doesn't seem to be a place to discuss safe gun use here

[CreekDog]

am i correct?

[Remmah2]

1. It certainly is.

Except for the vermin.

[CreekDog]

9. i don't think it is, if the host was in fact, correct about the SOP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117227305

[Old Codger]

2. Actually

Would be if you could in fact have a discussion here, but that is almost impossible, really is.

[wendylaroux]

3. what's wrong

with safe gun use?

[HockeyMom]

4. Yes, plus living in Florida

after born and raised in NYC, Florida lax gun laws terrify me. I see far too many George Zimmerman's all over the place. No, all those gun laws DON'T make me fee any safer. Just the opposite. Look at all the othe craziness in this state and they me you think the nuts in this state should be armed?

[gejohnston]

15. yet Florida has a lower

homicide rate than NYC.
Florida-5.2/100K
NYC-6.3/100K
Wyoming-1.4/100K

After being born and raised in Wyoming, I feel less safe too even with Florida's stricter gun laws. I have more of a reason.

[bongbong]

18. As if

I'm sure none of the other 1,539 differences between NYC & Florida matter in the homicide rate.

[gejohnston]

20. no shit

I was in no way saying gun laws have anything to do with crime. I just said it seems odd to me that that she would feel safer in a place with higher murder rates.

[NewMoonTherian]

31. Someone says something like this...

every single time someone mentions a state with more liberal gun laws and a lower crime rate. Pro-control posters keep predicting lax gun laws will result in chaos, and when we provide evidence to the contrary, we're accused of saying something we never said, so that you never have to address what we were actually saying.

I haven't seen you post here in the Gungeon before, so I'd like to assume it's an honest mistake. Please recognize that we(well, most of us) aren't saying concealed carry and SYG reduce crime. What we are saying is that they don't increase crime, and any law that doesn't provide a measurable benefit should be removed.

[bongbong]

33. Yes....

> What we are saying is that they don't increase crime, and any law that doesn't provide a measurable benefit should be removed.

Since Trayvon's murder, there have been lots of posts here on DU about all the other murderers who have gotten away with, well, murder because of SYG. I'm talking about people who weren't threatened at all, but rather felt afraid or just wanted to throw their weight around.

If you think that only a "certain" number of additional murders because of a law is no big deal, I can see why SYG laws don't seem to be a problem.

[Callisto32]

37. Your posistion is legally incorrect.

They did not get away with murder.

Well, at least not if I am correct abut the definitions you are using.

Your post seems to be based on the increase in number of "justifiable homicides" since the passage of the law removing the duty to retreat. What happened is most likely that human behavior really didn't change that much in response to the passage of a statute (this is a common response to the passage of a statute, by the way), instead we seem to have a situation of:

"We found more of something, after we expanded its definition. . . . . . "





If other data are shown that blows my theory, or I am just not aware of it; fee free to debunk.

[bongbong]

42. OK

You made this claim:

> What happened is most likely that human behavior really didn't change that much in response to the passage of a statute (this is a common response to the passage of a statute, by the way), instead we seem to have a situation of: "We found more of something, after we expanded its definition."

My claim is indeed based upon the greater number of "justifiable homicides", with an additional kicker that most of those are whites murdering blacks.

I've given evidence for my point. You'll have to provide evidence for your idea that "We found more of something, after we expanded its definition."

Otherwise my point stands. Feel free to give me data that supports your contention.

[gejohnston]

43. any evidence to go with that?

with an additional kicker that most of those are whites murdering blacks.

[bongbong]

44. Simple

Heres one:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/01/1079776/-Should-One-of-Florida-s-Mottos-Be-I-d-Rather-Have-a-Gun-in-My-Hand-Then-a-Cop-on-the-Phone-

If you search for "syg is mostly whites murdering innocent blacks" you can find even more. Sadly.

[Glassunion]

45. Your link contradicts your claim

"with an additional kicker that most of those are whites murdering blacks. "

[X_Digger]

47. Uhh.. reading comprehension?!?

[div class='excerpt']The Sun Sentinel article also presented some interesting data regarding who killed who in justifiable homicide cases since 2006. Blacks killing blacks accounted for 38% of the cases and whites killing whites accounted for 34%. Sixteen percent of the cases involved whites killing blacks and only 4% of cases involved blacks killing whites.

*snort*

[bongbong]

48. Hola

I was waiting for when Digger showed up! Hot Diggetedy Dog!

> Sixteen percent of the cases involved whites killing blacks and only 4% of cases involved blacks killing whites.

I always thought 16 was greater than 4. Maybe in NRA land that isn't true.

[X_Digger]

49. Neither 16 nor 4 is *most* -- do you have trouble with math, too? n/t

[bongbong]

52. asdf

Refer to my post #51

[X_Digger]

53. Feel free to set those goalpost down, they must be heavy.

Or you could just admit you screwed up.

Either works for me.

[bongbong]

54. Hmme

You never disappoint (the NRA), do you Digger?

But on further reflection, I should not have used "most", I should've just used the statistical quote about 16% vs 4%. In any case, my "kicker" was indeed just a kicker to my main - unchallenged - point, that SYG has caused more murders.

So I stand corrected on the battle - but won the war. I'll take it.

[X_Digger]

56. Now who's dragging a red herring?

Care to try for the hattrick? Perhaps an appeal to authority? A straw man? Guilt by association?

[bongbong]

57. Read again

I updated my post.

But your list of the rhetorical devices that NRA supporters use is a handy reference for me. Thanks!

[X_Digger]

58. Free clue, justifiable homicide != murder

So no, you didn't 'win the war', either.

Try harder next time.

[bongbong]

62. Yawn

When "justifiable homicide" increases as a result of SYG laws, yes, it does equal murder. Since those cases would've been prosecuted as murder before SYG.

Try logic next time.

[X_Digger]

63. Oh look, a post hoc ergo propter hoc! ('after this, therefore because of this')

You've made the hattrick of logical fallacies!

And yet you've still not made the case that justifiable homicide equals murder.

[bongbong]

66. Yawn #653543

Don't worry, I know your usage of the "airtight defense" of "rhetorical accusations" is false. I'll give you a bye this time.

[X_Digger]

67. *yawn* indeed.

You know when you're busted, I'll give you that.

[bongbong]

70. Yawn redux

All those accusations of rhetorical tricks, which is pretty much all you got, always give me a tingle. I'm so happy you care enough to keep posting the same stuff as "responses" to my well-argued posts. At least you admit that you know you can't argue facts or logic against me.

[X_Digger]

71. When I *see* a well-argued response, I'll give it the attention it deserves.

Until then?

*yawn*

[bongbong]

87. Rinse and repeat

Here is a template of pretty much every single one of your replies to me:

1) "You did a XXXXX rhetorical fallacy!"
2) "Yawn"
3) "I win!"

[X_Digger]

89. The last time you said something worth paying attention to on the subject was over two years ago..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4290943&mesg_id=4292011

And you got your hat handed to you then, too.

[bongbong]

90. Ho hum

> And you got your hat handed to you then, too.

You know, before I read your post I said to myself, "I bet good ol' Digger will declare victory in this post too".

You didn't disappoint me!

Yahoo!

[Glassunion]

61. BTW...

As for the 16% vs 4% the rate holds almost even per 100k based on population demographics. Basically, white people are justified in the homicide of black people at a rate of 0.177 per 100k and black people are justified in the homicide of white people at a rate of .199 per 100k.

[bongbong]

65. Not enough

I see what you're *trying* to prove, but you'll have to cite those population statistics for the localities where the SYG murders occurred. Otherwise you've proven nothing.

Liars with statistics and all that...

[Glassunion]

68. Population Stats

Florida total population = 18,801,310
Florida population white = 14,100,983
Florida population black = 3,008,210

I'm not trying to prove anything. They are simple rates.
Black people have been justified in the homicide of Black people at a rate of 1.961 per 100k
Black people have also been justified in the homicide of White people at a rate of 0.199 per 100k

White people have been justified in the homicide of White people at a rate of 0.375 per 100k
White people have been justified in the homicide of Black people at a rate of 0.177 per 100k

These rates were determined from the data provided at your links.

[Glassunion]

50. Math...

Blacks killing blacks accounted for 38% of the cases and whites killing whites accounted for 34%.

I always thought 38 and 34 were greater than 16.

"with an additional kicker that most of those are whites murdering blacks."

It would appear that most of those are blacks killing blacks, followed closely by whites killing whites and then less than half as many as most are whites killing blacks then a quarter of less than half of most is blacks killing whites.

[bongbong]

51. Relative

Since it appears you're a newbie to statistics, I'll help you out.

The same-on-same stats are one set, the same-on-different are a different set, and support my point.

[Straw Man]

60. False.

My claim is indeed based upon the greater number of "justifiable homicides", with an additional kicker that most of those are whites murdering blacks.

Since it appears you're a newbie to statistics, I'll help you out.

The same-on-same stats are one set, the same-on-different are a different set, and support my point.

The pronoun "those" in the first quote clearly refers to "justifiable homicides." Since there is no distinction drawn between "same-on-same" and "same-on-different," it clearly refers to the totality of justifiable homicides. Your attempt to retroactively claim the significance of "different sets" indicates an error in your original statement, an attempt to falsify your conclusion, or both.

Since it appears you're a newbie to logic and veracity, I thought I'd help you out.

[bongbong]

64. asdf

Covered. Refer to my post #54.

[WinniSkipper]

69. Or you might say that it reflects the population of Florida pretty accurately

From 2010 Census - Florida is:

75.0% White (57.9% Non-Hispanic White alone)
16.0% Black or African American

Roughly a little more than 4x as many whites as blacks. So 4% AND 16% seem about correct. Unless my thinking is wrong - which is totally possible

The number all of us should be concerned over is that 16% of Florida's population is committing 38% due to lack of education, poverty, and drugs.

[Air Marshal8]

91. Will you accept figures from the US Dep't of Justice? (Not a racist org as far as I know)

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/ovrelracetab.cfm

[CreekDog]

85. why are you comparing a state, Florida to a city, New York? Seems dishonest to do it that way:

Murder rate 2009:

New York 4.0
Florida 5.5
Wyoming 2.0
Arizona 5.5
Hawaii 1.8

but if you want to talk cities, okay, Murder rate 2009:
New York 5.6
Miami 14.1
Jacksonville 12.2
Tampa 5.8

[Callisto32]

35. What does that mean?

The laws terrify you? I guess the terrorists really have won if they have you afraid of something so

What do you mean you "see far too many George Zimmerman's all over the place"?

What the hell is a "George Zimmerman" and by what power to you ascertain their existence, or do you just "know," a priori? Is it the way they walk? The way they shift their eyes? Their nervous pacing? Hell, you may have a future working for the TSA!.

Laws shouldn't be passed on how they make you "feel." By that reasoning, the laws that make all of us gun owners "feel" "less safe" for being denied access to effective weaponry would have to go, and we would be able to pass laws that allow us to buy rocket launchers, if it would make us feel safer. As you can see, "how it makes people feel in the abstract" is a pretty piss-poor basis for public policy.

Nuts, that have been proven to be so, at least in any significant way, are already barred from possessing firearms.

[HockeyMom]

86. Florida Democrats are looking into, and proposing legislation, to

eliminate, or clarify, these blanket SYG law in this state. You are going to see it around the country with the Zimmerman/Martin fiasco.

Sorry, you are on the wrong side on this one aligning yourselves with the Repukes and the NRA.

[MADem]

5. This is the place to fight about guns, I've noticed.

Same as Religion is the place to fight about religion.

You could try asking people to limit their conversation to the topic and not derail the thread, but I doubt you'll get a lot of cooperation.

Now let me back outta this place!

[Major Hogwash]

84. The first rule about Fight Club is . . .

. . . not to pretend that the NRA is not a rightwing organization that has spent millions of dollars over the last 3 decades lying about Democrats.
Ever since 1984, when they first decided to politicize their views and endorsed Reagan over Mondale.

[MADem]

88. Yep--I'm still backing the hell outta here, though!

I don't own any guns and have no plans to buy any!

Well, I might have an old Red Ryder-type BB gun stashed in the attic somewhere, and maybe an old super soaker in the cellar... but I don't think that counts.

[marybourg]

6. Surely the NRA has a forum to discuss

gun safety. They used to pretend that was what they were all about.

[eqfan592]

10. I'd love to talk here about it instead.

But thanks tho.

[PavePusher]

32. They still are.

http://www.nrainstructors.org/searchcourse.aspx

[Callisto32]

36. Inabiilty to separate NRA and NRA-ILA.

[petronius]

7. I would support a move to expand the SoP to include such things as

recreational shooting, collecting, safety/storage practices, etc., unrelated to policy, crime, or self-defense, but the GC & RKBA SoP has been interpreted pretty narrowly in the past. Perhaps Krispos will open a thread for that discussion; as I understand, the admins will edit the SoP if the group desires, or a general thread might just give our Host a sense of how the group wants topics to be managed (if that sense has changed from the past).

If you're referring to your other thread, though, it seems to me that it was asked and answered - there wasn't much further to go...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. I would like to consider changing the SoP and also the Name of this place.

As far as I am concerned we can include all those topics in the SoP and officially change the name of this group to The Gungeon, it is what it is referred as by everybody anyway.

Go with it.

[one-eyed fat man]

96. Gungeon is good!

Throw it back in their faces!

An anti can post the most hateful, bigoted slurs about Southerners, rural people and conflate gun owners with criminals and get a pass, if not applause, most of the time.

Call one of them on their schtick and see who gets their post hidden.

Apparently it is OK to call gunowners redneck inbred racist hicks as that is not at all rude, much less indicative of bias or bigotry. toters

[Tuesday Afternoon]

97. Exactly!!

and I want to go on record right now: I NEVER ALERT !!!

I reply or I do not engage. I move on.

[CreekDog]

26. Krispos is excluding gun safety from this group

period. or maybe just in this case.

[petronius]

29. It could be that the out-of-left-field nature of your question, and the lack

of any subsequent participation from you, caused him to mistake your intent - perhaps it wasn't clear that you genuinely intended to engage in a thoughtful conversation about firearms safety. Have you communicated with him to clarify?

But as I said, the historical interpretation of this Group's SoP, as a holdover from DU2, has been narrow (and based on that strict reading, the lock was correct). I would prefer to see it broadened to include other related topics that would logically seem to fit, and I suspect that the Host's decisions will evolve over time if a substantial swath of the membership expresses similar opinions...

[Union Scribe]

34. Now that you've been shown wrong

perhaps you would apologize to the host for your numerous threads all over DU complaining about a legit lock.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

39. an apology from CreekDog ?!

will never happen. prove me wrong, CreekDog. Go Ahead. Do it.

[CreekDog]

59. if you insist:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=530849&mesg_id=531119

[Tuesday Afternoon]

72. Dear Mr. CreekDog Magoo,

There is not a sincere bone in your body.

Sincerely.

Knucklehead Dass

[CreekDog]

74. i don't know why you treat me like this

it all seems to stem from the fact that you think i'm part of some clique that i never joined, but you decided i belonged to.

ever since then you've treated me like shit at every opportunity.

you asked me a question, i answered and then you mock the answer.

you don't like me and it's not based on anything you've ever been willing to write down on paper.

anyway.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

76. it has nothing whatsoever to do with any real or imagined clique

and everything to do with the fact that you are bigoted and prejudiced against gun-owning southerners.

Deny it. Go ahead.

[CreekDog]

78. southerners? have i written against MLK and William Faulkner?

i don't recall.

and what is bigotry about a gun owner? what is this belief about gun ownership that is bigoted?

(by the way, if that was your issue why in 2 years have you not stated that you thought this or is it an excuse of convenience?)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

79. oh. you found two that meet your approval?

how big of you.

Kind of like when a white bigot picks Charley Pride and Tavis Smiley . . . .see, I understand how reverse racism works due to the fact that I am of mixed heritage myself.

I have Cherokee and Cree in my bloodline as well, along with English, Scotch-Irish and German so go ahead. hate any part of me. I flat don't give a damn.



Your tone belies your attitude. nice try though.

[CreekDog]

80. you need links if you want any accusation of bigotry against white people to stand

links, please.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

81. I owe you an apology. mea Culpa

I had you confused with another DUer who goes by the last name of Dog.

I am very sorry, CreekDog.

However, it still stands that you do have a flair for Mr. Magoo type posts and I stand by that.

[CreekDog]

82. WTF??? You've been mixing me up and treating me like shit for how long because you got me mixed up?

what the hell?

:O

you didn't do it just once, it's been constant for seemingly ever.

(i appreciate the apology but geez...holy smokes)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

83. yes.

[CreekDog]

92. it's not your day is it?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

93. at least, I can give a sincere apology. My days are not determined by what goes on with DU.

Sorry if yours are. Sad.

[CreekDog]

94. i'm just kidding with you since your name is "Tuesday"

[Tuesday Afternoon]

95. oh. heh.

gotta get used to not being mad at you.

[CreekDog]

55. i'm judging by his locking message which told me to consult the SOP

and the SOP makes no reference to gun safety.

ergo, what the hell am i supposed to think?

and Krispos? has he anything to say here --no. end of story.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

73. He rarely does. Why don't you apply for Co-host?

[CreekDog]

75. because i'm more interested in co-hosting other groups than that one.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

77. why am I not surprised.

[ileus]

8. all guns are loaded, never point them at anyting you don't want to destroy

we can discuss safe handling of firearms....sure not a problem.


If you're going to carry be sure to choose a holster that covers the trigger.

[Starboard Tack]

11. It's safe because those with the guns can't see the rest of us. (Just kidding)

It is a good place to hone your debating skills. Some of these guys are good, really good. A few are just knuckleheads and a few are definitely in the wrong place.
Don't expect to change anyone's mind though, but don't give up hope either. Some of them are really thoughtful. Main thing to remember is, most are fellow Democrats and basically good guys.

[gejohnston]

16. one of these days

I'll move up from knucklehead to half way decent.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. did I just move up from dumbass to knucklehead?

[petronius]

22. You're a knucklehead now? But just yesterday I heard you were a meth-head

I'm so confused...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. of course, we're confused

we're in the Gungeon

[rl6214]

25. Same here

I will readily admit I don't have the gift of gab or the debating skills and way of wording things that many here have.

[Starboard Tack]

30. LOL. No, GE you are definitely part of the OK contingent.

Definitely thoughtful and I think definitely decent and respectful most of the time (at least as much as I am). I like a good discussion and you provide that. I wish some of the other groups I belong to were as contentious.

[Common Sense Party]

12. I've seen and read many threads that discuss safe gun use.

I'm not sure what you have seen to the contrary.

[CreekDog]

13. not this safety issue

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117227305

[Common Sense Party]

14. Actually, I remember several threads on DU2 that addressed that very issue.

Those threads were not cheap and blatant flamebait, of course.

Perhaps you should address this in Meta?

[CreekDog]

17. i did

[Common Sense Party]

23. And you brought it up here.

Anywhere else?

[CreekDog]

27. H&M

[Major Hogwash]

28. Good for you.

Gives the rest of us something to read.

[rl6214]

24. No, it's most often used to bitch and whine about people having guns

as seen in post #4

[burf]

38. Here is some news about gun safety.

Shooters World in Phoenix will conduct a First Shots handgun seminar on Sat., April 14.

This free three-hour course is a basic introduction to firearm safety, handling and use of handguns and will include live-fire time on the range with supplied firearms. The course, which begins at 9 a.m., is intended for first-time shooters who want to be introduced to the shooting sports and firearms in a safe, managed and supervised environment.

First Shots is one of many National Shooting Sports Foundation-administered programs that are advancing participation and understanding of the shooting sports. Although tens of millions of Americans annually enjoy the shooting sports, getting started is the biggest challenge for most newcomers. First Shots seminars provide a place to learn the rules and requirements of firearm ownership, along with comprehensive information on safety, shooting sports opportunities, individual and group training and range access. It also answers new shooters' questions regarding firearms and firearm ownership and provides an opportunity to shoot in a safe environment under the watchful eyes of qualified instructors.


http://www.nssf.org/events/view.cfm?SEQ=7375

But the problem with some here is "OMG!!! its the dreaded NSSF. Nevermind the program teaching gun safety. If those people would bother to do a little browsing at the NSSF site, they would find that like at the NRA site, there is a bunch of information and programs that can be used to teach both kids and adults about the issue.

At the NSSF site, you can go to the First Shots area and it will direct a person to the ranges that are hosting the classes and the time and date and how to register.

Happy shooting!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. I target practice safely several times a year.

Deer meat is wonderful and more healthy for a person than the steroid laden mass produced meat offered by large corporations.

Anything specific you would like to ask?

For further education, feel free to join this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117227555

[Tejas]

98. No, police blotters about accidental child shootings are welcomed.

You silly, no conversation about prevention, but threads with copy/paste of every last article to be found on the web about un-safe gun use are welcomed here.




{ICP} how does that f***ing work? {/ICP}

[Buzz cook]

99. I guess you're right.

I didn't see a single post dealing with the 4 rules of safe gun handling.

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET and what is behind it.

You might get a real conversation in the outdoor forum.