Another gun thread

[CatHedral]

I was curious on the range because normally the number reported falls directly in the middle of the interval, I tried to find it in that paper but couldn't.

I’m guessing it’s centered on a log graph.

 

[Fogdog]

Please let me be clear, I advocate the individual ownership of what ever non military firearm you want, no background check, no registration.

Period.

My issue is with American gun culture and the foolish lies gun owners tend to tell themselves and others.

This thread was meant to address those little lies.

"Suicide by firearm just means they would do it some other way".. so that same bunch who are upset by the declarations of those uneducated about firearms somehow believe that their ignorance of the particulars of suicide and depression think they are entitled to make proclamations little different than those who call magazines "clips".

And the "a gun is 'just' a tool" so I posted what I did.

A chainsaw is just a tool, I see few who are as motivated over their chainsaws as they are over their glocks. There are measures being considered in California prohibiting leaf blowers and gas weed wackers, i don't see large movements setting about protecting those "tools". Guns are proven to increase the levels of testosterone in the user, not so with an electronic level.

Again, I am in no way in favor of demanding a bonified "reason" for ownership of a certain class of firearm. The fact that a person wants it combined with a measure of safety should be enough. (Saturday night specials, guns with too light a trigger, that sort of thing).

Using "the wrong weapon" is not my point. My point lies solely in dealing with those tired gun owner arguments. (There is a not insubstantial list of anti gun arguments that fail as well)

If one wants to own a "utilitarian, military appearing" firearm, fine, but that person should likely not be using the "guns are but tools" argument unless they have a good response for "what is your tool for", that does not include "protection from the zombie apocalypse

Nearly all the same people spreading the myth of the good guy with the gun protecting people from bad guys with guns are also saying the election was stolen from Trump and Biden eats babies.

I think your point is getting blunted on people with hard head.

 

[mooray]

Please let me be clear, I advocate the individual ownership of what ever non military firearm you want, no background check, no registration.

Period.

My issue is with American gun culture and the foolish lies gun owners tend to tell themselves and others.

This thread was meant to address those little lies.

"Suicide by firearm just means they would do it some other way".. so that same bunch who are upset by the declarations of those uneducated about firearms somehow believe that their ignorance of the particulars of suicide and depression think they are entitled to make proclamations little different than those who call magazines "clips".

And the "a gun is 'just' a tool" so I posted what I did.

A chainsaw is just a tool, I see few who are as motivated over their chainsaws as they are over their glocks. There are measures being considered in California prohibiting leaf blowers and gas weed wackers, i don't see large movements setting about protecting those "tools". Guns are proven to increase the levels of testosterone in the user, not so with an electronic level.

Again, I am in no way in favor of demanding a bonified "reason" for ownership of a certain class of firearm. The fact that a person wants it combined with a measure of safety should be enough. (Saturday night specials, guns with too light a trigger, that sort of thing).

Using "the wrong weapon" is not my point. My point lies solely in dealing with those tired gun owner arguments. (There is a not insubstantial list of anti gun arguments that fail as well)

If one wants to own a "utilitarian, military appearing" firearm, fine, but that person should likely not be using the "guns are but tools" argument unless they have a good response for "what is your tool for", that does not include "protection from the zombie apocalypse

I don't like dishonesty either. If you want to have alcohol, you have to be okay with some family dying tonight because of a drunk driver. If you want to have guns, you have to be okay with people killing themselves and others. With suicides, that excuse is only a half true. Some people's lives would be saved by a decrease in ease of access and some people would die another way. I agree those half-truth arguments are tired. To be fair, so is the "need" argument.

 

[Budley Doright]

I don't kill snakes anymore. Unless they are right at the house and the wife sees them. I walk at night sans headlamp, and have not stepped on one so far.

We do have panthers, but I don't view them as a theat. I view them very rarely as a matter of fact. The last time I saw any was when the guys opened up the road to the creek for me, and I was pulling cedar posts from the creek land down to my river camp. That would have been in the spring of last year. Two young one ran across the three trail road in front of me. They were hauling ass.

Yup I do find that the majority of the time most animals are way more afraid of you then you them. But yes there are exceptions. Black bears with Cubs can be a very precarious situation here so we always make lots of noise so we don’t surprise them. There is a sow and 2 cubs that hang out here in the spring and summer but you don’t see them much. Lots of coyotes but if they see you their gone at lightning speed lol. Pretty much leave all the animals alone, did a lot of killing as a kid .

 

[Budley Doright]

Please let me be clear, I advocate the individual ownership of what ever non military firearm you want, no background check, no registration.

Period.

My issue is with American gun culture and the foolish lies gun owners tend to tell themselves and others.

This thread was meant to address those little lies.

"Suicide by firearm just means they would do it some other way".. so that same bunch who are upset by the declarations of those uneducated about firearms somehow believe that their ignorance of the particulars of suicide and depression think they are entitled to make proclamations little different than those who call magazines "clips".

And the "a gun is 'just' a tool" so I posted what I did.

A chainsaw is just a tool, I see few who are as motivated over their chainsaws as they are over their glocks. There are measures being considered in California prohibiting leaf blowers and gas weed wackers, i don't see large movements setting about protecting those "tools". Guns are proven to increase the levels of testosterone in the user, not so with an electronic level.

Again, I am in no way in favor of demanding a bonified "reason" for ownership of a certain class of firearm. The fact that a person wants it combined with a measure of safety should be enough. (Saturday night specials, guns with too light a trigger, that sort of thing).

Using "the wrong weapon" is not my point. My point lies solely in dealing with those tired gun owner arguments. (There is a not insubstantial list of anti gun arguments that fail as well)

If one wants to own a "utilitarian, military appearing" firearm, fine, but that person should likely not be using the "guns are but tools" argument unless they have a good response for "what is your tool for", that does not include "protection from the zombie apocalypse

I do think background checks are a good thing, but not the end all of gun violence. I also think a certified training course on firearms is a good prerequisite for gun ownership, but again not the end all. There is a different thought process here when it comes to gun ownership and it’s viewed more as a privilege than a right. Gun classification re assault versus hunting is just a bias really although I would typically go for accuracy more than scary lol.

 

[canndo]

In that case allow me to explore a little. You seem to me to use gun culturist to describe anyone who values the conferred privilege to own a gun. I do not say gun right because the Second Amendment has undergone several limitations. I applaud some but not others.

Where do I see you differentiating between culturists (what all the other gun owners call gun nuts) and all the others? Do you see why I sense propaganda?

Of course I see where your anti propaganda hairs go up.

Yours is requires a convoluted answer.

I don't see owning a gun as privilege but right as provided for in our founding document.

But I see the gun culturists making far too much of the "shall not be infringed" part.

When I see folks who do not believe in compromise for the social good, I see "gun nuts", your terminology, not mine.

I believe you are not a "culturist". And I hope to have you understand my delicate position.

I came to believe in the "gun as talisman" idea after hearing (and seeing posts here as a matter of fact) when I hear of a person who answers that he has a gun for "protection".

Now I have already stated that I don't believe anyone needs to present a reason to own a firearm....except to THEMSELVES.

"OK, from what or whom"? If they say wildlife, ok, but when they go jogging in mountain lion territory, where do they keep it? Do they keep a round in the chamber? Have they at least done some plinking? No? Then they are carrying a dangerous totem, a rabbits foot.

If they say they want one for "home defense", what sort of weapon? Where do they keep that one? Has there been any incident in their neighborhood? Any real perceived threat?

Do they frequent a range? Have they practiced situational awareness? Have they instructed their family? Might a few baseball bats secreted around the home be a better, safer and probably equally effective counter to home invasion? If not, then all they have is a detriment to their families safety and a legal and emotional danger to themselves and others. Have they a good grasp on their and their families ongoing mental health?

Their gun may well now be nothing but a sort of magical deterrent against an unknown and unexamined external possibility.

I keep three fire extinguishers in my home just in case, but it is not likely that I or my wife will in a pique of dispare, take our lives. I will not use my extinguisher through my front door in response to a surprise 2 am banging, an errant discharge will not pass through my window and take out my next door neighbors child. The extinguisher will not go off as I am cleaning it.

Fires happen in homes.

The posession of a firearm demands attention to all the details.

I serviced many many wheat ranchers weapons. I have often spoken to urban liberals about firearms. Flying across our country I have pointed out the tiny homes situated in one corner of hundreds or thousands of acres of farmland, not a township in sight. Wisdom dictated that these ranchers keep loaded firearms in every room, in these instances the weapons are not lucky charms.

But when I visit my neighbor who is certain that there will be an uprising in the city down yonder and he hands me a rifle and when I check the chamber finding a round in it, I know this neighbor is not really in the interest of the safety of his family. He believes the weapon is a talisman.

"Just in case" is inapplicable here.

I once has an interesting discussion with a group of folk. We talked about how we might get along in the event of social collapse. We compared our individual abilities, I said I knew how to make fuel from available fats. "Yeah, but I have a gun" one of them replied. "I would simply take your fuel and your food, I could hunt as well" this is where I began to understand how so many gave come to believe that guns, in and of themselves were some sort of ultimate indemnification for them.

I do not believe you are like them.

I don't think I have adequately explained myself but I will continue to try.

 

[xtsho]

This should settle any arguments.

 

[canndo]

As for the constitution.

I have often engaged the culturists in hypothetical.

"You say you will take up arms in the event of governmental tyranny, when is that going to happen? Taxes have gone up, your voting rights are diminished, you have expressed extreme dissatisfaction as to how our government and liberals presently function. The fourth amendment is in tatters, the first is clipped and distorted, when will you take up your weapons in defense of your constitutionally protected rights? When is it too much? Isn't now the time?".


The answer I always get is curiously circular.

"We will rise up with our weapons when it appears the government is confiscating those weapons".

So in reality, only a single right is so important that it should be defended with force. None of the others rise to the same value.

 

[CatHedral]

Of course I see where your anti propaganda hairs go up.

Yours is requires a convoluted answer.

I don't see owning a gun as privilege but right as provided for in our founding document.

But I see the gun culturists making far too much of the "shall not be infringed" part.

When I see folks who do not believe in compromise for the social good, I see "gun nuts", your terminology, not mine.

I believe you are not a "culturist". And I hope to have you understand my delicate position.

I came to believe in the "gun as talisman" idea after hearing (and seeing posts here as a matter of fact) when I hear of a person who answers that he has a gun for "protection".

Now I have already stated that I don't believe anyone needs to present a reason to own a firearm....except to THEMSELVES.

"OK, from what or whom"? If they say wildlife, ok, but when they go jogging in mountain lion territory, where do they keep it? Do they keep a round in the chamber? Have they at least done some plinking? No? Then they are carrying a dangerous totem, a rabbits foot.

If they say they want one for "home defense", what sort of weapon? Where do they keep that one? Has there been any incident in their neighborhood? Any real perceived threat?

Do they frequent a range? Have they practiced situational awareness? Have they instructed their family? Might a few baseball bats secreted around the home be a better, safer and probably equally effective counter to home invasion? If not, then all they have is a detriment to their families safety and a legal and emotional danger to themselves and others. Have they a good grasp on their and their families ongoing mental health?

Their gun may well now be nothing but a sort of magical deterrent against an unknown and unexamined external possibility.

I keep three fire extinguishers in my home just in case, but it is not likely that I or my wife will in a pique of dispare, take our lives. I will not use my extinguisher through my front door in response to a surprise 2 am banging, an errant discharge will not pass through my window and take out my next door neighbors child. The extinguisher will not go off as I am cleaning it.

Fires happen in homes.

The posession of a firearm demands attention to all the details.

I serviced many many wheat ranchers weapons. I have often spoken to urban liberals about firearms. Flying across our country I have pointed out the tiny homes situated in one corner of hundreds or thousands of acres of farmland, not a township in sight. Wisdom dictated that these ranchers keep loaded firearms in every room, in these instances the weapons are not lucky charms.

But when I visit my neighbor who is certain that there will be an uprising in the city down yonder and he hands me a rifle and when I check the chamber finding a round in it, I know this neighbor is not really in the interest of the safety of his family. He believes the weapon is a talisman.

"Just in case" is inapplicable here.

I once has an interesting discussion with a group of folk. We talked about how we might get along in the event of social collapse. We compared our individual abilities, I said I knew how to make fuel from available fats. "Yeah, but I have a gun" one of them replied. "I would simply take your fuel and your food, I could hunt as well" this is where I began to understand how so many gave come to believe that guns, in and of themselves were some sort of ultimate indemnification for them.

I do not believe you are like them.

I don't think I have adequately explained myself but I will continue to try.

I am sensitive to your argument because I felt its pull.
There is no delicate way to say this:
But then I grew up.

If it were allowed me, I’d open-carry a .357 when hiking the back country. In town, I’d rather not. I am not fast either to recognize or to respond to a rapidly-evolving situation. And the thought of accidentally shooting a bystander appeals to me not at all.

I remember hearing the old chestnut “an armed society is a polite society.”
I’m a bit surprised how many people embraced that without the tiny amount of reflection needed to realize “no, it’s a society that has been frightened into silence”.

 

[CatHedral]

Of course I see where your anti propaganda hairs go up.

Yours is requires a convoluted answer.

I don't see owning a gun as privilege but right as provided for in our founding document.

But I see the gun culturists making far too much of the "shall not be infringed" part.

When I see folks who do not believe in compromise for the social good, I see "gun nuts", your terminology, not mine.

I believe you are not a "culturist". And I hope to have you understand my delicate position.

I came to believe in the "gun as talisman" idea after hearing (and seeing posts here as a matter of fact) when I hear of a person who answers that he has a gun for "protection".

Now I have already stated that I don't believe anyone needs to present a reason to own a firearm....except to THEMSELVES.

"OK, from what or whom"? If they say wildlife, ok, but when they go jogging in mountain lion territory, where do they keep it? Do they keep a round in the chamber? Have they at least done some plinking? No? Then they are carrying a dangerous totem, a rabbits foot.

If they say they want one for "home defense", what sort of weapon? Where do they keep that one? Has there been any incident in their neighborhood? Any real perceived threat?

Do they frequent a range? Have they practiced situational awareness? Have they instructed their family? Might a few baseball bats secreted around the home be a better, safer and probably equally effective counter to home invasion? If not, then all they have is a detriment to their families safety and a legal and emotional danger to themselves and others. Have they a good grasp on their and their families ongoing mental health?

Their gun may well now be nothing but a sort of magical deterrent against an unknown and unexamined external possibility.

I keep three fire extinguishers in my home just in case, but it is not likely that I or my wife will in a pique of dispare, take our lives. I will not use my extinguisher through my front door in response to a surprise 2 am banging, an errant discharge will not pass through my window and take out my next door neighbors child. The extinguisher will not go off as I am cleaning it.

Fires happen in homes.

The posession of a firearm demands attention to all the details.

I serviced many many wheat ranchers weapons. I have often spoken to urban liberals about firearms. Flying across our country I have pointed out the tiny homes situated in one corner of hundreds or thousands of acres of farmland, not a township in sight. Wisdom dictated that these ranchers keep loaded firearms in every room, in these instances the weapons are not lucky charms.

But when I visit my neighbor who is certain that there will be an uprising in the city down yonder and he hands me a rifle and when I check the chamber finding a round in it, I know this neighbor is not really in the interest of the safety of his family. He believes the weapon is a talisman.

"Just in case" is inapplicable here.

I once has an interesting discussion with a group of folk. We talked about how we might get along in the event of social collapse. We compared our individual abilities, I said I knew how to make fuel from available fats. "Yeah, but I have a gun" one of them replied. "I would simply take your fuel and your food, I could hunt as well" this is where I began to understand how so many gave come to believe that guns, in and of themselves were some sort of ultimate indemnification for them.

I do not believe you are like them.

I don't think I have adequately explained myself but I will continue to try.

As for gun ownership being a right, for me that is the rabbit hole. I step around it. If it truly were a right, I could own and operate the same firearms in Hawai’i that I could in Nevada.

I visited Hawai’i in ‘96 and was shocked at the unavailability of guns or ammo.

 

[Fogdog]

I was curious on the range because normally the number reported falls directly in the middle of the interval, I tried to find it in that paper but couldn't.

"We modeled gun possession as the focal independent variable with the outcome of gun assault and other confounding variables by using conditional logistic regression.39"

I think perhaps you are mixing up a linear models with logistic model:


In a logistic model, the t-distribution is symmetrical around the mean of log(x). In a linear model, the t-distribution is symmetrical around the mean(x)

 

[CatHedral]

We modeled gun possession as the focal independent variable with the outcome of gun assault and other confounding variables by using conditional logistic regression.39

I think perhaps you are mixing up a linear models with logistic model:

View attachment 5050791
In a logistic model, the t-distribution is symmetrical around the mean of log(x). In a linear model, the t-distribution is symmetrical around the mean(x)

*logarithmic
I get screwed by spell check all the tome
Also vide supra

 

[CatHedral]

This should settle any arguments at close range.

Fify, past 50 yards:
Wee weh wah whoa woo
-blip blip!-

 

[Kerowacked]

What country? I have 1or 2 hundred rattles from me and grandpa. thru the years

Up to 5,000 bucks in Massachusetts, copperheads too. Blue state

Snakes of Massachusetts

 

[Kerowacked]

Fify, past 50 yards:
Wee weh wah whoa woo
-blip blip!-
View attachment 5050797

Cut the shells for more range

 

[canndo]

I really don’t care about the overall danger percentages. What if someone has a gun and is attempting to harm me or my family? Who, because we bought into the those danger stats, are left with only our powers of persuasion and foot speed??
I’m the most peaceful guy on the planet....52 yrs old and never been in a fist fight. Me having a gun is not going to make any situation any more dangerous, for me at least.
If I’m misinterpreting your points, I do that sometimes and will amend my opinion......But one thing I’m not going to be is an easy mark or sitting duck. Gun free zones are the most dangerous places one can be...in my opinion. Only the law abiding will respect the rules anyway, and those are not the ones facilitating the trouble. Sorry I’m rambling. Be well all.

I stated previously that everyone seems to think statistics only apply to everyone else. Statistics say you are 11 times more likely to contract delta, but YOU are real real careful. As though no one else in that statistical sample right?

That is the point of statistics, it includes everyone, even the careful, even the diligent.

Are you completely sure that no one on your family will ever have a time when they consider taking their own life? Are you outside of those statistics as well?

Gun free zones? DC is a gun free zone. The rioters/riders/ insurrectionists were conspicuously absent firearms. Had they been otherwise plenty of people would be dead. A notice pre Jan 6th was issued warning not to bring firearms, hence the bear spray and tasers. The warning was that plenty might be put in jail immediately if they were caught armed.

This alone is evidence that gun free zones might just work.

No, an armed society is not a civil society.

 

[hanimmal]

"We modeled gun possession as the focal independent variable with the outcome of gun assault and other confounding variables by using conditional logistic regression.39"

I think perhaps you are mixing up a linear models with logistic model:

View attachment 5050791
In a logistic model, the t-distribution is symmetrical around the mean of log(x). In a linear model, the t-distribution is symmetrical around the mean(x)

I assumed it was some sort of logarithmic model, it was more that the standard deviation was so off on those upper bounds that I was curious what it came from (because it wasn't in that paper you linked that I saw, maybe I missed it) so I could look at it to brush up on how it was calculated.

The lower bounds looked reasonable, just the upper bounds jumped out at me.



btw, I am not trying to nitpick or anything like that, just brushing up some personal info.

 

[canndo]

Dont care stay up North. If you dont like it. You will never control guns !Just keep defunding the cops im sure that will help

This is what I am talking about.

Where the only really important right is to keep and bear, all the others are left undefended. Think about it. If one believes that guns are magical, that they keep the peace, protect from governmental harm, intrusion or exclusion, why bother with the 4th or fifth or first? Why, if it gets too bad, we can just overthrow that government with our weapons, we don't really need laws to protect us.

So far as I can see, the 2nd has failed to protect any of the other 9.

 

[canndo]

I don't care if a peaceful person owns a gun for sport or a hobby. I just want the US to have the same low of a rate of gun homicides that other countries have.

Here is the sad news. America has its individual rights balanced upon the backs of minorities and the lives of children.

We call it collateral damage. We have our freedoms at the cost of the lives of the unwilling and unaware. Want your right to travel? Gonna cost the poor their land for highways. Want that iPhone? Children are going to be slaves. Want that nice blend of art, chemistry, metallurgy, mechanics and ballistics you can wear at your side?
Its going to be at the expense of Henrietta, the bright promising student who got caught in the crossfire.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

this is a different time, a different society, than when the constitution was written. they had no idea what this country would evolve into. weapons were single shot, someone well practiced might be able to get off a round every 45 seconds or so. there was no chance of a mass shooting, unless you were shooting catatonic paraplegics...
i have no idea what they would have said differently if they had known what was coming, but i'm sure they would have said something different than what they did.
the constitution calls for a well regulated militia, because at that time, there was no easy, fast way for armies to travel, and outlying towns and villages had to be able to protect themselves until help could arrive, if it was coming at all. it's too bad they were so vague with the terminology...a " well regulated militia" to some means a body akin to the national guard, to be called out in emergency, and commanded by "officers" they all knew and respected. to others, it can mean a bunch of fat old assholes who may or may not have had military training 20+ years ago, and who get together once a month to shoot each other with paint balls and then talk about what they'll do to the jews, blacks, hispanics, and gays once they're finally in charge.
i tend to lean towards the "national guard" scenario...