National School Walkout

[Juvenal]

A reminder that guns have likely saved millions of more lives than they have taken.

It's generally a good idea before citing or commenting on research to check to see how well it has stood up to academic critique, which is what I just did. This is the top result.

The Gun Debate's New Mythical Number: How Many Defensive Uses Per Year?

In 1986, Peter Reuter suggested that the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) consider offering an annual award for the "most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official or agency head," with one of the criteria being that the number have "no reasonable basis" (pp. 811-812).

In this article, we discuss the candidacy of one of the more surprising numbers to surface in the course of America's gun debate: that 2.5 million Americans use a gun defensively against a criminal attacker each year [Kleck and Gertz, 1995]. News items,1 editorial writers,2 even the Congressional Research Service [Bea, 1994] have mentioned the 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) as established fact. This number is considerably higher than our best estimate of the number of crimes committed each year with a firearm (1.3 million) [U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1996b], and has been used as an argument against regulations that would restrict widespread firearms ownership. The implicit notion seems to be that if there are more legitimate uses than criminal uses of guns against people, then widespread gun ownership is a net plus for public safety.

1 One article begins, "That's right. Owning a gun, presuming you know how to use it, may be good for you" [Harper, 1996]. See also Witkin [1994].
2 See Kumenta [1995].

Kleck and Gertz 1995 is anti-vaxxer level debunked research.

Cite the quotes you want sourced.

These quotes:

It isn't so much the potty mouth language^[1], but rather calling those they disagree with -- including other student survivors -- blood-soaked murderers and worse. Compare what they repeatedly say to Ingraham's jibe and the double standard is glaring and shameful.

I don't know what potty mouth language you're speaking about. I don't know which student survivors have been called blood-soaked murderers, if any. I don't know what they, whoever they might be, have repeatedly said. This is a hand-waved invidious representation dropped in the thread with no means to check it.

If it's true, quotes would be useful. Less so if it's not.

And yet this adult "child," Hogg, and his accomplices have made vile personal attacks on any and everyone that doesn't completely agree with them -- including other school shooting survivors^[1] -- but they are free to do so unchecked.

The comment contradicts itself.

And when someone dares to *gasp* say anything whatsoever that falls short of fawning adulation of these untouchable saints then all hell breaks loose. Ingraham's snark was barely anything. A light teasing at the very most. And, how does Hogg respond to someone saying he's whining about being rejected by a slew of colleges? He goes into full SJW meltdown mode, playing the victim card and petulantly refuses to accept any apology.

Not even Ingraham is defending her comment.

And please, we're not going to go after Hogg for behavior that no one would consider newsworthy for any other high school student.

Student applies for colleges, not all accept him

... read no headline, ever.

This is a combing-through-the-garbage-can level personal attack.

Not in this thread, please.

[Juvenal]

...the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.


Pretty clear language.

The ellipses suggest a preamble that doesn't confirm the conclusion.

[Cerebrum123]

carpedm, it looks more like you came here with that idea already in mind, and decided to blame others for your "change" in views. It's the only way I can make sense of how you misrepresent the other side, as well as how you can even say something nonsensical like the Second Amendment is "poorly worded". Or that killing an unborn child, who loses all of their rights permanently is equally bad to 9 months of inconvenience. An inconvenience that was known to be a possibility before the act of sex was done at all.

[Juvenal]

Instead of contributing...

This is not a contribution.

[Juvenal]

Indeed, we must all hope to live up to your levels of contribution to TWeb.

Charles response had no place in this thread. It was a personal attack.

I'd like to ask all posters to refrain from responding in kind. While I don't want to create excessive burdens on our volunteer mod team, in my threads, personal attacks violate thread policy, and should be considered reportable.

[Cerebrum123]

This is not a contribution.

My response to that wasn't either. Sorry.

[Juvenal]

Or that killing an unborn child ..

Carpe is asked not to respond to this portion of 123's post in this thread.

[carpedm9587]

carpedm, it looks more like you came here with that idea already in mind, and decided to blame others for your "change" in views.

No. But if experience is any teacher, that will not be believed. I also don't "blame others" for my change in views. I have made the decision to change my views. I am responsible for that decision. The change is based on my becoming aware of something I was really in denial about - which happened here. But no one here "made" me change my views.

It's the only way I can make sense of how you misrepresent the other side, as well as how you can even say something nonsensical like the Second Amendment is "poorly worded".

Cere - the observation that the amendment is "poorly worded" is not just mine. There were two versions of this amendment. Much of the literature about it points to the odd syntax and it's ambiguous results. A 3rd grade English teacher would probably give a "C-" to any child who turned in such a phrase: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Correctly punctuated, it could be: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Or it could be: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

But the structure and punctuation is odd, to say the least. And that throws into question the qualifying clause it begins with. But we have been around this already, so I do not expect it to get any further this time than last time. Guns are not being used to support a "well regulated militia." Guns are the primary tool for crimes, most of which (70+%) are committed with guns that do not belong to the criminal. Most of the gun deaths that occur happen to the owner or a member of the owner's family using their own gun. That means, statistically, a gun owner increases their risk of harm by having a gun - to themselves or those around them - yet they cling to the fiction that it is for "self-protection" against a criminal element, that statistically, they most likely will never see. The whole thing makes no sense.

I'm also curious as to how I have "misrepresented" what has been said here?

Or that killing an unborn child, who loses all of their rights permanently is equally bad to 9 months of inconvenience. An inconvenience that was known to be a possibility before the act of sex was done at all.

I have no idea what abortion has to do with gun rights. It appears to be a distraction from the main issue, so I won't respond further on this tangent, unless you want to discuss it in a separate thread.

[carpedm9587]

Carpe is asked not to respond to this portion of 123's post in this thread.

Sorry - I didn't see this until after I had posted. I have amended my post and made it clear I won't be responding further...

[Mountain Man]

It's generally a good idea before citing or commenting on research to check to see how well it has stood up to academic critique, which is what I just did. This is the top result.

The Gun Debate's New Mythical Number: How Many Defensive Uses Per Year?

In 1986, Peter Reuter suggested that the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) consider offering an annual award for the "most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official or agency head," with one of the criteria being that the number have "no reasonable basis" (pp. 811-812).

In this article, we discuss the candidacy of one of the more surprising numbers to surface in the course of America's gun debate: that 2.5 million Americans use a gun defensively against a criminal attacker each year [Kleck and Gertz, 1995]. News items,1 editorial writers,2 even the Congressional Research Service [Bea, 1994] have mentioned the 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) as established fact. This number is considerably higher than our best estimate of the number of crimes committed each year with a firearm (1.3 million) [U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1996b], and has been used as an argument against regulations that would restrict widespread firearms ownership. The implicit notion seems to be that if there are more legitimate uses than criminal uses of guns against people, then widespread gun ownership is a net plus for public safety.

1 One article begins, "That's right. Owning a gun, presuming you know how to use it, may be good for you" [Harper, 1996]. See also Witkin [1994].
2 See Kumenta [1995].

Kleck and Gertz 1995 is anti-vaxxer level debunked research.

How about providing a source that doesn't cost $42 to read?

And please, we're not going to go after Hogg for behavior that no one would consider newsworthy for any other high school student.

Student applies for colleges, not all accept him

... read no headline, ever.

You're right, that's not a headline, but

Entitled teenage celebrity whines about college application rejection

is certainly newsworthy.

[rogue06]

orly worded" is not just mine. There were two versions of this amendment. Much of the literature about it points to the odd syntax and it's ambiguous results. A 3rd grade English teacher would probably give a "C-" to any child who turned in such a phrase: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Correctly punctuated, it could be: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Or it could be: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

But the structure and punctuation is odd, to say the least. And that throws into question the qualifying clause it begins with. But we have been around this already, so I do not expect it to get any further this time than last time. Guns are not being used to support a "well regulated militia." Guns are the primary tool for crimes, most of which (70+%) are committed with guns that do not belong to the criminal. Most of the gun deaths that occur happen to the owner or a member of the owner's family using their own gun. That means, statistically, a gun owner increases their risk of harm by having a gun - to themselves or those around them - yet they cling to the fiction that it is for "self-protection" against a criminal element, that statistically, they most likely will never see. The whole thing makes no sense.

It appears to utilize a style that was common at the time it was written as Scalia took pains to point out in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision.

Here is a partial explanation:

Source: Of Course the Second Amendment Protects an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a common feature at the time of draftingSource

© Copyright Original Source

[Charles]

Charles response had no place in this thread. It was a personal attack.

I'd like to ask all posters to refrain from responding in kind. While I don't want to create excessive burdens on our volunteer mod team, in my threads, personal attacks violate thread policy, and should be considered reportable.

What I wrote was not a personal attack since I did not attack a person. I attacked a way of arguing. I pointed out that seer did not deliever facts but had an approach of waiting for others to do so while insinuating he was right without proving himself right.

[Juvenal]

Exactly. Talk of bans is one of the primary reasons for the jump in gun sales.

A less graceful interlocutor might suggest this is why the NRA regularly misrepresents all gun control legislation as attempts to ban all guns. They do get most of their money from gun manufacturers.

This is propaganda, and not bad as such things go, with the usual mix of fiction and personal attack, some of which you can't even complain about, because lampooning elected representatives isn't just every American's God-given right, it's great fun for every citizen from any civilized country.

Probably not the best idea under Putin, or Xi, though.

Making up dialog from a former president. Cool.

But then again.

Infantilizing a shooting victim by suggesting he needs a sippy cup. Not so cool. And as a matter of thread policy, it's a personal attack, and not allowed.

And then there's the more substantive point. Yes, indeed, gun ownership has rocketed under these propaganda campaigns. How's that working out. Less killings? Safer schools maybe?

[Juvenal]

How about providing a source that doesn't cost $42 to read?

The Gun Debate's New Mythical Number.pdf

You're right, that's not a headline, but

Entitled teenage celebrity whines about college application rejection

is certainly newsworthy.

First, no it's not. And second, it's a personal attack. And lastly, it's a personal attack on a victim of gun violence.

Not in this thread please.

[rogue06]

It's generally a good idea before citing or commenting on research to check to see how well it has stood up to academic critique, which is what I just did. This is the top result.

The Gun Debate's New Mythical Number: How Many Defensive Uses Per Year?

In 1986, Peter Reuter suggested that the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) consider offering an annual award for the "most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official or agency head," with one of the criteria being that the number have "no reasonable basis" (pp. 811-812).

In this article, we discuss the candidacy of one of the more surprising numbers to surface in the course of America's gun debate: that 2.5 million Americans use a gun defensively against a criminal attacker each year [Kleck and Gertz, 1995]. News items,1 editorial writers,2 even the Congressional Research Service [Bea, 1994] have mentioned the 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) as established fact. This number is considerably higher than our best estimate of the number of crimes committed each year with a firearm (1.3 million) [U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1996b], and has been used as an argument against regulations that would restrict widespread firearms ownership. The implicit notion seems to be that if there are more legitimate uses than criminal uses of guns against people, then widespread gun ownership is a net plus for public safety.

1 One article begins, "That's right. Owning a gun, presuming you know how to use it, may be good for you" [Harper, 1996]. See also Witkin [1994].
2 See Kumenta [1995].

Kleck and Gertz 1995 is anti-vaxxer level debunked research.

And yet even strident anti-gun advocates were forced to admit

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence."

Not to mention that

The findings were largely confirmed by the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice in a study conducted by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, a National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (NSPOF) conducted for the Police Foundation, as well as a survey conducted by the Los Angeles Times, who are not exactly supportive of the 2A.

Scholarship and methodology praised by someone who describes himself "as as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country" and results confirmed by several other studies including one for the government by pro-gun control criminologists. So much for attempts to hand wave it off.

These quotes:

I don't know what potty mouth language you're speaking about. I don't know which student survivors have been called blood-soaked murderers, if any. I don't know what they, whoever they might be, have repeatedly said. This is a hand-waved invidious representation dropped in the thread with no means to check it.

You could check out some of the exchanges on Twitter between Hogg and Kyle Kashuv for a start. And over on CNN, when the host included some of their fellow students at Stoneman Douglas High School (likely a reference to Kashuv and a few others) as among their critics one of the sanctified lambs that no one dare disagree with called them all "murderers" (I'll see if I can find the transcript).

Not even Ingraham is defending her comment.

It would be useless and counterproductive in that she's fighting a knee-jerk boycott

And please, we're not going to go after Hogg for behavior that no one would consider newsworthy for any other high school student.

And we continue to shelter an adult from responsibility for his words and deeds

The problem I guess is what I said was spot on but since the left has declared these guys as something like sacred and above reproach we must not have any of that

00000000000000ars7a.jpg