|
|
#71
10-05-2005, 10:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To all the gun nuts out there.
[ QUOTE ]
...The exception to that being mechanical failure... [/ QUOTE ] I would say that even in that case a person is the one responsible for the event. Someone had to pull the trigger, or left bullets in the chamber.... 
|
|
#72
10-05-2005, 10:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To all the gun nuts out there.
[ QUOTE ]
You must be joking. If you want to rely on Ehrlich's largely-discredited study from 1975, why don't you actually cite to it, rather than citing to some obscure law review article that cites it? Better yet, why not acknowledge that there, in fact, have been more recent, and conflicting, studies? [/ QUOTE ] Show me how it has been discredited? Appearently, it was good enough for the Supreme Court. From what I understand Ehrlich's research doesn't make a distinction between death by the criminal at the hands of the police or at the hands of the state in an execution. The critiques are on whether this applied to the DEATH PENALTY application. I will fully conceed that in its present form the Death Penalty probably does little to deter future criminal behaviour. But, we are not discussing the DEATH PENALTY specifically here. We are talking about the use of firearms to defend yourself and its deterent effect on the criminal. Tell you what lets do a little experiment. All you people who think guns should be banned. Put a sign in you lawn that states, "Crime-Free and Gun-Free Home" and all the people who believe in liberty will put a sign up that says, "Gun Protected Crime-Free Home" and we'll see who gets attcked the most. [ QUOTE ] Is something like this just too balanced for you? [/ QUOTE ] It is a discussion on the Death Penalty...Start another thread if you want to discuss that. [ QUOTE ] Come on, you can do better than making up facts to support your arguments. I have seen you do it. [/ QUOTE ] Name one time that I have made up facts... Honestly, do you even think before you post? Or is that too much work? -Gryph
|
|
#73
10-05-2005, 11:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To all the gun nuts out there.
All you need is a .45 1911a clone (Kimber baby!), 12-gauge pump, and a kbar. Maybe a kitana, but that's iffy for home defense. Anything beyond that is just ghetto flash.
|
|
#74
10-05-2005, 11:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To all the gun nuts out there.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You must be joking. If you want to rely on Ehrlich's largely-discredited study from 1975, why don't you actually cite to it, rather than citing to some obscure law review article that cites it? Better yet, why not acknowledge that there, in fact, have been more recent, and conflicting, studies? [/ QUOTE ] Show me how it has been discredited? Appearently, it was good enough for the Supreme Court. [/ QUOTE ] "Good enough for the Supreme Court"???? Please identify the case in which the Court relied on the Ehrlich study as anything other than evidence of a debate on the deterrent value of the death penalty. [ QUOTE ] From what I understand Ehrlich's research doesn't make a distinction between death by the criminal at the hands of the police or at the hands of the state in an execution. [/ QUOTE ] You know that the title of his article is "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death", right??? Please provide the source of your "understanding". [ QUOTE ] The critiques are on whether this applied to the DEATH PENALTY application. I will fully conceed that in its present form the Death Penalty probably does little to deter future criminal behaviour. But, we are not discussing the DEATH PENALTY specifically here. We are talking about the use of firearms to defend yourself and its deterent effect on the criminal. [/ QUOTE ] Well then, you should have read the original source you cited to support your 8-to-1 assertion more closely. The money paragraph in the article you cited is as follows: [ QUOTE ] From an initial look at these data it would seem that the risk of death at the hands of either the police or civilians would be of obvious concern to felons. It is evident that executions provide a disincentive to commit murder, as found by Ehrlich (1975){16} who found that each execution deterred approximately seven to eight murders. Of course, justifiable homicides by police and by civilians are not solely in response to murder but are the result of attempts to commit murder either directly or in the course of committing other crimes. However, if each execution and each justifiable homicide results in 7.5 fewer murders, the total of 697 justifiable homicides each year should have deterred over 5,200 murders each year. Compared with the approximately 21,500 {Page 221} murders actually occurring each year as shown in Table 2,{17} this implies that the murder rate would have been about 24 percent higher without these justifiable homicides. The civilian justifiable homicides averaged 299 per year, which should have saved over 2,200 murders per year. [/ QUOTE ] As you can see the 8-to-1 figure is based on Ehrlich's work on THE DEATH PENALTY. So if you want to talk about "research" supporting such a figure for "justifiable homicides", please provide another source of support. [ QUOTE ] Tell you what lets do a little experiment. All you people who think guns should be banned. Put a sign in you lawn that states, "Crime-Free and Gun-Free Home" and all the people who believe in liberty will put a sign up that says, "Gun Protected Crime-Free Home" and we'll see who gets attcked the most. [/ QUOTE ] (1) Who says that I want to ban guns? All I what is a little honesty in debate. (2) I thought you said that the research supporting your view had already been done. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Is something like this just too balanced for you? [/ QUOTE ] It is a discussion on the Death Penalty...Start another thread if you want to discuss that. [/ QUOTE ] See above. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Come on, you can do better than making up facts to support your arguments. I have seen you do it. [/ QUOTE ] Name one time that I have made up facts... [/ QUOTE ] Well, if you didn't do so here then you didn't do your "research" very well. [ QUOTE ] Honestly, do you even think before you post? Or is that too much work? [/ QUOTE ] I'll let this entire discussion speak to this point.
|
|
#75
10-05-2005, 11:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To all the gun nuts out there.
BTW, it had been a long time since I read the Ehrlich study, so I asked the library to get it for me. I just looked it over. There is nothing there about "justifiable homicides"; the entire article is an economic analysis of the deterrent effects of the death penalty.
I have it in .pdf, so if you want the article PM me and I'll email it to you.
|
|
#76
10-05-2005, 11:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Always bring a gun to a knife fight.
[ QUOTE ]
It is not probable that you will EVER confront an "opponent" who is aiming any gun at you, unless you put yourself in dangerous situations regularly. And if that small chance does come to be, it is even less likely that you will have your weapon available. And even then, there is a good possibility your weapon will end up doing you no good. [/ QUOTE ] It's not probable that I will ever be in a front end collision, even though I put myself in dangerous situations regularly. And if that small chance does come to be, there is a good possibility the airbag will end up doing me no good. But I have airbags. They're rated for collisions that are likely, not collisions that are possible.
|
|
#77
10-05-2005, 12:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To all the gun nuts out there.
From YOUR Link:
[ QUOTE ] ...And Robert Bork, then solicitor general, brought Ehrlich's study to the attention of the Supreme Court in arguing that the death penalty should be reinstated. In 1976, the Court so ruled. [/ QUOTE ] I had hoped that you read your link before you posted it... Want more proof: Gregg v. Georgia From the CERTIORARI... [ QUOTE ] We may nevertheless assume safely that there are murderers, such as those who act in passion, for whom the threat of death has little or no deterrent effect. But for many others, the death penalty undoubtedly is a significant deterrent. There are carefully contemplated murders, such as murder for hire, where the possible penalty of death may well enter into the cold calculus that precedes the decision to act.FN33 And there are some categories of murder, such as murder by a life prisoner, where other sanctions may not be adequate.FN34 [/ QUOTE ] Now to be fair and not to be accused of creating "facts". They go on to discuss that there is reasonable debate as to the research and its deterrence effect from state to state but then go on to say at the very least their are some criminals who ARE deterred... As for my justification, I read the research. I could have read it incorrectly. I'll admit it when it is made clear to me. But, there are hints of it in your link as well, [ QUOTE ] ...Many argued that Ehrlich had excluded important variables (e.g., length of sentence, gun ownership, deaths at the hands of police), which negated the deterrent effect of prisoner executions once they were incorporated into the model. [/ QUOTE ] I read that to mean that Elrich put the majority of the deterrent effect on the act of Capital Punishment and excluded the factors of length of sentence, gun ownership, deaths at the hands of police. I could be wrong in my reading but that is what I read it to mean... You do know that some research reveals more than the author's intentions. If you want more links and reseach look at this . And read the reseach in the footnotes. I got reseach to back up my logic. You can attack the reseach as not sound or inapplicable, but you better come with better though and logic than you have. Yet again you can't provide me one time that I have made up a fact to support my arguments. I have looked at properly reasoned, in my opinion, reseach and logic that can't and hasn't been refuted as incorrect logically. The best argument that you have come up with is that may not be applicable, you haven't been able to refute the logic. Show me one creditable reseach report that shows that Gun Control directly has effected the crime rate. Clinton couldn't do it, CDC couldn't do it, no one can. -Gryph
|
|
#78
10-05-2005, 12:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To all the gun nuts out there.
[ QUOTE ]
From YOUR Link: [ QUOTE ] ...And Robert Bork, then solicitor general, brought Ehrlich's study to the attention of the Supreme Court in arguing that the death penalty should be reinstated. In 1976, the Court so ruled. [/ QUOTE ] I had hoped that you read your link before you posted it... [/ QUOTE ] Umm....no, sorry. That Bork relied on it in his arguments does not show that the Supremes relied on it as authoratative in their decisions. [ QUOTE ] Want more proof: Gregg v. Georgia [/ QUOTE ] Again, you must be joking. First, let's get a link to the actual case, ok? [ QUOTE ] From the CERTIORARI... [ QUOTE ] We may nevertheless assume safely that there are murderers, such as those who act in passion, for whom the threat of death has little or no deterrent effect. But for many others, the death penalty undoubtedly is a significant deterrent. There are carefully contemplated murders, such as murder for hire, where the possible penalty of death may well enter into the cold calculus that precedes the decision to act.FN33 And there are some categories of murder, such as murder by a life prisoner, where other sanctions may not be adequate.FN34 [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Um, you know that this is a quote from the OPINION RESOLVING THE CASE, and not from the decision granting cert, right? And, you also know that the citation to Ehrlich IMMEDIATELY PRECEDES what you quoted. "Why, what does it say?" you ask?? It says: [ QUOTE ] Statistical attempts to evaluate the worth of the death penalty as a deterrent to crimes by potential offenders have occasioned a great deal of debate. 31 The results simply have been inconclusive. As one opponent of capital punishment has said: "[A]fter all possible inquiry, including the probing of all possible methods of inquiry, we do not know, and for systematic and easily visible reasons cannot know, what the truth about this `deterrent' effect may be . . . . "The inescapable flaw is . . . that social conditions in any state are not constant through time, and that social conditions are not the same in any two states. If an effect were observed (and the observed effects, one way or another, are not large) then one could not at all tell whether any of this effect is attributable to the presence or absence of capital punishment. A `scientific' - that is to say, a soundly based - conclusion is simply impossible, and no methodological path out of this tangle suggests itself." C. Black, Capital Punishment: The Inevitability of Caprice and Mistake 25-26 (1974). Although some of the studies suggest that the death penalty may not function as a significantly greater deterrent than lesser penalties, 32 there is no convincing empirical evidence either supporting or refuting this view. [/ QUOTE ] And, BTW, it is footnote 31 in which the court cites Ehrlich. Here's the footnote: [ QUOTE ] See, e. g., Peck, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Ehrlich and His Critics, 85 Yale L. J. 359 (1976); Baldus & Cole, A Comparison of the Work of Thorsten Sellin and Isaac Ehrlich on the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment, 85 Yale L. J. 170 (1975); Bowers & Pierce, The Illusion of Deterrence in Isaac Ehrlich's Research on Capital Punishment, 85 Yale L. J. 187 (1975); Ehrlich. The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death, 65 Am. Econ. Rev. 397 (June 1975); Hook, The Death Sentence, in The Death Penalty in America 146 (H. Bedau ed. 1967); T. Sellin, The Death Penalty, A Report for the Model Penal Code Project of the American Law Institute (1959). [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Now to be fair and not to be accused of creating "facts". [/ QUOTE ] Ummm....ok, so long as you believe that your selective quotation that OMITTED the part where they actually cite Ehrlich is "fair", I guess. [ QUOTE ] As for my justification, I read the research. I could have read it incorrectly. I'll admit it when it is made clear to me. But, there are hints of it in your link as well, .... I read that to mean that Elrich put the majority of the deterrent effect on the act of Capital Punishment and excluded the factors of length of sentence, gun ownership, deaths at the hands of police. I could be wrong in my reading but that is what I read it to mean. [/ QUOTE ] To double check my memory, I have taken the trouble to retrieve the Ehrlich article. I have reread it. I have offered to send it to you. If that doesn't convince you, then I guess I will just never "make it clear" to you. [ QUOTE ] If you want more links and reseach look at this . And read the reseach in the footnotes. I got reseach to back up my logic. You can attack the reseach as not sound or inapplicable, but you better come with better though and logic than you have. Yet again you can't provide me one time that I have made up a fact to support my arguments. I have looked at properly reasoned, in my opinion, reseach and logic that can't and hasn't been refuted as incorrect logically. The best argument that you have come up with is that may not be applicable, you haven't been able to refute the logic. [/ QUOTE ] What?? You made a positive claim: That "research" shows that "research shows that for every justifiable execution of a criminal (police and death penalty) prevents seven to eight more murders". That claim was false. Period. You are now trying to change your claim to something else. Which is fine, but of no interest to me. My point is that "research" does not, in fact, show that "every justifiable execution of a criminal (police and death penalty) prevents seven to eight more murders". [ QUOTE ] Show me one creditable reseach report that shows that Gun Control directly has effected the crime rate. Clinton couldn't do it, CDC couldn't do it, no one can. [/ QUOTE ] Umm, what?? I *never* made any claims that it did (or didn't, for that matter). If you want to discuss this particular issue, I suggest that you start another thread. My point here is that your claim that research shows that each "justifiable homicide" saves 7 to 8 lives is wrong. ____ In general, I find it remarkable that each side of the gun control debate finds it acceptable to cite to widely discredited "research" to support its views. Whether it's Bellesides, Lott, or Ehrlich, no one citing this stuff as "athoritative" can be taken seriously.
|
|
#79
10-05-2005, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Always bring a gun to a knife fight.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It is not probable that you will EVER confront an "opponent" who is aiming any gun at you, unless you put yourself in dangerous situations regularly. And if that small chance does come to be, it is even less likely that you will have your weapon available. And even then, there is a good possibility your weapon will end up doing you no good. [/ QUOTE ] It's not probable that I will ever be in a front end collision, even though I put myself in dangerous situations regularly. And if that small chance does come to be, there is a good possibility the airbag will end up doing me no good. But I have airbags. They're rated for collisions that are likely, not collisions that are possible. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, it IS probable that you will be in at least one car accident during a lifetime of driving. -ptmusic
|
|
#80
10-05-2005, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Always bring a gun to a knife fight.
[ QUOTE ]
ptmusic, I think if you replace "probable" with "most probable" you will see the point the poster was trying to make. [/ QUOTE ] Ok - the "most probable" outcome during the remainder of your life is that you will NOT have be faced with a gun pointed at you by a criminal about to harm you. Again, if you use "probable" or "most probable" as your criteria for setting a limit, then no one should have any weapons at all. -ptmusic
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
