More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[kallend 2,099]

Most dangerous citiles in the US, 2019 data (from that liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal):

• Bessemer, Alabama
• East St. Louis, Illinois
• Monroe, Louisiana
• St. Louis, Missouri
• Detroit, Michigan
• Baltimore, Maryland
• Memphis, Tennessee
• Camden, New Jersey
• Flint, Michigan
• Pine Bluff, Arkansas
• Danville, Illinois
• Gadsden, Alabama
• Kansas City, Missouri
• Wilmington, Delaware
• Little Rock, Arkansas
• Rockford, Illinois
• Saginaw, Michigan
• Chester, Pennsylvania
• Milwaukee, Wisconsin
• Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
• San Bernardino, California
• Cleveland, Ohio
• Alexandria, Louisiana
• Stockton, California
• Albuquerque, New Mexico
• Riviera Beach, Florida
• Indianapolis, Indiana
• Springfield, Missouri
• East Point, Georgia
• Oakland, California
• Lake Worth, Florida
• Florence, South Carolina
• Trenton, New Jersey
• Texarkana, Texas
• Shawnee, Oklahoma
• Newburgh, New York
• Muskogee, Oklahoma
• Wheeling, West Virginia
• Charleston, West Virginia
• Kalamazoo, Michigan
• Anchorage, Alaska
• Compton, California
• Jackson, Missouri
• Canton, Ohio
• Nashville, Tennessee
• Clinton, Iowa
• Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
• Albany, Georgia
• Niagara Falls, New York
• Farmington, New Mexico
• Lansing, Michigan
• New Orleans, Louisiana
• Houston, Texas
• Atlantic City, New Jersey
• Daytona Beach, Florida
• Minneapolis, Minnesota
• Chicago, Illinois
• Hartford, Connecticut
• Holyoke, Massachusetts
• Pontiac, Michigan
• Springfield, Illinois
• York, Pennsylvania
• Chattanooga, Tennessee
• Beaumont, Texas
• Salisbury, Maryland
• Pueblo, Colorado
• Tulsa, Oklahoma
• Baton Rouge, Louisiana
• South Bend, Indiana
• Wichita, Kansas
• North Las Vegas, Nevada
• Buffalo, New York
• Washington, D.C.
• Battle Creek, Michigan
• Jackson, Tennessee
• Fall River, Massachusetts
• Huntington, West Virginia
• Modesto, California
• Atlanta, Georgia
• Shreveport, Louisiana
• Homestead, Florida
• Miami Beach, Florida
• Brockton, Massachusetts
• Cincinnati, Ohio
• Fort Myers, Florida
• Chicago Heights, Illinois
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Juneau, Alaska
• Burlington, Iowa
• Richmond, California
• North Charleston, South Carolina
• Lauderhill, Florida
• Port Huron, Michigan
• Jacksonville, Arkansas
• Newark, New Jersey
• Huntsville, Alabama
• Rochester, New York
• Knoxville, Tennessee
• Albany, New York

[billeisele 130]

2 minutes ago, kallend said:

Apparently you don't understand the concept of RATE.  Chicago isn't even in the top ten for RATE.

Tell it to the mayors of Atlanta, Memphis, St. Louis, New Orleans or KC, each of which has a higher murder rate than Chicago, and each of which is in a "gun friendly" state.

Too funny. I never said anything about RATE.

I only stated current stats. I doubt that any of the 600+ dead would care that the death rate was lower in Chicago than other locations. The point is that certain restrictive gun laws are not effective and Chicago continues to demonstrate that. 600+ dead should not be considered success even though the RATE is lower than other places.

[billvon 3,058]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

 Criminals do not follow the law and that's one reason why law abiding citizens want the option to have a gun.

Exactly.  The murderer in Uvalde was stopped instantly by the well armed Texas populace before he killed more than a few people. and the unarmed people of Colorado Springs were helpless while the latest murderer killed dozens.

Right?

[gowlerk 2,241]

56 minutes ago, billvon said:

Exactly.  The murderer in Uvalde was stopped instantly by the well armed Texas populace before he killed more than a few people. and the unarmed people of Colorado Springs were helpless while the latest murderer killed dozens.

Right?

Clearly the criminals of the USA need to be well armed to cope in a society flooded with weapons.

[kallend 2,099]

5 hours ago, billeisele said:

Too funny. I never said anything about RATE.

 

But I did, in the post to which you responded.  You skipped a bunch of more dangerous cities in gun friendly states to pick on Chicago in a lame attempt to make a point.

 

 

[kallend 2,099]

5 hours ago, billeisele said:

  
The restrictive gun laws comment was directed at the fact that the criminal had a gun. Criminals do not follow the law and that's one reason why law abiding citizens want the option to have a gun.

 

Despite overwhelming evidence that having a gun at home makes you and your family MORE likely to be  murder victims (data previously supplied).

[Stumpy 284]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

one reason why law abiding citizens want the option to have a gun.

 

The other reason, is that gun nuts are DUMB. Despite all evidence, they still think this works.

[wmw999 2,514]

9 hours ago, billeisele said:

Too funny. I never said anything about RATE.

I only stated current stats. I doubt that any of the 600+ dead would care that the death rate was lower in Chicago than other locations. The point is that certain restrictive gun laws are not effective and Chicago continues to demonstrate that. 600+ dead should not be considered success even though the RATE is lower than other places.

No, you didn't. But if you compare (say) the number of murders in the US with the number of murders in Honduras or Haiti, it makes Honduras and Haiti seem pretty tame, too. That's why rate matters.

Wendy P.

[billeisele 130]

18 hours ago, kallend said:

Despite overwhelming evidence that having a gun at home makes you and your family MORE likely to be  murder victims (data previously supplied).

Yes, and that is a choice that the gun owner made. Apparently some would rather have the choice to be able to defend themselves against a thug while accepting the other risk. It seems that some just don't want to take the risk of being attacked with no viable means of self protection.

[JerryBaumchen 1,422]

26 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Yes, and that is a choice that the gun owner made. Apparently some would rather have the choice to be able to defend themselves against a thug while accepting the other risk. It seems that some just don't want to take the risk of being attacked with no viable means of self protection.

Hi Bill,

Everything in that post is right on par with the idiot who thinks robbing a 7-11 is a sure thing.

Jerry Baumchen

[billeisele 130]

14 hours ago, wmw999 said:

No, you didn't. But if you compare (say) the number of murders in the US with the number of murders in Honduras or Haiti, it makes Honduras and Haiti seem pretty tame, too. That's why rate matters.

Wendy P.

Ms Wendy - I didn't say that rate didn't matter. What I said was that I did not bring it up. In the context of my statement, rate has no bearing. 

K tried to change the context of my statement by inserting RATE. He then made the demeaning and incorrect assumption that the term "rate" was an unknown concept, which it is not. My point was and is simple. Possibly too simple for K to grasp.

The thug had a gun and used it in committing a crime.

The thug had the gun despite the restrictive gun laws. 

The person being attacked legally possessed a gun and was able to change the outcome of the encounter.

But....it's important to add the caveat, "in this case."  I fully recognize that the thug may have had no intention of firing the gun. When the lady pulled her gun that could have caused the thug to fire and kill her.

Owning a gun has risks. Brandishing or firing a gun has more risks. I recognize and understand the statistics.
Not having a means of self-defense also has risks. It's a choice that some people want the right to make.

Some or many choose to not have a gun. That's fine and I sincerely hope that they won't ever regret that decision. Others have made a different decision. That's also fine and, again, I hope that they won't ever regret that decision.

[billeisele 130]

12 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

Everything in that post is right on par with the idiot who thinks robbing a 7-11 is a sure thing.

Jerry Baumchen

Good evening Jerry. Hope you are well. We're getting freezing temps at night. Unusual for SC in November to be colder than OR.

I respect your opinion on guns. We just differ. In my book that's OK. Maybe it's just different life experiences.

Don't stores/banks, etc. have a policy of not resisting? They don't keep much cash on hand and have those colored tapes at the doors to help ID an accurate height for the report. And I'd assume that they all have cameras.

In that respect a 7-11 heist may be a sure thing but remaining free with a small amount of cash, some candy bars and smokes hopefully doesn't happen too often. 

 

Having a gun and successfully using it for self-defense are never a sure thing. Anyone that thinks that is just wrong.

[kallend 2,099]

And another score for the gun nuts:

Chesapeake, VA Walmart mass shooting.

[kallend 2,099]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

 

 

Having a gun and successfully using it for self-defense are never a sure thing. Anyone that thinks that is just wrong.

Anyone who thinks having a gun in the home makes them and their family safer is dead wrong.  The data make that very clear.

[JoeWeber 2,807]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

And another score for the gun nuts:

Chesapeake, VA Walmart mass shooting.

I'm not sure it makes sense to conflate Walmart shootings with personal defense shootings or to lump all personal defense shootings together. I personally am opposed to open and concealed carry , pistol or long gun, as a matter of constitutional right. I do think that having a dedicated personal defense shotgun in a home of adults is a good plan for individuals skilled in the weapons use. I also think that regulation of firearms is good policy and the confiscation and destruction of war looking weapons would be acceptable but that would not include shotguns and bolt action rifles with 3-5 shot magazines. So I would segregate all instances where someone with a dedicated home defense or other shotgun or a bolt action hunting rifle was successful in a home invasion situation from all other instances.

[wmw999 2,514]

10 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I'm not sure it makes sense to conflate Walmart shootings with personal defense shootings or to lump all personal defense shootings together. I personally am opposed to open and concealed carry , pistol or long gun, as a matter of constitutional right. I do think that having a dedicated personal defense shotgun in a home of adults is a good plan for individuals skilled in the weapons use. I also think that regulation of firearms is good policy and the confiscation and destruction of war looking weapons would be acceptable but that would not include shotguns and bolt action rifles with 3-5 shot magazines. So I would segregate all instances where someone with a dedicated home defense or other shotgun or a bolt action hunting rifle was successful in a home invasion situation from all other instances.

I like that

Wendy P.

[wmw999 2,514]

8 hours ago, billeisele said:

Ms Wendy - I didn't say that rate didn't matter. What I said was that I did not bring it up. In the context of my statement, rate has no bearing. 

Long post warning.

Your statement was "I doubt that any of the 600+ dead would care that the death rate was lower in Chicago than other locations," and yes, rate doesn't really matter. However, it's still a false equivalency, because Chicago is a large area, and it would be just as intellectually honest to say that zero people in Easthampton died last year from gun violence. It's picking a single data point.

I use statistics to inform my decisions; I don't necessarily control them with statistics, but if the statistics say that something is more likely to help than hurt in the kinds of situations I get into (RSL's, seat belts), then I'll probaby use them. Even if there is some percentage of people who are hurt by them (videographers often don't use RSL's because they have so many snag points on their heads and, in the case of handicams, hands).

Take, as an example, motorcycles (I rode for nearly 30 years). Lots of hard core people say that loud pipes save lives, that earplugs make you unaware of traffic dangers, and that helmets make you less free. There is no statistical evidence for either of the first two, and loud pipes hurt my ears, helmets demonstrably help in a lot of head injury situations, and earplugs help me to focus better wtihout the distraction of the noise. And I had a horn on the bike that was hard to ignore. Anecdotal evidence is just that, one person's experience. You can't take that from that person, but you have to take that experience in the context of all of the situation -- in the case of a car cutting you off (i.e. "loud pipes save lives"), were you traveling in that car's blind spot? Were you following closer than is good? What was the visibility? How much traffic was there? All of those things enter, and if you take an anecdote, you have to make sure that your experience matches all of them, because otherwise you're prepared for the last link in a chain of circumstances, rather than the first link.

Kind of like the guy who doesn't maintain his gear, never checks his steering lines for twists, packs in a hurry, and doesn't use an RSL because it "might make for a bad body position," and has a cutaway where he was unstable. Well, the first three of those already contribute to his likelihood of having a cutaway, and the steering line twists contribute to its being a spinner. So address any of them, and you've removed the reason why he doesn't think the RSL is a good idea.

That's where statistics help. They inform, and provide more insight into how a LOT of situations developed with a particular characteristic.

Wendy P.

[BIGUN 1,393]

44 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

(i.e. "loud pipes save lives")

Truth. Bright lights (fog halo lights, crash bar lights, etc.) towards the front do more for your visibility than loud pipes. Loud pipes point backwards. Motorcycle wrecks rarely occur to your rear. 

[kallend 2,099]

12 hours ago, billeisele said:

 

K tried to change the context of my statement by inserting RATE. He then made the demeaning and incorrect assumption that the term "rate" was an unknown concept, which it is not. My point was and is simple. Possibly too simple for K to grasp.

 

Using absolute number instead of rate is meaningless when comparing entities of different sizes.  Doing that, the way you do, is deliberately misleading.

As Wendy already pointed out, using absolute number makes El Salvador look like paradise compared with the USA, since it only has 3,500 or so murders each year, compared with over 16,000 for the USA.  However, when you look at rate per 100k population you see that El Salvador, with a rate of some 52 per 100k,  is in fact some 10 times more dangerous.

[gowlerk 2,241]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Truth. Bright lights (fog halo lights, crash bar lights, etc.) towards the front do more for your visibility than loud pipes. Loud pipes point backwards. Motorcycle wrecks rarely occur to your rear. 

I’m not sure about that. Several times while driving a very loud semi I have heard the sound of a motorcycle approaching from the rear before I saw it in my mirrors.

[Phil1111 1,149]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Truth. Bright lights (fog halo lights, crash bar lights, etc.) towards the front do more for your visibility than loud pipes. Loud pipes point backwards. Motorcycle wrecks rarely occur to your rear. 

 

8 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I’m not sure about that. Several times while driving a very loud semi I have heard the sound of a motorcycle approaching from the rear before I saw it in my mirrors.

Both right. I doubt the noise from pipes from a motorcycle to the rear of you are legal. If they can be heard in a car ahead of it.But thats a totally different point.

[billeisele 130]

On 11/23/2022 at 8:11 AM, wmw999 said:

Your statement was "I doubt that any of the 600+ dead would care that the death rate was lower in Chicago than other locations," and yes, rate doesn't really matter.

 

On 11/23/2022 at 11:24 AM, kallend said:

Using absolute number instead of rate is meaningless when comparing entities of different sizes.  Doing that, the way you do, is deliberately misleading.

As Wendy already pointed out, using absolute number makes El Salvador look like paradise compared with the USA, since it only has 3,500 or so murders each year, compared with over 16,000 for the USA.  However, when you look at rate per 100k population you see that El Salvador, with a rate of some 52 per 100k,  is in fact some 10 times more dangerous.

You two are interesting. Ms Wendy - you stated that in context of my post rate didn't matter. Then K continues to infer that I was comparing locales which I never did. 

On the issue of data and rate, your comments would be relevant if I had been comparing locations and deaths. On that we agree.

Specifically what was said was, "Yes, having a gun is a choice and it has potential consequences. Evaluate the risks and make a choice.
In this instance the lady was able to defend herself because she had a gun. Again, in a city with restrictive gun laws that clearly don't work."

In responding to the post where K introduced rate I said, "The restrictive gun laws comment was directed at the fact that the criminal had a gun. Criminals do not follow the law and that's one reason why law abiding citizens want the option to have a gun."

 

My point was simple and reframing my comment into something more complex, which it was not, is, in fact, misleading.

Chicago has restrictive gun laws. The criminal had a gun and used in in committing a crime. Effective gun laws are needed but whatever is being done in Chicago is not working.

Nothing in my comments has anything to do with rate.
Hope everyone had a good holiday.

[wmw999 2,514]

7 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Chicago has restrictive gun laws. The criminal had a gun and used in in committing a crime. Effective gun laws are needed but whatever is being done in Chicago is not working.

I went on to say that without rate, comparisons are generally unreliable. Context matters. 

Wendy P. 

[billvon 3,058]

29 minutes ago, Slim King said:

Let's refocus on the REAL second amendment in the Bill of Rights...... Since the government has a big well stocked army we citizens also need to have unfettered access to weapons in order to keep the military from making us slaves...

So you think that every American has a right to own Sarin, weaponized smallpox and suitcase nukes?

[wmw999 2,514]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

So you think that every American has a right to own Sarin, weaponized smallpox and suitcase nukes?

Only the ones with money, duh.

Wendy P.