Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Dumb arses and guns...

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Dumb arses and guns...

Old 22nd Jan 2013, 18:13
  #161 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@ 500N
PTT

Well I think the outcome would have been better than it was.
You have no idea at all. Neither do I, but I'm admitting that

@ brickhistory
I disagree. Too bad that you do as well.

And there is nothing that will change that.

But my "religion," and this disciple, is well armed.
Hey, if you have a logical argument which stands up without the prop of the Constitution then I'm all for hearing it. As it stands you're admitting that you don't, which is fine. I'm still waiting to hear one, though. Being "well armed" doesn't make you correct though, just scared

Last edited by PTT; 22nd Jan 2013 at 18:13.
PTT is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 18:13
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely the BIG question that society has to ask itself is how did we get to this position? Taking a step back from gun toting multiple child killers, it seems to me that there are huge numbers of people who are only too willing to use weapons. A quick YouTube search will show numerous events which have been 'justified' in the name of self-defence where it is quite clear that a response has been completely disproportionate to an act.

Personally, if I were an American and my country chose to put armed guards at each and every school, I would look upon that as an abject failure of my society and I would be hanging my head in shame. The USA has a unique opportunity as The Global Influence to question its founding principals, make some ballsy decisions and take the lead in starting to shape the 21st century for the better.

The alternative of doing nothing, thus knowingly allowing the cancer unfettered growth is beyond comprehension.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 18:16
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well PTT in a country of over 300 million, just 30,000 volunteers does not seem like a huge ammount! There could well be plenty of older people who wish to protect their Grandchildren while they are at school for example ie retired police/military.

Do you an idea for a cheap system to increase security at schools but at the same time in no way restricts gun ownership?

As for the statement about being 2.7 times more likely to be killed in a homicide if you have a gun in your own home than if you don't, I wonder if that is true, sounds like propaganda or incorrect data from the anti gun folks.
Ronald Reagan is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 18:16
  #164 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cows, it's a religion. If you follow a set of rules it prevents you from having to actually think about a problem, so from that perspective I understand the reluctance to deviate from the Constitution - or at least their interpretation of it
PTT is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 18:20
  #165 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well PTT in a country of over 300 million, just 30,000 volunteers does not seem like a huge ammount! There could well be plenty of older people who wish to protect their Grandchildren while they are at school for example ie retired police/military.
Again, you're spitballing. Hard numbers please.

Do you an idea for a cheap system to increase security at schools but at the same time in no way restricts gun ownership?
Nope. Which is why I would place restrictions on gun ownership. I'm not talking about banning them though.

As for the statement about being 2.7 times more likely to be killed in a homicide if you have a gun in your own home than if you don't, I wonder if that is true, sounds like propaganda or incorrect data from the anti gun folks.
Nope, I've posted the study before. Here it is again. To quote myself from the last time I posted it:
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.
You might feel safer with a gun, and you probably want to believe that you are "safer" from being killed if you own a gun, but the fact is that you are not. The study is multivariate, so it compares [you with a gun in your house] with [you without a gun in your house] and finds that [you without a gun in your house] is a lot less likely to be killed. I'm sure you find that counter-intuitive and contradictory to common sense, but then so are many other things (think Schrödinger and you're at the tip of a very big iceberg).
PTT is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 18:21
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Plus everyone seems to forget the fact we are supposed to be at war, how real that war is, well. But if we are at war and the enemy as clever and dangerous as is often said by our governments plus following the Beslan siege in Russia and the fact Israel feels the need to have armed guards at their schools we should all be asking ''What if the enemy decide to target a school in our country?'' It has not happend in the west yet, well to the best of my knowledge but could at anytime.

So having armed security at schools would not be so much a failure of anything but rather a clever move to reduce the danger of nut jobs and terrorists!

Lets be honest, Israel is the expert at dealing with terrorism and protecting people.
Are Israeli Teachers Armed? ‹ Jewish Preppers
Ronald Reagan is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 18:32
  #167 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Really? You're going to try to justify this on the basis of the "War on Terror"?
Muslim American terrorist plots have killed since 9/11 — since the 3,000 killed on 9/11 — have killed 33 individuals in the United States since that time. Over that same period of time, there have been more than 150,000 murders in the United States, or 14 or 15,000 murders every year. Muslim American terrorism, then, has been a very small, very low percentage of the overall violence in the United States.
Terrorism Expert: Since 9/11, Only 33 Deaths From Muslim Terrorism Vs. 150,000 Deaths From Murders | ThinkProgress

As many people were killed at Virginia in a single day as Islamic terrorism has managed to kill since 9/11.
PTT is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 19:46
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Outbound
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not so. Big difference between using a semi auto and a Bolt action rifle
or shotgun.
Sorry for the late reply; but to paraphrase part of the discussion over here, perhaps losing that extra hunting ability is a very small price to pay if it means that the next shooter in a school doesn't have access to a military grade weapon?
5 Forward 6 Back is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 19:53
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why not allow all the right to hold single shot bolt actio or 2 shot semi auto shotgun, over this, you need a licence? I really don't see the need to be able to posess semi auto pistols either. Purely designed to kill. Either keep them locked up on a range, or don't have one at all, unless you hold a licence.

Can I also ask what is the need for this?

Everything you need to know about Oklahoma

Or does every hick need a holster at his side to prove he doesn't have a really small willy?
VinRouge is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 19:59
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: slightly right of the MCP
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And another college shooting in Texas, mmh.. The drama continues!

Last edited by odericko2000; 22nd Jan 2013 at 20:00.
odericko2000 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 20:11
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not to forget the guy who wiped out his parents and siblings in albuquerque a few days ago...
Albuquerque teen accused of killing 5 wanted a massacre, sheriff says - CNN.com
VinRouge is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 20:46
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The trouble with a licence is that it allows the government to know who has what weapons and would make any future bans much easier to enforce.

Based on the typical European/UK anti gun view ''I don't see the need'' for people to drink alcohol either, so due to the negative actions of a few maybe all those who enjoy the odd glass of drink should lose out. It would make no difference to me at all as I don't drink. When I think of all the violence caused by alcohol, drink driving, deaths resulting from that and from the violence aswell as the self inflicted damage it can cause maybe a total ban would be in order. Something like 5 years inside for possessing alcohol and 15 years for producing or selling it! Remember its for the greater good and WILL save lives! Think of how much safer it will be!
(I could never really support such a thing but following the lack of logic on gun control we could role out the same for alcohol, the good majority must suffer and lose out due to the negative actions of very few)
Ronald Reagan is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 21:16
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 59
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not to forget the guy who wiped out his parents and siblings in albuquerque a few days ago...
But I'm sure you were just getting to posting the numerous foiled home invasions and business robberies from this past weekend by good guys with guns.

Those are readily available as well.



As to what we need or should do regarding our guns; noted.

Thank you for your interest in national defense.
brickhistory is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 21:42
  #174 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@ Ronald Reagan
The trouble with a licence is that it allows the government to know who has what weapons and would make any future bans much easier to enforce.
That's your fear? That they might, in the future, want to take your guns away? I thought that this was a practical impossibility. And is assuaging this fear of a what-might-be worth the death toll? If so then those are some pretty deep neuroses there.
@ brickhistory
But I'm sure you were just getting to posting the numerous foiled home invasions and business robberies from this past weekend by good guys with guns.

Those are readily available as well.
You are 2.7 times more likely to die from homicide if you have a gun in your home than if you do not. You just keep spouting the platitudes though
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  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 21:43
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 64
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PTT:

Except the stats say otherwise: you are 2.7 times more likely to be killed in a homicide if you have a gun in your home than if you do not.
In fairness I can quote stats left right and center without citing the source... Yours was... err... what?
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 21:47
  #176 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've linked it several times in this thread, including the post just above your last one. It's the underlined writing which goes red when you mouse-over it

Last edited by PTT; 22nd Jan 2013 at 21:48.
PTT is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 22:03
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 64
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PTT:

New to the thread and we posted simultaneously...

So, you're telling me that there is risk inherent in gun ownership. One wonders what the risks of knife or car ownership are?

The study also makes the point that one is 2.7% more likely to be murdered. Many, including myself will tell you that id statistically insignificant. I'm far more likely to be killed in a car crash when you look at the tables in that study, The incidence of drug use, alcohol abuse, previous propensity for violence in the home is far higher than the norm I would suggest. After all, the sample was 388 households... One wonders if they were in North Philadelphia, Detroit, Washington DC or more normal places.
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 22:07
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 58
Posts: 4,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AA

Well put.

PTT

I just read nearly the whole report but within two pages all the things
AA pointed out stand.

Everyone is saying 150,000 people died from guns in the US yet
this study is based on 388 homes ?

If you are going t do a study, then I am sure he could have picked
a larger group because as AA says, 388 is insignificant.


Edit
Reading that brings back nightmares of writing up psych results for Uni

Last edited by 500N; 22nd Jan 2013 at 22:08.
500N is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 22:13
  #179 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@ AA
New to the thread and we posted simultaneously...
Fair enough, but it is linked in two other places.
So, you're telling me that there is risk inherent in gun ownership. One wonders what the risks of knife or car ownership are?
No idea. Is that relevant? There is tangible benefit from car (transport) and knife (cooking!) ownership, but the study showed no added benefit for the one thing people advocate guns give you: protection.
The study also makes the point that one is 2.7% more likely to be murdered.
No, it's 2.7 times more likely, or 270%. That's statistically significant. The margin of error on a sample size of 388 is 4.97%.
I'm far more likely to be killed in a car crash when you look at the tables in that study
Of course you are, but that is not what the study is looking at. What it is doing is comparing [you with a gun in your house] with [you without a gun in your house] and finds that [you with a gun in your house] is 2.7 times more likely to die from homicide than [you without a gun in your house]. It also compares other variables (6 were found to be statistically significant), but the one we are concerned with in this conversation is guns. I'm happy enough to discuss those other factors or causes of death in another thread, but this one is concerned with guns.
One wonders if they were in North Philadelphia, Detroit, Washington DC or more normal places.
The study states where the samples were taken:
The homicides which were studied came from three metropolitan areas. The first two were Shelby County, Tennessee (which includes Memphis), and King County, Washington (which includes Seattle), both from August 1987 to August 1992. The third was Cuyahoga County, Ohio (which includes Cleveland), from January 1990 to August 1992. King County is predominately white and enjoys a relatively high standard of living. Cuyahoga County is 25 percent African-American, as is 44 percent of Shelby County. The poverty levels of these counties were 5, 11 and 15 percent, respectively. (The national poverty rate in 1992 was 15 percent.)

Last edited by PTT; 22nd Jan 2013 at 22:16.
PTT is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 22:15
  #180 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
500N - 388 is not insignificant. There is a method of measuring the margin of error of a sample of a population, and the margin of error is a little under 5%. When you're talking of an effect in the order of 270% then there can be no overlap between the range of the effect and the range of the control, meaning that the number is statistically significant. I would have thought that someone who studied Psych did some statistics as part of the course and would know about sample sizes and margins of error.

Last edited by PTT; 22nd Jan 2013 at 22:16.
PTT is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.