Is this hypocrisy? - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

01/29/2013 06:17:18 PM · #976

That chart is not significant in context. I do think that the numbers below start to ferret out the truth. Since 2008 when the District court ruled on Parker vs. DC and the SCOTUS upheld the ruling in DC vs. Heller in 2008 we see that the crime rates are dropping. Murder significantly so in just 4 years.

* //www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Message edited by author 2013-01-29 18:36:00.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

01/29/2013 07:00:06 PM · #977

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

There's a problem here, with confusing causation and correlation. Yes, the violent crime rates are dropping in the 4 years of data that you have, but that doesn't mean that gun laws have anything to do with it. We see from cowboy's chart that the murder rate has been dropping in DC pretty consistently since 1990, but the SCOTUS decision didn't happen until 2008.

The truth is that violent crime rates have been dropping everywhere in the country since the early 1990's. The Freakonomics guys think that at least part of it is because of abortion becoming legal in 1973 (unwanted, uncared for babies commit crimes when they get old enough). There were other reasons that they found too, but none of the reasons had much to do with gun laws.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/29/2013 07:17:03 PM · #978

Here is another explanation for the drop in violent crime rates. Don't reject it out of hand; read the whole article (2 pages) before you make up your mind.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

01/29/2013 08:00:48 PM · #979

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Again, simply saying, "Statistically, it won't happen to me, so I don't even consider it." is not the mantra of intelligence and capability.

There are three things you can do for any risk. Attempt to mitigate it, insure it, or accept it. In addition, there are multiple ways to mitigate a risk. I personally mitigate the risk of an intruder in my home by other means (good locks, lights, dog, personal awareness, etc), and I have the full set of insurance (life, health, home, liability). The problem with using a gun to mitigate a rare risk like we're talking about is that guns create a whole new set of risks with the same basic consequences and a higher probability of occurrence. So from my perspective as someone who's just trying to mitigate risk in a sensible way, having a gun just makes things worse.

Thank you for that! This is the thing that I think is driving some of us a little crazy here, that the point of having a gun in the home for many people is to diminish risk, but at the same time it's introducing a greater risk that some folks are denying.

Just call it the "You'll shoot your eye out!" risk.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/29/2013 08:23:23 PM · #980

Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Again, simply saying, "Statistically, it won't happen to me, so I don't even consider it." is not the mantra of intelligence and capability.

There are three things you can do for any risk. Attempt to mitigate it, insure it, or accept it. In addition, there are multiple ways to mitigate a risk. I personally mitigate the risk of an intruder in my home by other means (good locks, lights, dog, personal awareness, etc), and I have the full set of insurance (life, health, home, liability). The problem with using a gun to mitigate a rare risk like we're talking about is that guns create a whole new set of risks with the same basic consequences and a higher probability of occurrence. So from my perspective as someone who's just trying to mitigate risk in a sensible way, having a gun just makes things worse.

Thank you for that! This is the thing that I think is driving some of us a little crazy here, that the point of having a gun in the home for many people is to diminish risk, but at the same time it's introducing a greater risk that some folks are denying.

Just call it the "You'll shoot your eye out!" risk.

You'll shoot your eye out... Normally I wouldn't laugh at this type of stupidity, but most of these people had it coming. ;D

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

01/29/2013 10:22:43 PM · #981

Originally posted by Kelli:

You'll shoot your eye out... Normally I wouldn't laugh at this type of stupidity, but most of these people had it coming. ;D

OMG I have seen some of those videos in the past. I agree gun safety courses should be taken by all of the above. 1st off most of them need to learn to hold a rifle properly...also to check to see if it is on safe or unloaded. We are not talking about difficult tasks

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

01/29/2013 10:24:36 PM · #982

Originally posted by kenskid:

What show? I went to one down here near New Orleans. I picked up a Ruger 10-22. Adjustable, folding, removable stock. Can be used like a freaky Uzi. I got a Red Dot for it. I can't find it anywhere online so I jumped on it. Going shoot it tomorrow.

See my link I posted a few posts prior to this one. I'm shooting it with Adobe. Ha!

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Went to the gun show here....I got to meet people from 2 tv shows. I wish I had my camera with me. I met the mountain man from "the duck commanders" and a few people from the " sons of guns " show...I had a great time. I wasn't able to buy any ammo...That was a joke. (they were selling out as quickly as they put it on the table)

I just saw tour post. There was a "yearly" gun/boat/ rv show here in monroe

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/29/2013 11:16:15 PM · #983

Originally posted by Ann:

Just call it the "You'll shoot your eye out!" risk.

You'll see ... (or not?) ...

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/30/2013 12:16:01 AM · #984

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Here is another explanation for the drop in violent crime rates. Don't reject it out of hand; read the whole article (2 pages) before you make up your mind.

Interesting read and I don't doubt it in the least. They make a sound and reasoned argument with deep data supporting their idea. If you look at the murder rates in the data I posted in the prior link you will see that it does indeed seem to line up. In '71 and '81 the murder rate was through the roof!

Originally posted by Ann:

There is no doubt that it's not all a result of the change in the law but 108 in 2011 and the lowest since '63? It just seems to my eye that it did have a part in the drop. But alas we bring Ken's (Art) prediction to fruition where we look to the margin of error for solace.

I do want to address a few points earlier in the thread, since I missed all of last week in favor of my companies SKO, that having a gun in the home is inherently more dangerous as far as I see it. In assuming this risk one should be measured in how to mitigate this risk (Training, Common Sense, etc...) I also echo Flash's recomendation when bringing a firearm into the home for self defense Massad Ayoob's books should be mandatory reading.

Message edited by author 2013-01-30 10:53:15.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/30/2013 09:09:09 PM · #985

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Here is another explanation for the drop in violent crime rates. Don't reject it out of hand; read the whole article (2 pages) before you make up your mind.

What?!? You're telling me capitalism, that delicate little sloth, caused all of this??? and the incompetent, fly by the seat of their pants, government fixed it?!? This can't be true. I was told the poor are to blame for everything. That's why we imprison them and bail out the General Motors of the world, right?

FourPointX

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/30/2013 09:22:15 PM · #986

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Ann:
Just call it the "You'll shoot your eye out!" risk.

You'll see ... (or not?) ...

heh...i was wondering how you found that, then i saw the author lol

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/01/2013 11:50:30 AM · #987

The NRA's hitlist - ooops, enemies list....

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/01/2013 01:47:52 PM · #988

Man shoots misdirected motorist who pulled into his driveway by mistake

It's time for us all to familiarize ourselves with the concept of "Stochaistic Terrorism":

Originally posted by Daily Kos:

Stochastic Terrorism: Triggering the shooters.

Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.

This is what occurs when Bin Laden releases a video that stirs random extremists halfway around the globe to commit a bombing or shooting.

This is also the term for what Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others do. And this is what led directly and predictably to a number of cases of ideologically-motivated murder similar to the Tucson shootings.

...

The person who actually plants the bomb or assassinates the public official is not the stochastic terrorist, they are the "missile" set in motion by the stochastic terrorist. The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media as their means of setting those "missiles" in motion.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/01/2013 05:19:48 PM · #989

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Man shoots misdirected motorist who pulled into his driveway by mistake

It's time for us all to familiarize ourselves with the concept of "Stochaistic Terrorism":

Originally posted by Daily Kos:
Stochastic Terrorism: Triggering the shooters.

Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.

This is what occurs when Bin Laden releases a video that stirs random extremists halfway around the globe to commit a bombing or shooting.

This is also the term for what Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others do. And this is what led directly and predictably to a number of cases of ideologically-motivated murder similar to the Tucson shootings.

...

The person who actually plants the bomb or assassinates the public official is not the stochastic terrorist, they are the "missile" set in motion by the stochastic terrorist. The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media as their means of setting those "missiles" in motion.

Very sad indeed.

That is some interesting reading and I see this quite clearly in many places. Repeating the message until it becomes action. It seems to be happening in the in this very debate.

The Department of Homeland security has ordered 7000 "Assault Weapons" but in their SOW for said "Assault Weapons" they refer to them as "Personal Defense Weapons". The difference in the operation and form factor of the 'PDWs" they are purchasing is they are Select Fire Semi & Full auto. They have an over all length of no more than 31". The civilian version of this "PDW" is Semi-Auto only and the barrel must be longer than 16" putting most in a over all length of 36"+.

Why is it that in the hands of a DHS agent it is a "Personal Defense Weapon" and in my Hands it is a "Assault Weapon"?

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=09c3d5e933bc24416b752b57294a17b3

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/01/2013 06:43:32 PM · #990

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Why is it that in the hands of a DHS agent it is a "Personal Defense Weapon" and in my Hands it is a "Assault Weapon"?

Because they're willing to be evaluated by and registered with the government and you aren't?

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/01/2013 06:53:38 PM · #991

I guess the idea is these guys are trained. They understand stand when to use lethal force. Not civilians who THINK they know.

They handle weapon everyday.

02/01/2013 06:55:54 PM · #992

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Why is it that in the hands of a DHS agent it is a "Personal Defense Weapon" and in my Hands it is a "Assault Weapon"?

Because they're willing to be evaluated by and registered with the government and you aren't?

Answering a question with a question are we?

Well in order for a civilian to own the exact weapon they are purchasing would require the same level of vetting. There are already laws for this on the books.

The firearm that I am legally allowed to own by following the law in being vetted for said firearm and in that context I deserve not to be vilified by the term "Assault weapon" owner.

Message edited by author 2013-02-01 18:59:38.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/01/2013 06:56:41 PM · #993

Originally posted by mike_311:

I guess the idea is these guys are trained. They understand stand when to use lethal force. Not civilians who THINK they know.

They handle weapon everyday.

So you are making up a definition?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/01/2013 07:06:12 PM · #994

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Answering a question with a question are we?

Do you have a problem with that? :-)

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

02/01/2013 07:08:32 PM · #995

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Answering a question with a question are we?

Do you have a problem with that? :-)

Apparently you don't? :P

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/01/2013 07:09:53 PM · #996

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Answering a question with a question are we?

Do you have a problem with that? :-)

If he didn't, why would he have mentioned it? ;-)

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/01/2013 07:10:30 PM · #997

:-))

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

02/01/2013 07:12:23 PM · #998

The DHS gets better killing weapons for the same reason we allow other government agents to use grenade launchers, napalm, tanks, and nuclear weapons. No matter how well trained you are, a private individual does not operate with the same level of training and oversight as someone who is serving as part of a force dedicated to the public good.

I am sorry they need such powerful weapons, but I want my law enforcement officers to out gun the people they may be sent to protect we unarmed folks from. If those who wish to protect themselves wish to outgun the police, I am sorry, that is not in my interest.