PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 29th Dec 2012, 01:59   #12441 (permalink)

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,727
Can't see a thing that I disagree with.
con-pilot is online now   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 02:38   #12442 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 76
Posts: 323
Neither can I


Bob C
Robert Cooper is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 08:54   #12443 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 6,669
Mark Steyn: Laws Are for Little People

..........There are two possible resolutions: Gregory can call in a favor from some Obama consigliere who’ll lean on the cops to disappear the whole thing. If he does that, he’ll be contributing to the remorseless assault on a bedrock principle of free societies — equality before the law. Laws either apply to all of us or none of us. If they apply only to some, they’re not laws but caprices — and all tyranny is capricious..........
ORAC is online now   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 13:20   #12444 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Destin
Age: 65
Posts: 12,997
I hate to be the one that bursts yer Bubble about the Equality under the Law thing but.....never has been...never will be....and that is sadly how the World works.

Every now and then....some of the rich, powerful, or who have access to them....step on a landline that gets them but rarely.

That is why we have the very corrupt political system we do.....just take one look at Chicago and Illinois for a starter.

I forget the one very rare exception of BH Obama, who having swam in that Cess Pool, came out smelling like Lilacs and Rosewater. (To hear some tell it!)

Think about his Pal and once Neighbor who is now in the Federal Pen, who did a special land deal for BH and certainly other favors. Think all is Lily White in that relationship?
SASless is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 13:32   #12445 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 50
Posts: 81
Sas and Con, I appreciate your candor.
I pressed the point because I suspected this was your position, and I wanted to ensure that it was explicit.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and be silent.
421dog is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 14:28   #12446 (permalink)
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 470
Just got back from filling up my airport minivan, a typical Saturday morning chore, and decided to stop in at my local sporting goods store on the way home and check out the gun section, as I like to do from time to time.

You can still buy and walk out with a Remington 870 pump action 12 gage like I did a few months ago. But you can't buy ammunition for it. It's sold out. So is the .45 ACP ammo for my semi-automatic pistol. No slug rounds, no target rounds, no nothing in 12 gage or .45. They did have .22lr in abundance, but I've got plenty of that.

Why do you think they can't keep the ammo I want in stock at Dick's?

Later on today I'll stop at the Wal-Mart and see if they're sold out, too. I suspect they are. I think there may be another buying panic going on like there was about a year ago.

Now I've decided to research the stock market to find a pure play in ammunition manufacturers.
BenThere is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 17:55   #12447 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The World
Posts: 69
[quote]SASless
None of that matters to the Lefties....they hate guns, they hate folks being self sufficient and being responsiblie for their own actions. They want all the power to lie with the government...as long as they are in control.

The Police are great investigators of crime.....they are very bad at preventing crime.

One has to decide whether waiting for a Police Officer and being a Victim trumps being legally Armed and being able to defend ones self while waiting for the Police to arrive and investigate the event. [quote]

TZ350 is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 18:14   #12448 (permalink)
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 444
A gun in the home increases personal safety or does it?

Quote:
Most people keep guns in their homes for self-protection. The image of an unknown criminal breaking into your house is an important one for gun advocates, because it justifies keeping a gun in the home. But to gun control advocates, a gun in the home means that a family fight or a drinking binge is more likely to turn deadly. Which view is more accurate?

In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides. They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases.

Of the 420 homicides they originally investigated, 96.4 percent were illegal. Only 3.6 percent were ruled legally excusable homicide (that is, self-defense).

After eliminating the impact of other variables like illegal drugs and domestic violence, the researchers found that the risk of getting killed was 2.7 times greater in homes with a gun than without them. No protective benefit of possessing a firearm was ever found, not even for a single one of the 14 subgroups studied.
PTT is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 18:45   #12449 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,122
PTT

With respect. Take a breath, and analyze what that post is saying, not what it seems to say.
Lyman is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 18:48   #12450 (permalink)
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 470
Interesting study, PTT. I expected it would be a skewed, with a pre-concluded result, but generall found its premises plausible and, although the scope of the study was too small, I think, to be scientific, it provides valuable insight. Thanks for sharing.

A couple of conclusions are worth mentioning, though, lest one be inclined to get rid of their self-defense for their own safety. From your study, to wit:

-Not being black reduces your probability of homicide by two thirds.

-Being a renter, rather than an owner raises the odds, 4.4 times, while having a gun only raises it 2.7 times.

As I don't fit in the two above demographics, I calculate that my overall safety is better than a 1 rating, that is, I'm safer than most. Whew!

Having a weapon around the house is kind of like having a table saw in the kitchen. Don't do it unless you take some precautions, have some training/education, and treat it as potentially dangerous. That way you can mitigate a lot of the statistical (and real) risks.

I still think I'm safer with weapons in the house than not, as I don't think my wife has it in her to ever shoot me. I've tested her on that count from time to time and she consistently proves my assessment.

Last edited by BenThere; 29th Dec 2012 at 18:51.
BenThere is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 18:59   #12451 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,122
I would be interested not in people being killed at home at random, but in the statistics wherein the question was:

Sampling deaths in homes that have been illegally entered in which the homeowner was armed.

All other arguments have to do with gun safety, not their utility in their prescribed use......

It is not irrelevant that homes with knives create a skew when discussing domestic violence.

Apples, Apples, please.......

Most studies from the Left have to do with...."Are guns dangerous?"

Then, in answering in the affirmative, (Yes they are), the shepherds conclusion always is, Guns are bad, because they are dangerous.

Stupid argument, and it makes everybody stupid, who buys the argument....

Ben: "Table Saw in Kitchen.."

Last edited by Lyman; 29th Dec 2012 at 19:04.
Lyman is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 19:04   #12452 (permalink)
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 444
Lyman - I'm not entirely sure I understand your objection. Care to clarify?

BenThere - the size of the study is large enough. The margin of error on a sample size of 388 is 4.98% if we assume it to be representative of a population >20,000 (which the US is, of course!), so given the factors involved there is no overlap for there to be discrepancy.
Quote:
As I don't fit in the two above demographics, I calculate that my overall safety is better than a 1 rating, that is, I'm safer than most. Whew!
Certainly you'll be safer than many - this is, necessarily, an aggregate. You're still 2.7 times less safe than you would be without a gun in the home - this was a multivariate study, so that can be said with some confidence.
Quote:
I still think I'm safer with weapons in the house than not, as I don't think my wife has it in her to ever shoot me. I've tested her on that count from time to time and she consistently proves my assessment.
As I said above, the study shows that statistically you're not. I'm fairly sure that there have been a large number of people who thought the same about their spouses, too
Besides, she's not the only factor.

Last edited by PTT; 29th Dec 2012 at 19:06.
PTT is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 19:08   #12453 (permalink)
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 470
But if not being black reduces my odds by two thirds, isn't my 2.7 risk quotient reduced to .9? Ergo, lucky me? And further, that I'm not a renter, and I need my slide rule for this one, I'm down to around .2 of the general populations' risk of suffering homicide?

I think I'll keep my guns.

My gut feeling is that I'm 10 or so times less likely to be murdered in my home with my alert dog and .45, pump shotgun, and .22 semi.

Last edited by BenThere; 29th Dec 2012 at 19:12.
BenThere is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 19:09   #12454 (permalink)
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 444
Quote:
I would be interested not in people being killed at home at random, but in the statistics wherein the question was:

Sampling deaths in homes that have been illegally entered in which the homeowner was armed.
I'm not sure why. The apparent suggestion from SASLess is that "having a gun makes you safer". "Safer" is comparative, so it has to be safer than something, which in this case is the obverse position of "not having a gun". Therefore, in order to test that you need to compare [having a gun] with [not having a gun].
PTT is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 19:12   #12455 (permalink)
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 444
BenThere - no. The odds are distinct. Let me remind you of one piece of the study here:
Quote:
Kellermann's team found only six variables that were strong enough to be included in the final model. They found that the following variables were associated with the following increased murder risks:

Code:
Variable               Murder risk, Odds adjusted ratio
--------------------------------------------------- Illicit drug use            5.7 times Being a renter              4.4 Household member hit or hurt in a fight in the home 4.4 Living alone                3.7 Guns in the house           2.7 Household member arrested   2.5
Each of the above is a multiplier. If the standard is 1 then being a renter makes your odds 4.4; having a gun makes it 2.7. If you rent AND have a gun then it's 2.7 * 4.4 = 11.88. You, as a gun owner, assuming none of the other risk factors in the table above apply, are 2.7 times more likely to be murdered.

Last edited by PTT; 29th Dec 2012 at 19:15.
PTT is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 19:17   #12456 (permalink)
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 470
Can that be, because if you multiply all the multipliers you get well over 100?

Another thing about the study that leaves out some critical data is that it's a study of murdered people, not the rest of us who are not murdered.

Last edited by BenThere; 29th Dec 2012 at 19:19.
BenThere is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 19:18   #12457 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,122
Are guns dangerous? Yes. Are they useful? Also, yes.

Using one conclusion to defeat the other is the definition of asinine.

If a study is used to sway opinion, be very careful. Statistics pretend to logic, but are anything but, no situation is like another, especially in mathematics as regards probability

Lazy man. Lazy math. Choose wisely.

When my second child was born, I got rid of my guns. Should you? I didn't consult a study, I made an informed decision of risk v benefit.

My children are grown, I quit drinking twenty seven years ago, and I now have a Remington in the closet.

Works for me. Stop trying to scare people out of their wits because you think you are all knowing, eh?

(not you PTT, I totally respect your work here)
Lyman is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 19:21   #12458 (permalink)
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 470
Quote:
(not you PTT, I totally respect your work here)
Concur. Nice to have a good discussion.
BenThere is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 19:30   #12459 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,122
The discussion can certainly be enlarged to include what this is really about:

PROHIBITION. Saving people from themselves, or from others. I do not understand why the Center For Disease Control is involved with the Second Amendment. Guns as disease?

At the Zoo, the Gorilla compound is devoid of club like implements, for Gorillas, like Man, use tools, and will beat one another to death with an implement.

Does the LEFT have a clue? How outrageous your attempts to keep everybody safe truly is?
Lyman is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 19:37   #12460 (permalink)
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 444
BenThere - I'm not sure why you think 100 is an issue. These aren't percentages, they're multipliers. I'm not at all surprised that an illicit drug-using renter who has home violence issues is over 100 times "more likely" to be murdered than a non-drug using homeowner with a calm family life.

It's a case control study. It's a comparison of what factors contribute to being murdered. As such "not being murdered" pretty much excludes you from the study

Lyman - I don't think I'm suggesting "guns are dangerous so get rid of them". Nor am I suggesting that such studies are "all-knowing" or that they are trying to scare people. On the contrary, I'd say that comments such as those SASless made are designed to scare people ("the police can't help you, so arm yourself or be a victim!").
You say you made an informed decision. Usually when people say they made an informed decision what they really mean is that they reassessed the cost-benefit analysis based on already-known information: people in general are terrible at accepting new information which contradicts their paradigms.
Quote:
If a study is used to sway opinion, be very careful. Statistics pretend to logic, but are anything but, no situation is like another, especially in mathematics as regards probability
Statistics do not pretend to logic unless improperly used (as I showed here). The study I linked did not in any way give a causal relationship between any of the risk factors: all it did was offer correlative relationships, which is entirely the correct way to use statistics. Correlation is not causation, and it is for individuals to decide what weight they put on what strength of correlation - that is an appropriate way to use such studies.
Quote:
I do not understand why the Center For Disease Control is involved with the Second Amendment. Guns as disease?
"The CDC focuses national attention on developing and applying disease prevention and control (especially infectious diseases and foodborne pathogens and other microbial infections), environmental health, occupational safety and health, health promotion, injury prevention and education activities designed to improve the health of the people of the United States."
I think that covers it

I'm happy to discuss prohibition. What is your stance on illegal narcotics such as heroin, cocaine etc?

Edit - thank you both, too.

Last edited by PTT; 29th Dec 2012 at 19:37.
PTT is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 17:35.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network