• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Feinstein to introduce AWB in January

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Well, that's the rub, in previous posts (this is just one of several examples I found), you have in fact linked or referred to things that have directly used info from the British Crime Survey to make or back up your arguments.

I'm not trying to call you out as much as I'm trying to prove a point that surveys can and do provide good information........

As I laboriously explained in my original posting, the one you pointed out, and the one I myself quoted in response to your first query I used 'Recorded Crime' AND NOT the British Crime Survey.

Take a very close look the tables on pages 42-46 in the link to the Home Office paper, the ones I used for the figures in my posting and the one you link. In the upper right-hand corner it says 'England and Wales, Recorded crime'. The tables immediately before that, on pages 39-41, are the the ones for the BCS that are again noted in the upper right-hand corner of the pages with the label 'England and Wales, BCS'.

I was very careful to get the crime rates from recorded crime and not the crime survey.

Attention to detail.....
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I think it is fair to bounce any factual claim against other sources. But those sources can't be thought of as perfectly accurate or applicable in and of themselves. It is often admitted that defensive uses of guns do not end up in a police report, or the blocks that get checked by the officer for data collection are not necessarily relevant. Point a gun at 3 thugs you find threatening, they run away, you call the cops? Many people do not. Just like they don't call the police when they duck into a store when followed by people they find threatening. Regarding actual shots fired in defense, sure there should be some similarity in the numbers. But reconciling those things is what social scientists do. The nature of much of their work is asking questions in surveys that cannot be factually confirmed. They try to control for it, but someone will always stand up and cry B.S. We have all heard the studies and even read the reports and papers. Whether it is about teen sex, drug use, marital fidelity, college alcohol abuse, self-reported size of a penis, you name it. You work with what you have. It isn’t that Prof Lott’s numbers are so different from other sources; it is how well he accounts for the difference. (I have not read much of Lott’s work, just familiar with his conclusions.) I don’t know, but I find it hard to believe that there is perfect fidelity in the reported number of gun shots treated. It is true they have to be reported, but to who and in what manner? The Trauma Doc doesn’t pick up a red phone and call some guy with a green eye shade at DOJ. He doesn’t even automatically transmit anything electronically, that I can guarantee you. How the data is collected and from whom makes a lot of difference.
Since Flash went back to the school shooting thread I will as well. I made the point that arguing about the difference in defensive use of guns is nuts. With a nod to the subject of this thread, let’s just say that everyone would be fine with the proliferation of military style rifles if there were no murders caused by them, zero. I think it is safe to say the majority of Americans would not support new legislation if there were just 16 murders by rifle a year, even if they were first graders. So at what point between 16 and infinity do we find it justifiable to restrict the liberty of a law abiding citizen? I want a number. Shall we take a survey? Speaking of surveys, it is claimed that more people say they shot someone in defense than are treated by hospitals. I say so what. They also claimed their dick was 11 inches long in the previous survey. Instead, pick a number: 400,000 (approximate number of crimes committed with a gun) 30,700 (the number of gunshots the CDC says are treated a year), about 8900(number of firearm murders per year), 350 (murders by rifle per year). Is it too much to ask Sen Feinstein what her number is? Only once we know the number can we debate the relative cost and benefit to society. For me, none of those numbers are high enough to justify the government making millions of Americans more likely to be victimized or fearful.
 

jtmedli

Well-Known Member
pilot
I think it is fair to bounce any factual claim against other sources. But those sources can't be thought of as perfectly accurate or applicable in and of themselves. It is often admitted that defensive uses of guns do not end up in a police report, or the blocks that get checked by the officer for data collection are not necessarily relevant. Point a gun at 3 thugs you find threatening, they run away, you call the cops? Many people do not. Just like they don't call the police when they duck into a store when followed by people they find threatening. Regarding actual shots fired in defense, sure there should be some similarity in the numbers. But reconciling those things is what social scientists do. The nature of much of their work is asking questions in surveys that cannot be factually confirmed. They try to control for it, but someone will always stand up and cry B.S. We have all heard the studies and even read the reports and papers. Whether it is about teen sex, drug use, marital fidelity, college alcohol abuse, self-reported size of a penis, you name it. You work with what you have. It isn’t that Prof Lott’s numbers are so different from other sources; it is how well he accounts for the difference. (I have not read much of Lott’s work, just familiar with his conclusions.) I don’t know, but I find it hard to believe that there is perfect fidelity in the reported number of gun shots treated. It is true they have to be reported, but to who and in what manner? The Trauma Doc doesn’t pick up a red phone and call some guy with a green eye shade at DOJ. He doesn’t even automatically transmit anything electronically, that I can guarantee you. How the data is collected and from whom makes a lot of difference.
Since Flash went back to the school shooting thread I will as well. I made the point that arguing about the difference in defensive use of guns is nuts. With a nod to the subject of this thread, let’s just say that everyone would be fine with the proliferation of military style rifles if there were no murders caused by them, zero. I think it is safe to say the majority of Americans would not support new legislation if there were just 16 murders by rifle a year, even if they were first graders. So at what point between 16 and infinity do we find it justifiable to restrict the liberty of a law abiding citizen? I want a number. Shall we take a survey? Speaking of surveys, it is claimed that more people say they shot someone in defense than are treated by hospitals. I say so what. They also claimed their dick was 11 inches long in the previous survey. Instead, pick a number: 400,000 (approximate number of crimes committed with a gun) 30,700 (the number of gunshots the CDC says are treated a year), about 8900(number of firearm murders per year), 350 (murders by rifle per year). Is it too much to ask Sen Feinstein what her number is? Only once we know the number can we debate the relative cost and benefit to society. For me, none of those numbers are high enough to justify the government making millions of Americans more likely to be victimized or fearful.

But wink, if we could save just ONE life...it would be worth it. (says the liberals)
 

C420sailor

Former Rhino Bro
pilot
It is often admitted that defensive uses of guns do not end up in a police report, or the blocks that get checked by the officer for data collection are not necessarily relevant. Point a gun at 3 thugs you find threatening, they run away, you call the cops? Many people do not.

This is true. One of my friends thwarted an attempted 'push-in' (perp knocks on the door, person opens, perp forcefully rushes in) soon after he moved to a state that wasn't very gun friendly---with a gun that he shouldn't have brought with him. He didn't want to potentially incriminate himself, he didn't get a very good look at the guy, and figured the bad guy wouldn't be coming back, so he didn't file a report.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
We all want "total consciousness". It doesn't exist…save, perhaps, on your deathbed. Which is nice...
Total consciousness not required. This is a policy debate. I think we should be able to decided, more or less collectively, how many deaths and crimes by gun we are willing to accept versus the benefit guns have for society, ie number of defensive uses, revenue generation of gun manufacturers and related activities such as the shooting sports. We can't do that if everyone thinks "assault weapon" deaths are epidemic or people can't or don't effectively defend themselves with guns.
 

Renegade One

Well-Known Member
None
Total consciousness not required. This is a policy debate. I think we should be able to decided, more or less collectively, how many deaths and crimes by gun we are willing to accept versus the benefit guns have for society, ie number of defensive uses, revenue generation of gun manufacturers and related activities such as the shooting sports. We can't do that if everyone thinks "assault weapon" deaths are epidemic or people can't or don't effectively defend themselves with guns.
That's fair. As to "cost versus benefit" decisions, I'm just glad the Constitution, and the most recent Supreme Court decision on same, both seem to reside on my side of the issue. Not sure I'd want to just throw it open for a popular vote…and CERTAINLY never to "Executive Decision". Neither would be the correct swim lanes...
 

C420sailor

Former Rhino Bro
pilot
New York passed its new gun control measure.

-'Assault rifle' now defined as having one or more evil options, to include pistol grip. Got a pistol grip? No detachable magazine for you.
-Re-registration of handguns statewide, as well as registration of grandfathered-in assault weapons
-Magazines with a capacity of greater than 7 rounds must be sold out of state or destroyed within one year
-No internet assault weapon sales
-No private sales without going through an FFL
-Requires mental health professionals to notify the state, who will then revoke permits and confiscate weapons

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...l-package-in-nation-passed-by-new-york-state/

It's a good thing I lost all of my weapons and magazines in a boating accident this summer.
 

Pugs

Back from the range
None
New York passed its new gun control measure. r.

Clearly in non-compliance to the Supreme Court's Heller decision of "in common use for legal purposes" So it will be challenged and found unconstiituional. It will take a couple years and the lawyers will get rich and the state will spend tax dollars defending stupidity for laws that will not help crime.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
It may depend on who's definition of a pistol grip they use and how that can affect the use of a detachable magazine. I forget which definition CA uses, but there's several different kinds of grips you can buy that aren't legally defined as a pistol grip and therefore legal to drop mags.

7 rounds? Certainly safer than 8, of course. I wonder if anyone will start making 7 round mags (other than for guns that already carry that).
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
It may depend on who's definition of a pistol grip they use and how that can affect the use of a detachable magazine. I forget which definition CA uses, but there's several different kinds of grips you can buy that aren't legally defined as a pistol grip and therefore legal to drop mags.

7 rounds? Certainly safer than 8, of course. I wonder if anyone will start making 7 round mags (other than for guns that already carry that).
 

Flugelman

Well-Known Member
Contributor
These morons can't think beyond the end of their political noses.
"To reduce the use of guns for criminal purposes."

Do they really think criminals are going to pay attention. CT residents had better practice their reload skills on their Thompson Contenders.

"...use any gun except one made to fire a single round"

All those old side by side shotguns are now worthless in CT.
 
Top