straw?

Indeed, the person to whom you responded may not "know much about criminology". Sadly for you, I and others do.


No one is a swimmer until they first swim ... and when they did, nobody else died.
No one is a singer until they first sing ... and when they did, nobody else got robbed.
No one is a walker until they first walk ... and when they did, nobody else lost an eye.
No one is a runner until they first run ... and when they did, nobody else lived in fear.
No one is a painter until they first paint ... and when they did, it didn't cost society a dime.
...
No one is a criminal until their first crime ... oops.



Not hairspray.

Maybe astroturf though ...

[TPaine7]

206. Trouble reading?

I'll bet you've even heard of personality disorders -- all the way up to the biggie, psychopathy.

Maybe you even know how such people, all the way from narcissists to psychopaths, commonly appear to be "ordinary people" to the naked eye of the casual or non-expert observer - who will then have no explanation handy when they do something horrific, and fall back on the layperson's construct: "just snapped". ?

That Sordini fellow. Did he just snap? Or was he a malignant narcissist (an unsuccessful one) waiting to happen, as it were? How many previous convictions did he have? What diagnosis may have precluded him from legally acquiring firearms?

Is there anything in my words or in the words I cited that precludes the existence of outliers? Or that indicates that Sordini could not be an outlier?

Get someone to explain the words you quoted to you, iverglas:

Ordinary people rarely murder. Very rarely.

That is saying explicitly that "ordinary people"--shown by the context to mean people who haven't alerted others in the community to their "special status" by criminal records or obvious mental issues--ACTUALLY DO MURDER. Just "very rarely." Take a remedial English class, iverglas. Add remedial logic, too.

Talk about straw!

[iverglas]

207. gettin dizzy here

"Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain."

Ordinary people actually do murder ... there aren't a lot of murderers ... murderers are outliers ...


Yes ... and ...?

You've noticed how MOST CRIMINALS don't murder anybody either, maybe??



Is there anything in my words or in the words I cited that precludes the existence of outliers? Or that indicates that Sordini could not be an outlier?

What the fuck are you talking about?

I was addressing YOUR assertion that ordinary people don't "just snap".

All you were doing was being disingenuous. The poster to whom you replied was referring to the unpredictability of many instances of violent behaviour. You chose to focus on the way that idea was phrased and blather on about it. You didn't address the issue the poster raised: the unpredictability of many instances of violent behaviour.

I made quick work of your effort by pointing out the obvious: "just snapped" is layspeak, and demonstrating the inaccuracy of the characterization of the phenomenon (which is far more likely to be a result of a personality disorder / psychopathy, but in some cases a mental illness, whether depressive or delusional, e.g.) does not disprove the existence of the phenomenon.


That is saying explicitly that "ordinary people"--shown by the context to mean people who haven't alerted others in the community to their "special status" by criminal records or obvious mental issues--ACTUALLY DO MURDER. Just "very rarely."

Criminals murder. VERY RARELY.
Psychopaths murder. VERY RARELY.
Narcissists murder. VERY RARELY.
People with delusional or depressive illnesses murder. VERY RARELY.
People born on the 4th of July murder. VERY RARELY.

What point do you imagine you have?


http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2004/niaaa-02.htm

Monday, August 2, 2004

Landmark Survey Reports on the Prevalence of Personality Disorders in the United States

An estimated 30.8 million American adults (14.8 percent) meet standard diagnostic criteria for at least one personality disorder as defined in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), according to the results of the 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) reported in the current issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry ... .

The NESARC found that the personality disorders are pervasive in the general population: In 2001- 2002, fully 16.4 million individuals (7.9 percent of all adults) had obsessive-compulsive personality disorder; 9.2 million (4.4 percent) had paranoid personality disorder; 7.6 million (3.6 percent) had antisocial personality disorder; 6.5 million (3.1 percent) had schizoid personality disorder; 4.9 million (2.4 percent) had avoidant personality disorder; 3.8 million (1.8 percent) had histrionic personality disorder; and 1.0 million (0.5 percent) had dependent personality disorder.

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~pzapf/classes/PY761/Week%207%20Notes.htm

Without Conscience (Hare, 1993)

* Without conscience (1993) describes there being about 2 million psychopaths in North America; 100,000 in New York city

* Prevalence of psychopathy is about the same as that of schizophrenia (estimates range from 0.2% to 2% and the average is usually estimated to be between 0.5% and 1%)

Only about 15-25% of incarcerated offenders meet criteria for Psychopathy (approx. 80% of incarcerated offenders are diagnosed with APD <anti-social personality disorder>)

MOST CRIMINALS don't murder.
MOST PSYCHOPATHS don't murder.
MOST PEOPLE WITH APD don't murder.
MOST PEOPLE WITH DEPRESSIVE/DELUSIONAL MENTAL ILLNESS don't murder.
MOST PEOPLE BORN ON THE 4TH OF JULY don't murder.
MOST ORDINARY PEOPLE don't murder.

Murderers are outliers in EVERY category of the population. Except the murderer category.


What is your point?

[TPaine7]

208. Hmmm... I never would have used the word "dizzy" to describe you...

But now that I think about it, it has merit.

I was addressing YOUR assertion that ordinary people don't "just snap".

Pssst... iverglas

<whisper> I think if you'll check you'll see that you read that statement while in another universe. I know it must be tough to keep track, so I'll just ignore it. (Unless, of course, you can point out where I said that or anything equivalent. OK? </whisper>

Criminals murder. VERY RARELY.
Psychopaths murder. VERY RARELY.
Narcissists murder. VERY RARELY.
People with delusional or depressive illnesses murder. VERY RARELY.

...

MOST PSYCHOPATHS don't murder.
MOST PEOPLE WITH APD don't murder.
MOST PEOPLE WITH DEPRESSIVE/DELUSIONAL MENTAL ILLNESS don't murder.

First credit where credit is due. I imagine that you know a lot more than I do about these issues, having heard all about them from numerous experts for decades. But while I will admit your points above and many others as well--folks born on the 4th of July or whose names start with "M" or who like chocolate, etc., etc., rarely murder--that misses the point entirely.

Let's just look at the first source:

Local and national studies dating to the 1890s show that in almost every case murderers
are aberrants exhibiting life histories of violence and crime, psychopathology, substance
abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. Looking only to prior crime records, roughly 90
percent of adult murders had adult records, with an average adult criminal career of six
or more years, including four major adult felonies.

This apparently went right over your head. My open letter in which this was found was address to Obama--who is fluent in English. I'll use the baby spoon for you.

Scientists who study human criminal behavior have seen, in studies both local and national (US) and dating all the way back to the 1890s that the vast majority of murderers are aberrants--freaks. Not all, just the vast majority.

These scientists, called criminologists, showed that almost always--"in almost every case"--murderers had life histories of violence, crime, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. They stood out.

Now to specific, hard data. If you ignore substance abuse, obvious mental illness, and non-criminal dangerous behavior, you still have this to deal with:

ROUGHLY 90 PERCENT OF ADULT MURDERS HAD ADULT RECORDS, WITH AN AVERAGE ADULT CRIMINAL CAREER OF SIX OR MORE YEARS, INCLUDING FOUR MAJOR ADULT FELONIES.

Roughly 9 out of every 10 adult murderers was in the system. Adult murderers had an average of 4 MAJOR adult felonies. We're not even counting the little felonies. They had average KNOWN criminal histories of 6 years. Now if we add in the people with known substance abuse and obvious mental illness you can see we will be approaching 10 out of 10. Approaching. (Approaching means we don't actually get to 10 out of 10, iverglas.)

This is why it can be said that "in almost every case" the person was aberrant--a freak who stood out like a sore thumb.

The bottom line is that the vast, overwhelming majority of murderers were ineligible to possess arms when they first murdered. Among murderers, those who weren't convicted criminals, obviously insane, or known substance abusers were a tiny minority. When I say that few normal people murder, I do not mean in the same way that few left handers born on Fridays murder. I'm saying that among convicted murderers--who are already a tiny minority of the population--the murderers who weren't known criminals, obviously insane or known substance abusers are yet another tiny minority.

"A tiny minority of a tiny minority of the population" is not nearly the same as "a tiny minority of the population." Think it through. Get some help if necessary.

As any intelligent reader should see by now, I was not picking on someone for using the word "snapped" instead of some ivory tower verbiage. That's so boring, stupid and mean--at least when used on people who are communicating in good faith. It's more your style.

I was making real points, not hiding behind technicalities and obfuscation.

I made quick work of your effort by pointing out the obvious: "just snapped" is layspeak, and demonstrating the inaccuracy of the characterization of the phenomenon (which is far more likely to be a result of a personality disorder / psychopathy, but in some cases a mental illness, whether depressive or delusional, e.g.) does not disprove the existence of the phenomenon.

Yes, yes, you know all about personality disorder, psychopathy, and mental illness, whether depressive or delusional. I already conceded that. But I am not you. I don't get my jollies mocking layspeak and minor technical mistakes (except layspeak and minor technical mistakes by pompous online bullies, of course).

I made quick work of your effort...

:rofl:

You are so funny!!!

<whisper> Psssst... iverglas. That was because my "effort" went right over your head. Whenever that happens--whenever you find yourself making "short work" of my effort--you should be very careful. Read what I said over again. Get some help. Sleep on it. (Of course, I don't expect you to take this advice, but then that's funny too, LOL.)</whisper>

[Scout]

20. good old Howell ... the good people are trying, nevertheless it is still

dominated by the backwards, the racists, the Klan-ish....

not proud to have them here in Michigan.

[TheWraith]

23. Uh, if he has an M16, he is not a law abiding gun owner.

Of course that's a given considering the hostage situation, but in any event, that's almost certainly a stolen or illegally obtained weapon, as well as being not registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as required for all fully automatic weapons.

[iverglas]

27. well, this was an interesting experiment

How many people at DU spend two seconds reading the first post in a thread, and then plonk their opinion down in it without having a clue what they're talking about?

I see one ........


Uh, if he has an M16, he is not a law abiding gun owner.
Posted by TheWraith

Of course that's a given considering the hostage situation, but in any event, that's almost certainly a stolen or illegally obtained weapon, as well as being not registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as required for all fully automatic weapons.

What a big ol' dog's breakfast o' nonsense that was!

[TheWraith]

37. I'm glad you feel good about falsifying the contents of an article.

If I too were willing to make shit up, and then attack people when they actually trusted their fellow DUers to be accurately quoting a news source, I could produce some "gotchas" as well. :eyes:

[iverglas]

39. what the fuck are you making false accusations about?

THIS is what the portion of the article I quoted in the OP SAID:

The Livingston County Sheriff Department is sending in an armored vehicle to rescue two adults and two children trapped inside a barn not far from where a barricaded gunman is holed up with an M-16 fully automatic weapon and other weapons, according to Sheriff Bob Bezotte.

Where do you see HOSTAGES there? Where do you see me claiming HOSTAGES?

I saw the story in LBN. I knew it belonged here. I asked Google News. I started the thread. I went back to Google News. The story was DEVELOPING as I looked for it. When I first saw it, NOBODY knew what was going on. But hm, maybe you did see the bit IN THE OP about how he had not threatened anyone?

Take your false accusation and eat it.

[russ1943]

45. Even some elected officials shoot full autos in Michigan

Kent County Commissioner Dean Agee loses concealed weapon permit
by Jim Harger | The Grand Rapids Press
Friday August 07, 2009, 11:20 AM

Agee and a friend, Plainfield Township veterinarian Richard Rinzler, were charged after stray bullets from Rinzler's 50-caliber machine gun traveled 2 miles and struck a trailer and pickup parked at a dulcimer music festival.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/08/kent_county_commissioner_dean_1.html

oooops. Both law abididing? gun owners.
Little more careful next time, eh?

[iverglas]

46. that's gotta win some kinda incongruity prize

Bullets from a 50-caliber gun hitting vehicles at a dulcimer music festival.

Damned dishonourable pacifists, those dulcimer freaks, I'll bet.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. There's something almost certain about this post.

It's accuracy isn't it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. How many people did he kill or injure with his firearms?

[iverglas]

28. one lucky son of a gun, eh?

The cops he was aiming at got him first.

He didn't kill or injure anyone! He is the very model of a modern law-abiding gun owner! A paragon, I might even say.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. So that would be none despite him having a machine gun. Thanks.

[Katya Mullethov]

36. If only everyone would just sacrifice a little

The predators and jackballs will all promise to behave . Go ahead , ask 'em .

[iverglas]

38. could you stop putting spaces between your words and your punctuation?

It's irritating.

It's also a tell, and it will tell, trust me.

[Katya Mullethov]

43. Do tell

Then the pen is mightier than the sword ;

[E-Mag]

40. and here it is congratulations

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. You win, a man in need of mental health care is dead. Despicable.

[iverglas]

47. ah, that truth stuff still eludes you, Dave

When the report I quoted was written, and when I posted it, no one at all was dead, at least not so far as the public knew. You can compare timestamps if you like.


Edit - here ya go, that third report is updated now: "was shot dead at 2:18 p.m".

Not information the public (i.e. moi) was aware of when I posted the OP.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. What did I write that was untrue? Be specific.

[JonQ]

42. I think even in gun free paradises with no crime

where private ownership of guns is naturally very illegal, the military and it's various support agencies are allowed to have guns.

I suppose the point of this article is that we can't trust the military with guns? Or military trainers?

Seems to me if people normally expected to carry firearms in the course of their job are more apt to going off the deep end (not that anecdotes prove anything) that would reinforce the need for private ownership as well, the professionals aren't going to help us out.

[iverglas]

48. does your military hand out its guns

I suppose the point of this article is that we can't trust the military with guns? Or military trainers?

to anybody who might want to take one home? Mine sure doesn't. And I'm quite sure we don't have any "trainers" like this guy. We don't outsource national defence. Weapons suppliers train personnel on the weapons they supply; the military trains them in combat.

So yeah. I trust my military to keep track of where its guns are, which is not in people's barns, or anywhere else away from military oversight.

We learned that lesson some time ago, I hope well.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/05/08/assembly-shooting.html

Friday marks 25th anniversary of Quebec national assembly shooting
Last Updated: Friday, May 8, 2009

It was 25 years ago Friday that a Canadian soldier named Denis Lortie walked into the Quebec national assembly and opened fire with a submachine-gun, killing three government employees and wounding 13 others.

No politicians were killed or wounded in the shooting.

The national assembly's sergeant-at-arms René Jalbert spent the day talking with Lortie. He offered him a coffee and a sandwich and escorted him back to his office, finally convincing him to surrender.

Many people in the building felt he saved their lives. Jalbert was later awarded the Cross of Valour for bravery. He died in 1996.

Maybe now somebody down where you are will sit up and take note.



html fixed

[paulsby]

50. otoh, the swiss military

which is pretty much any adult male, is issued a full auto rifle and they keep them AT HOME.

with AMMO.

which is why switzerland is such a dangerous country. all these people with full auto rifles in their homes.

are you going to claim that switzerland's solution makes their country less safe than your country's solution?

and if they can issue these weapons to scores of thousands of (mostly men... and remember, men are much more violent crime prone than women) men, these men keep them IN THEIR HOUSES, why isn't switzerland a bloodbath?

isn't it dangerous for the military to allow all these conscripts (all males found eligible and from 19-34 must serve. those found ineligible, about 1/3 iirc can do alterntative service) to keep all these automatic weapons?

where is the carnage?

[iverglas]

51. catch up, will you?

This is the 21st century, and Switzerland isn't quite the bastion of male bravado it once was.

Check out that "with AMMO" bit especially.

And check out recent events involving men killing their partners, and other untoward uses of firearms, and what the public response has been.

Cripes. Do you people read nothing but gun militant websites?

[E-Mag]

57. It seems that they do not

Issue the ammunition they just subsidize it. Yes there is a rule that you must use it at the range and I bet every round is accounted for.

"The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there. However, pro-gun advocates David Kopel and Stephen D'Andrilli claim "the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed".<2> Indeed, while the sale of non-hunting ammunition is registered at the dealer if purchased at a private store, ammunition purchased at a shooting range is not. Non-military ammunition for long-gun hunting and .22 Long Rifle (LR) ammo is not subsidized, but is not subject to sales controls.<2>"

[paulsby]

118. they have ammo at home

if you dispute that, provide actual evidence of same. nothing you posted supports the fact that they are not allowed to store ammo at home. they most definitely are.

[iverglas]

122. lord, you're fighting amongst yourself again

and it's just as incoherent as when you try to fight with me ...

[iverglas]

124. I believe this is accurate

I still don't know what you're arguing about and whom you're arguing with, but whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel or the SIG 510 rifle and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place. The ammunition are intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion. The issuing of ammunition was however abolished after a family shooting, in which the victim was a former ski champion.

You'd be happy with this, would you? Ammunition recorded, sealed and inspected ...

[AtheistCrusader]

126. Most government property is.

Recorded, sealed and inspected, that is.


;)

Also, they have possession of it, which means it could be used for all sorts of nefarious things before the ammo census swings back around.

[paulsby]

141. correct

they are allowed to store ammo at the home, just like they are allowed to (in fact required to in many cases) store a government owned full auto rifle at their home. who OWNS the ammo or the firearm is irrelevant to the fact that they are allowed to STORE IT at their homes and thus have easy access to it, which was my point, to show an alternative system to canada's, which iverglas commented on as the only logical/safe alternative, that military members did not store their full auto weapons in their houses (which they don't - in canada). as usual, iverglas obfuscates, since she is structurally incapable of ever admitting she is wrong. swiss men are members of the militia between 19 and 34 (and longer in some cases), MANDATORILY, and are fully legally authorized to store ammo for their FULL AUTO rifles at home. yes, both the rifles and the ammo are the property of the govt. so what?

[iverglas]

146. again, join us in this century

Christ, it's almost impossible to break through the gun militant noise on the net and find some reality.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/High_gun_suicide_rate_linked_to_easy_access.html?siteSect=105&sid=7016781&cKey=1222419910000&ty=st&rs=yes

August 29, 2006
High gun suicide rate linked to easy access

According to the study, published in the current edition of the American Journal of Public Health, Switzerland and the United States have the highest rates in the world of suicide involving guns.

Suicides are also five times more common than the total number of deaths related to car accidents, drug abuse and Aids.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Why_is_Switzerland_prone_to_family_killings.html?siteSect=105&sid=6680267&cKey=1146687704000&ty=st&rs=yes

May 3, 2006 - 2:00 PM

Why is Switzerland prone to family killings?

According to a recent study of four cantons, family murders account for more than half of all homicides – a rate three times higher than in the United States.

... But, according to criminologist Eva Wyss, it is still too early to put a finger on what lies behind the recent upsurge in family killings. So far this year there have been at least six incidents where a man has shot his wife or partner before turning the gun on himself.

... It found that family killings account for 58 per cent of all murders – a figure substantially higher than in the Netherlands (29 per cent) and the United States (20 per cent).

But Philip Jaffé, professor of psychology at Geneva University, warns against making comparisons with the US where he says people tend to be more homicidal "outside the family".

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/search/Result.html?siteSect=882&ty=st&sid=10366555

February 24, 2009
Move to ban rifles at home gathers pace

... Anti-gun supporters have collected enough signatures to force a nationwide vote on banning more than one million military weapons from Swiss households.

Guns are stored in homes under Switzerland's militia system, but opponents say the practice is too dangerous, pointing to deaths and domestic violence cases involving army weapons.

The people's initiative ... calls for army weapons to remain in barracks, a national gun register, a ban on private individuals buying or owning particularly dangerous guns such as automatic weapons and pump-action shotguns and tighter controls on firearm carriers.

... Green parliamentarian Josef Lang pointed to the 2001 case of a gunman who shot and killed 14 people in Zug's cantonal parliament with a pump-action gun. ...

... Further fuel was added when the husband of former women's ski champion Corinne Rey-Bellet killed her and her brother with his army pistol in 2006.

A security study published last year suggested that support for keeping weapons at home was falling. It found that just 34 per cent of the population was in favour, compared with 57 per cent in 1989. Women and young people were particularly against the practice.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/search/Result.html?siteSect=882&ty=st&sid=10459479

March 17, 2009 - 8:35 AM
Parliament opposes ban on storing arms at home

Parliament remains divided over whether guns should be stored at the barracks or at home
Proposals to break with the longstanding tradition of storing army weapons in Swiss homes have been dismissed by the country's parliament.

... Legislators threw out an initiative, supported mainly by centre-left parliamentarians, which would have forced members of Switzerland's militia army to keep their rifles at army bases instead of storing them in households.

Ninety-nine parliamentarians came out against a proposed ban, while 82 were in favour. The chamber also threw out a similar non-binding petition launched by students in the wake a 2007 killing of teenager by a soldier outside Zurich.

However, politicians narrowly approved calls by a Green Party representative for the creation of a central arms registry.

... The centre-right and rightwing majority in the house said the decommissioning army rifles was tantamount to undermining Switzerland's security and would represent a vote of no confidence in its soldiers.

"Don't blame the weapon. It's the man who commits weapons abuses," said Andrea Geissbühler of the Swiss People's Party. "There is no need for the state to patronise its citizens."

Damn, it must be like looking in a mirror.

[E-Mag]

150. And this has what to do with the topic at hand? N/T

[iverglas]

151. I believe you meant to address Paulsby

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=245974&mesg_id=246127

[E-Mag]

152. nope you.

We seemed to be talking about the specifics of rifles and if or of not the government issued ammo with the rifle. Your Google foo vomit of topics seems a little off topic.

[iverglas]

155. WHETHER

"if or of not the government issued ammo with the rifle"

WHETHER the government issued ammo with the rifle.

"if or if not" (even correcting the typo) ... talk about vomit.


I was never talking about whether the Swiss government issues ammo. I don't give a flying fuck where anybody gets their ammo from. What on earth would make you think I did?

The Switzerland question was raised in this thread, and a flurry of the usual allegations about Switzerland the armed-to-the-teeth peaceable kingdom was flung.

It ain't so. Q.E.D.



typo fixed

[E-Mag]

165. ok I will play

Murders w/ firearms per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
Switzerland: 0.00534117 per 1,000 people


Drug offenses per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_dru_off-crime-drug-offences
Canada: 92,590 per 100,000 people
Switzerland: 49,201 per 100,000 people
1.8 times more in Canada

Robberies (per capita)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_percap-crime-robberies-per-capita
Canada: 0.823411 per 1,000 people
Switzerland: 0.290827 per 1,000 people
2.8 times worse in Canada

Total crimes (per capita)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people
Switzerland: 36.1864 per 1,000 people
2 times worse in Canada

Guns per capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

Canada 31.5 2007
Switzerland 46.0 2007
1.4 times MORE in Switzerland

Yep there sure a bunch of crime over there.

[iverglas]

169. you're actually going to try pulling this bullshit again??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=240402&mesg_id=241271


Cite primary sources or ... whatever you like. If you actually think you can get away with this tripe when it's been demonstrated over and over again to be the grossest misrepresentation of reality ... well, then you must be in the Guns forum, where anybody can get away with all manner of misrepresentation, and get cheered for their trouble.

Cite primary sources.

[E-Mag]

178. what you dont believe the UN?

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

I think that per capita # are better than the news stories you posted.

[iverglas]

179. I do indeed believe the UN

and you know exactly what the UN said, and so you cannot even claim innocent misrepresentation now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=240402&mesg_id=241448

IN REPLY TO YOU.

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sv.pdf

The UNODC Crime Programme has confined itself to reproducing the figures as received on the questionnaire forms.

The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc. Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic.

The natiomaster site you cite has done exactly what the UN said should not be done, and what you know perfectly well results in a FALSE depiction of reality.

And you keep on doing it.

[E-Mag]

192. and like I said before

show me a site that has per capita figures that you want me to use and I will use it. Or should I find a few news articles and base my world outlook on that?
How do you compare different countries crimes? Of course they are different laws so some of the results may be a little off. Murder with a firearm seems pretty straight forward or does canada lump other crimes with the statictic?

You have no problem posting an article that basically does what I just did they just dont say that there may be differences. How could they do this without comparing statistics between countries with different laws?

"family murders account for more than half of all homicides – a rate three times higher than in the United States"

or this

"It found that family killings account for 58 per cent of all murders – a figure substantially higher than in the Netherlands (29 per cent) and the United States (20 per cent)"

Or is it fine when you do it but not me?

[iverglas]

193. you're a gas

show me a site that has per capita figures that you want me to use and I will use it

Here's a clue.

Find yourself whatever sources you need for accurate information -- THE TRUTH -- and use them to your heart's content.

Do not continue to post false information that you know is false.


Or is it fine when you do it but not me?

Do what - pretend I did something I didn't?

You pretend I posted this:

"It found that family killings account for 58 per cent of all murders – a figure substantially higher than in the Netherlands (29 per cent) and the United States (20 per cent)"

and did not include the immediately following paragraph:

"But Philip Jaffé, professor of psychology at Geneva University, warns against making comparisons with the US where he says people tend to be more homicidal 'outside the family'."

OBVIOUSLY for the specific purpose of pointing out that the comparison may be specious???

The fact is that there is a significant NUMBER of family homicides in Switzerland. Whether the RATE is high (which is a comparative concept) depends on what it is being compared to, and whether what it is being compared to is comparable.


And that is exactly what the appalling nationmaster site does: compare things that are NOT COMPARABLE because they are composed of different things.


For real data and information about what the data are composed of, from which you determine comparability with other datasets: for Canada, you start with Statistics Canada. For any other country you want to consider, you find its counterpart. Any time you like.

[E-Mag]

196. If you do not like my sorce you are more than

able to provide any statistics that refute nationmasters that you want. Just remember if you are comparing 2 different countries the laws have to be word for word the same to meet your critera :eyes:

[AtheistCrusader]

174. Hmmm.

'peaceable' perhaps not, but by your own info, while your chances of being killed by a family member are much higher in Switzerland than the US, the overall murder rate is far lower.

An interesting.... tradeoff.

I would be interested to learn more about why the total murder rate is so low, yet murder at the hands of a family member is proportionally higher. There is a cultural meme that an armed society is a polite society, and I wonder if that concept actually took hold here, if our murder rate at the hands of family members would also go up, while overall murder would go down?

After all, that Swiss government issued assault rifle at home is no good to you most of the time, for personal defense.

I'm not sure the suicide statistic is terribly important.. Firearms are somewhat more likely to 'work' than some other methods of suicide, but total suicides can be driven by cultural differences. For instance, Japan has fewer firearms in circulation than Canada, yet their total suicide rate outstrips even the United States. They just do it without guns. (The latest method risks the safety of everyone in a building where someone performs it, mixing chemicals like bleach and chlorine, etc)

Without easily accessible firearms, suicides in Switzerland might go down (the firearm suicide rate certainly would) or it might not.. There are cultural pressures involved beyond just the accessibility of firearms.

[iverglas]

180. nope, nonsense

There is a cultural meme that an armed society is a polite society, and I wonder if that concept actually took hold here, if our murder rate at the hands of family members would also go up, while overall murder would go down?

It may have become a cultural meme, but it's a line by a science fiction writer of an extreme loonytarian bent.

Switzerland is not "an armed society". That concept refers to people wandering abroad with firearms on their person, which is what is supposed to be a deterrent to impolite (criminal) behaviour in the public sphere, not the private.

As the article pointed out, Switzerland's rate of intra-family homicide is proportionately higher than in the US, a major reason being that the rate of extra-family homicide is much higher.

The absolute numbers of intra-family homicides in Switzerland do appear to have connections to the accessibility of firearms. The materials cited do point out that military-issue firearms *are* being used in familial homicides.


I'm not sure the suicide statistic is terribly important.

The Swiss consider it terribly important, and relevant to firearms policy, which is why I quoted material about it.

[PavePusher]

144. To the best of my knowledge

They can buy as much practice/hunting ammo as they want on the civilian market...

I'm trying to find the source where I saw that.

[JonQ]

53. Hmm, that would be a single anecdote

Of an individual using a firearm for violence. As you've stated before a single anecdote is significant. So clearly we need to disarm the canadian military.

This one story has convinced me that 100% of canadian service personnel are lunatics out to kill everyone they see, and can clearly not be trusted with guns.

Perhaps the US should intervene and forcibly disarm the great white menace to the north.

[iverglas]

54. hmm, that would be a false statement

As you've stated before a single anecdote is significant.

Do you ALWAYS let your bum do your talking for you??

[JonQ]

55. Hmm

and yet you use single anecdotes to "prove points" all the time.

Like for instance, this thread.

So are single instances significant or not?

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Couple thoughts...

Some things we don't know here.

For one, there may be bodies awaiting discovery somewhere, wherever this guy got his rifle.
Might have been an AR-15 with enough crap bolted on, it 'looked' like a scary M-16. Could have even had a 'blank' training adaptor on the barrel. Insufficient detail at this time.
He might have stolen the rifle. He might have been legally eligible to possess it. He might have been in the business of repairing or other tasks as a gunsmith (accurizing, floating barrels, glass bedding, trigger jobs, etc), which would put him in legal possession of controlled weapons. His shop might be in that 'pole barn'. Etc, etc.

What happened is pretty bad, and could have probably been MUCH worse, but lots of detail that might flesh out whether he had a reasonable justification for having possession of that weapon, or whether the weapon even is what we might think it is.


Edit: I am now punching myself in the groin for my atrocious spelling.

[iverglas]

61. you didn't read the series, did you?

The first three posts in the thread -- it was a developing story as I posted. I think it explains most of what you are querying.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. No, that's fine.

I'm pointing out some things that might bear watching, as more details are forthcoming.

I don't expect a solid picture of any firearms related event in the news, less than a week from the event. It took years to get a clear picture of the motives in the Columbine case, for instance, despite immediate drum-beating by the news around 'bullying' and the 'trenchcoat mafia', etc.

[JonQ]

62. Good point

the media is quick to label any military style weapon as a machine gun/assault weapon.

[iverglas]

66. is this "point" relevant here?

Do you actually believe that this individual did not have an M16?
If so, do you have a basis for believing that?
Can you tell us what it is?
If not, can you explain why your post is in this thread?

[JonQ]

70. I don't know if he did or did not

"If so, do you have a basis for believing that?"

No basis for *believing* merely a basis for being skeptical. When the media lies about such things so often it doesn't make any sense to take them at face value.

And it's relevant because it is a pertinent fact in the story. Are you arguing it's ok to change major details and still present it as news? Certainly not.

Let's find out all the facts first.

[iverglas]

72. let's

Let's find out all the facts first.

That is such a difficult thing to do.

Was this one in my original series?

http://news.google.ca/news/search?um=1&ned=ca&hl=en&q=prosoldier+m16&cf=all&scoring=n

http://www.freep.com/article/20090811/NEWS05/908110338/Police-describe-standoff-as--suicide-by-cop-

The gunman, identified as Wesley Gilson, a nearly 26-year U.S. Army veteran and sniper who served with the 82nd Airborne Division, was shot dead at 2:18 p.m. after raising a fully automatic M16 assault rifle at officers, whom he told to "just shoot me," Livingston County Sheriff Bob Bezotte said.

Google News dates it 13 hours ago.

The death was about 26 hours ago.

The article was apparently posted about 13 hours after the death.

If there were more facts to find out about what kind of firearm he had, I kind of think they would have been found out by now. You?

[JonQ]

75. Like I said

the media lies about such things all the time. This time they may be telling the truth, often they aren't.

I've read too many "automatic" or "assault weapon" claims to simply take them at their word.

BTW, if the problem was with them lying or being ignorant, how does repeating their claims validate them? If they were wrong the first time won't they also be wrong when you copy and paste them for a 2nd time?

[iverglas]

80. you make yourself

look wackoer and wackoer.

The gunman, identified as Wesley Gilson, a nearly 26-year U.S. Army veteran and sniper who served with the 82nd Airborne Division, was shot dead at 2:18 p.m. after raising a fully automatic M16 assault rifle at officers, whom he told to "just shoot me," Livingston County Sheriff Bob Bezotte said.

You don't think he'd have mentioned it if he'd been misquoted?

Maybe you think only the "just shoot me" there was quoted from Bezotte, and the media made up the rest.


BTW, if the problem was with them lying or being ignorant, how does repeating their claims validate them? If they were wrong the first time won't they also be wrong when you copy and paste them for a 2nd time?

Try to focus here.

The passage I have now shown you twice, this time with emphasis, indicates the source of the facts.

If you actually want to know, I'm sure you could find an email address for Bezotte.

Damn, that was easy.

http://www.co.livingston.mi.us/Sheriff/

[JonQ]

82. I suppose

asking for validation of various claims after repeated lies is wacky to some people.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. From the monday article in your OP.

"Officers had no choice when the man lifted an M-16 semi automatic in their direction, Sheriff Bob Bezotte said."

Non-maskable interrupt.

[iverglas]

96. the magic of the internet

What it said when I quoted/linked to it:

"a barricaded gunman is holed up with an M-16 fully automatic weapon and other weapons, according to Sheriff Bob Bezotte."

What the same link appears to say now:

"Officers had no choice when the man lifted an M-16 semi automatic in their direction, Sheriff Bob Bezotte said."

All other sources seem to say full. He was a military contractor. There's no reason to think he wouldn't have had the real thing.


Oddly enough, my thread was not started with any intention of discussing what weapon he had. It could have been his grandfather's shotgun, for all I care.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Sure.

I'm just anticipating some adjustment of the initially reported 'facts'. But the overall concept appears to be solid. Here, was a guy who passed a background check, being a 'law abiding citizen' right up UNTIL... So yeah, concept is valid.

[JonQ]

187. Damn those fully semi automatic weapons!

The most deadly of all made up guns.

Hey, remember when I said the media screws these details up all the time and you whined about that and called me paranoid?

Yeah, this is exactly what I was talking about.

[iverglas]

188. sadly, it was not

Hey, remember when I said the media screws these details up all the time and you whined about that and called me paranoid?
Yeah, this is exactly what I was talking about.

The media screwed up nothing. The Sheriff / his people erred. Damn. They made a mistake. The media quoted them.

It was conceivable that this individual did have access to an M16 through his military contracts.

The really big point is: ... oh, there isn't one.

I don't give a flying fuck what kind of firearm he was using. Nothing I said depended on the nature of the firearm he was using. I said nothing about the kind of firearm he was using. I posted a report of an event that involved a "law-abiding firearm owner" breaking laws and endangering numerous people. Whether he did that with any kind of a firearm at all was really not relevant in itself. He was not LAW-ABIDING.

But as usual, the gun militant agenda was invoked, and its adherents latched onto a wholly IRRELEVANT element of the event and harped upon it and demanded that it be addressed and attempted to make it the subject of discussion, until somebody thought it actually did have something to do with something.

It didn't.

Diversionary grooming.

[JonQ]

195. So are you now acknowledging that your original

post did not contain all the facts?

"The media screwed up nothing. The Sheriff / his people erred. Damn. They made a mistake. The media quoted them."

And they quoted him without correction, that isn't very good reporting.

"I posted a report of an event that involved a "law-abiding firearm owner" breaking laws and endangering numerous people. Whether he did that with any kind of a firearm at all was really not relevant in itself. He was not LAW-ABIDING."

So how is he a lab abiding firearm owner if "He was not LAW-ABIDING"? You contradicted yourself. In an attempt to shoot down an argument that no one ever made (that every single gun owner who ever lived was perfectly responsible and law abiding).

"But as usual, the gun militant agenda was invoked, and its adherents latched onto a wholly IRRELEVANT element of the event and harped upon it and demanded that it be addressed and attempted to make it the subject of discussion, until somebody thought it actually did have something to do with something."

Yeah, how dare we, that's your job.

[iverglas]

197. your write!!11!1!1!

My original post did not tell you the offender's eye colour, or his height, or his dog's name!!!1!1!

All of which were at least as relevent as WHAT KIND OF FUCKING GUN he was threatening people with.

Amount of relevance in all cases: NONE.

[JonQ]

198. You think the gun is as irrelevant

as his dogs name. And yet it is a story about a gun murder, posted in the guns section.

You did also claim he was given a machine gun and claimed that it is crazy for the US to give those weapons to civilians, rather than just the army. So the fact that it wasn't a machine gun is important.


And before you can deny it: post 48. does your military hand out its guns
and then you go on about how the military shouldn't be giving its guns to civilians.

It seems he may have a legally purchased, semi-automatic gun, not obtained from the military. So that argument was false.

[iverglas]

200. prove it or eat it

You did also claim he was given a machine gun

Now, please.

Nope. You didn't prove it.

The "question" put to me ahead of the post you referred to was:

"I suppose the point of this article is that we can't trust the military with guns? Or military trainers?"

The post in which I replied:

does your military hand out its guns

to anybody who might want to take one home? Mine sure doesn't. And I'm quite sure we don't have any "trainers" like this guy. We don't outsource national defence. Weapons suppliers train personnel on the weapons they supply; the military trains them in combat.

So yeah. I trust my military to keep track of where its guns are, which is not in people's barns, or anywhere else away from military oversight.

Can you copy that back again and figure out some way of directing me attention to the part where I claim he was given a machine gun?

Thanking you in advance.

Oh, you might want to take issue with what JonQ said in the post I replied to there. He seems to be the one implying what you object to.

[JonQ]

201. The military doesn't use AR-15s

nor do they use M-16s that have been modified to only fire single shots.

So if he was "handed" a gun by the military then it was a machine gun (I knew you would try to deny it, cute).

In fact it was not a machine gun, that part of your story was incorrect.

So unless you believe we still use muskets down here (wouldn't surprise me, being knowledgeable on firearms isn't your forte) then claiming he was handed a gun by the military was claiming he was handed a machine gun.

[iverglas]

203. you are way beyond help or hope

that you can continue to say things like:

So if he was "handed" a gun by the military then it was a machine gun (I knew you would try to deny it, cute).

-- a claim that I said something I didn't say -- is conclusive proof that you are either simply unable to grasp the meaning of words in sentences or completely unwilling to tell the truth about what it is.

[JonQ]

204. Maybe your evil twin wrote it to discredit you

She must be busy because you seem to type a lot of things that you later deny.

[JonQ]

87. For instance

how long did it take for this lady:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=245448&mesg_id=245448

To fess up to her lies?

Not saying this report is a lie, merely that it requires validation. As they have been shown to be very ignorant in the past.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. To put it another way

I don't think Bezotte would be lying. I think he may be mistaken.

[X_Digger]

98. Can you really blame a person for being suspicious?

After the holocaust museum shooting, we were originally told (by the police) that it was a shotgun, then it was retracted; the immigration center shooter was initially reported to have used a 'high power rifle' (handguns); and some of the reports of the gym shooter said he used a machinegun. The fact that they get it wrong so often leads some to believe it's intentional. (When it's the police, I chalk it up to simple ignorance, not malice.)

I don't expect the guy who fixes the broken oxygen sensor on my truck to know the difference between a 'TL' and an 'SL' dodge viper without opening the hood, so similarly no, I don't expect your average cop to know the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15, or a pre-ban AR-15 that's been converted to full auto. Maybe the police armorer back at the station, yes. Not all police officers are firearms enthusiasts, no more than all firemen are 'hose enthusiasts'.

(As an aside, it doesn't help that the media is even worse, showing stock footage of fully automatic guns firing when talking about semi-automatic rifles, or saying things that make no sense like 'semi-automatic machinegun'.)

[iverglas]

101. "your average cop"

http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20090811/NEWS01/908110313

August 11, 2009

... The incident began at around noon, when a woman, believed to be Gilson's wife, called 911 to report that Gilson was taking OxyContin and muscle relaxants.

Livingston County EMS responded to the call, which was believed to be a potential overdose, but paramedics backed out of the house when Gilson pulled a handgun out of a bag and threatened the paramedics, ordering them off his property.

When police arrived, Gilson again ordered everyone off his property and then he barricaded himself, his wife and five children in the log-cabin-style home, which is undergoing exterior renovations.

... Meanwhile, Gilson went into a fifth-wheeler next to the house and came out brandishing a fully automatic M-16 assault rifle, the sheriff said.

Gilson was then seen entering an estimated 4,000-square-foot gray barn located behind the property while officers moved Gilson's wife, who is reportedly a doctor, and the three children to a 10-foot-by-10-foot red barn on the property for their safety. An officer was in the barn as well.

image: http://cmsimg.livingstondaily.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C6&Date=20090811&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=908110313&Ref=AR&MaxW=180&Border=0
A member of the Livingston County Sheriff's Department tactical team prepares for action near the scene of Monday's armed standoff, which resulted in the death of Howell Township resident Wesley Gilson. (Photo by ALAN WARD / DAILY PRESS & ARGUS)

http://www.livingstondaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090810/NEWS01/90810011

image: http://www.livingstondaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?template=zoom&Site=C6&Date=20090810&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=90810011&Ref=AR
An armored personnel carrier rumbles northward on Burkhart Road toward the barricaded gunman. Police used the vehicle to remove two adults and three children from the line of fire. (ALAN WARD/DAILY PRESS & ARGUS)

You'll have to do a quick click on those image links; they won't come out here.

[X_Digger]

104. A SWAT team member might know more than the average cop..

.. but the sheriff? Without knowing his background (if he served as his unit's armorer, etc) I still don't know how much he knows about firearms. Having the latest in gear, like that armored personnel carrier, doesn't necessarily mean they know the difference between two similar guns.

It likely was an M-16, if this guy was training .mil folks, but that doesn't negate the generally abominable record of police and the media when it comes to guns.

Maybe the sheriff misspoke when he said "Officers had no choice when the man lifted an M-16 semi automatic in their direction, Sheriff Bob Bezotte said." or maybe the reporter misquoted him. But even in this article where it is likely that they 'got it right', they also 'got it wrong' once, maybe even from the sheriff himself.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. It can take weeks.

Sometimes, never, for the public details.. Which is very sad, because it leaves people wanting to discuss firearms policy out to dry, with incomplete, or inaccurate facts upon which to have an informed discussion.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. The initial version of the article mixed terms.

'semi-automatic' M-16. An M-16 converted to semi-auto would be a left handed unicorn, and frankly, would still be a machine gun according to federal law.

I've seen MANY recent instances of even the statements the police initially make to the media being completely inaccurate, regarding weapon type. Possibly because the police with no military background, have little to no training in what the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 is. Even fewer would be qualified to open it up and see if maybe it was semi-auto modded, or if a pre-1986 AR-15 from certain manufacturers, if it was full-auto modded.

[Taitertots]

123. It was not fully automatic

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090810/METRO04/908100386/1361/Gunman-is-holed-up-in-Howell-barn

So who is wrong the Detroit News or the LivingstonDaily.com?

[iverglas]

125. you're the one making the claim

So why are you asking?

[Taitertots]

128. I was just wondering.....

if you knowingly quote misleading sources or do you just not know the difference?

[AtheistCrusader]

129. The initial version of the livingstondaily said the same thing.

If it was a M-16, it should not be semi-auto. (Though it includes a semi-auto mode)

This appears to be something like the AP, where they send out a blurb and everyone just runs it. This being the first iteration of the article, with the least verified detail.

[jeepnstein]

183. It was an AR15, not a full auto M16

Sheriff Bob Bezotte said the shooting was justified as Gilson had raised what police believed was an M-16 assault rifle at officers, who are trained to stop a deadly threat. Police later learned the weapon was a semiautomatic AR-15, which is identical in appearance to an M-16, officers said.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20090812/NEWS01/908120310/1002/NEWS01

The original news source made the clarification. The internet makes it much easier to rush to a conclusion.

Doesn't make the guy any less dead. He chose to push it that far knowing full well what to expect. No good came from any of it at all.

[iverglas]

184. and since nothing I have said

depended in any way on what firearm he was brandishing (he started out with a handgun) ...

It was somewhat interesting that the firearm appeared to be one he would only have had access to through his military contacts, if that had been the case. It is to be hoped that he didn't, simply on principle.

My point remains: up to the moment when he embarked on this misadventure, he was a "law-abiding gun owner" in the sense in which that meme is used.

Even if, for example, it were to transpire that he was abusing OxyContin obtained through illegal channels ...

[TPaine7]

205. And your point is flawless

My point remains: up to the moment when he embarked on this misadventure, he was a "law-abiding gun owner" in the sense in which that {term} is used.

Assuming that he did indeed have a clean criminal record--that no one dropped the ball in recording or following up on a legitimately disqualifying conviction--this point is pure, pristine truth. It follows that he was entitled to all of the privileges and immunities of a human being and a US citizen. The state would not be justified in depriving him of any constitutional rights.

Even if, for example, it were to transpire that he was abusing OxyContin obtained through illegal channels ...

This is also true. If someone is committing a crime and the government is unaware, the government cannot act on the knowledge it does not have. This seems elementary to me.

It may be that I will one day kill someone unjustifiably, in theory at least. It may be that I will one day win the lottery, in theory at least (someone would probably have to give me a ticket). But though I grant the state my express consent to award me millions of dollars because it is theoretically possible for me to win the state lottery, I do not grant the state express--or any other type of--consent to deprive me of constitutional rights because it is theoretically possible for me to commit murder or manslaughter. I insist on the full show--grand jury, prosecutor, jury, defense attorney(s), judge, court, trial, and if necessary, appeals.

That's just me, I guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

190. Not to gloat, but I pretty much called that.

Fucking morons. Once they secured the scene it should have taken 10 seconds to look at that weapon and determine the exact model and type, instead of blabbing whatever inane shit popped into their heads to the media.

First impressions and all that, a lot of people took away from this story the 'fact' that he had a highly controlled machine gun.

This aside, Iverglas's point stands. In fact, he ceased to be law abiding when he started using oxycontin in a manner inconsistent with the perscription.

[Tim01]

131. Should I list news stories where unarmed people lose?

The one thing that is consistent about you is that you don't care about who gets hurt or doesn't get hurt. You don't like guns and you don't care if they could help more people than they hurt.

We never claimed that gun owners are incapable of crime.