Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

I'm not particularly interested in getting into a long debate about why a website like thetruthaboutguns.com might have slightly biased statistics (for instance it uses that old 2.5 million DGU statistic that is hilariously wrong and implausible, although it does helpfully cite a DoJ report that thoroughly debunks that statistic while claiming it supports it).

The point I was making is that your argument was a non-sequitur which it was.

[Fishbreath]

I'm not particularly interested in getting into a long debate about why a website like thetruthaboutguns.com might have slightly biased statistics (for instance it uses that old 2.5 million DGU statistic that is hilariously wrong and implausible, although it does helpfully cite a DoJ report that thoroughly debunks that statistic while claiming it supports it).

The point I was making is that your argument was a non-sequitur which it was.

The math on lives saved uses the 1.46m DoJ number, along with Kleck's surveys for the base percentages of DGUs resulting in lives saved (which, to repeat myself, I adjusted down by more than 98%). Kleck is an acknowledged authority in the field, and Clinton's Department of Justice was hardly a source likely to be biased toward gun ownership.

The last paragraph of my 922(r) post was originally a non-sequitur, and so I expanded on the moral and statistical reasons why I think stricter gun control is a terrible idea, reasons which informed that paragraph. I've spent a lot of time researching the issue, because I wanted to be pretty sure free access to potentially lethal tools was a good idea before I became a supporter of it. I am pretty sure, and I did become a supporter of the idea. I suspect we won't see eye-to-eye on this one, so I'm content to leave it at that.

[Leafsnail]

The thing is if you actually read the DoJ report there's no 1.46 million number anywhere.  What it does is criticize the 2.5m number as ridiculous and list all the faults with it.

[Fishbreath]

The thing is if you actually read the DoJ report there's no 1.46 million number anywhere.  What it does is criticize the 2.5m number as ridiculous and list all the faults with it.

This document, on page 8:

A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is shown in the column of exhibit 7 that reflects the application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses. Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most recent DGU description for any of the following reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator; the respondent could not state a specific
crime that was involved in the incident; or the respondent did not actu ally display the gun or mention it to the perpetrator.
Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the
NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error.

The paper does go on to note inconsistencies in the NSPOF vs. NCVS data, but the NCVS and the DoJ paper both make assumptions that don't make methodological sense. The NCVS only asks about DGUs if someone has reported being the victim of a crime, but I doubt the average person would report being the victim of an assault or robbery if they had stopped that crime before it happened with a DGU, and the DoJ paper claims that a similar 'no, I wasn't attacked' response in the NSPOF data somehow invalidates a response as a DGU. Kleck's 2001 book makes a bevy of responses to criticisms between '94 and 2000 or so, but I haven't read it in a few years and will need to do so again before I can present those arguments.

[Leafsnail]

There is no mention of 1.47m anywhere though, is there?  And while they find a way in which you could come to a 1.5m figure if you read on they tear the NSPOF and Kleck studies to pieces, and thus do not endorse that number in any way (which means the article is being really disingenious about it).

[Fishbreath]

They raise objections which Kleck discusses in his book. My copy is on a shelf at my parents' place, so you'll have to wait until next week sometime to hear them. I'm not personally qualified to argue methodology.

[Nadaka]

Welp... I may have missed my chance to own an "assault rifle", all sold out within a 200 mile radius, and there is a real chance their sale will be banned tomorrow.

I don't need one, but they are fun to shoot. One of my friends has an sks and it was a blast.

[Tellemurius]

Welp... I may have missed my chance to own an "assault rifle", all sold out within a 200 mile radius, and there is a real chance their sale will be banned tomorrow.

I don't need one, but they are fun to shoot. One of my friends has an sks and it was a blast.

still got a .308 saiga for sale if you want

[Nadaka]

Ha. Utah is well outside my driving range... By over a thousand miles.

[Tellemurius]

Lol yea unless you want it shipped.

[Andir]

I went home for Christmas break and my dad finally purchased a smaller pistol for his concealed carry, but every shop we went to was out of AR-15 and the like styled "assault rifles" along with barren shelves of ammo.

Leave it to politicians to know how to move inventory.

[stabbymcstabstab]

Same thing in Michigan, in the entire UP there is not a single Assault weapon for sale ANYWHERE I saw people sneaking into the old radar base to try and find a few extra rounds, then again we're basically Texas with out the redneck thing.

[Strife26]

Welp... I may have missed my chance to own an "assault rifle", all sold out within a 200 mile radius, and there is a real chance their sale will be banned tomorrow.

I don't need one, but they are fun to shoot. One of my friends has an sks and it was a blast.

still got a .308 saiga for sale if you want

How much?

[Tellemurius]

http://www.utahguns.com/index.php?option=com_joomlistings&c=ad&task=view&adid=1880 its my father's, he's been selling off the assault weapons and stocking up on hunting rifles like a saiko 30-06 and 2 VEPRs. The silver bears are good rounds for hunting if you want, scope mount is damn sturdy. The military ammo he's talking about are from British Defense Aerospace, in stripper clips in bandoliers.

[Aqizzar]

I never stopped in to mention it, so hey check out this handy old thread.

I bought myself a Christmas present last week on a whim, because I promised my mother I'd get a concealed handgun license to help her sleep easier or something.  It was her idea.  My current pistol is/was a gate-loading .22 single-action revolver, which is about as pathetic a weapon can be and still be a genuine firearm.

After visiting a couple rural pawn shops, I wound up buying a Taurus .38 Special double-action.  It caught my eye because it had a custom pistol-style grip instead of the cowboy revolver handle, which I find really uncomfortable and unwieldy, and because of how the paint had been worn off from going in and out of a holster so many times.  Basically, it looked fucking greasy as Hell and I had to have it.  Especially for the low low price of $250.

Turns out it's just as heavily-used as it looks.  Amazingly for a revolver, it actually jammed when the cylinder didn't want to turn, or something.  A bunch of WD-40 got it working slick as glass.  It's a damn fine weapon, with a heavy but perfectly smooth trigger pull, enough bulk to absorb all the recoil, and not anywhere near as loud as you'd expect from the torpedoes it fires.  Only issue is that .38 Special ammunition is about a dollar a shot, so it's hard to justify for sport shooting.  Not that I'm too concerned.

The weirdest thing about it though, and I hope somebody like RedKing shows up to discuss: It has no safety mechanism of any kind.  No trigger pin or hammer block, and being a double-action revolver it doesn't even need to be cocked to fire.  I'm assuming it's legal to sell in the US, since I bought it at a real store.  But what the heck, a gun with no safety?