Fear as a political motivator, or gun control as the new McCarthyism

[friendly_iconoclast]

...where "fear of crazies with guns" has replaced "fear of subversives" to
be used as an excuse to limit rights.

[jody]

1. Anti-RKBA groups want to disarm victims and pro-RKBA groups want to disarm criminals. n/t

[depakid]

2. Talk about projection...

It's irrational fear that's been driving gun proliferation....

[aikoaiko]

5. how can you have it both ways?

How can you say to gun owners that their motivations for owning a gun are irrational, and then say that the are so many guns that it is dangerous and civilian gun ownership should be reduced (I apologize if I took liberties with your position, but thats how I remember some of your other posts).

[depakid]

7. It's irrational because owning a gun increases the risk of harm to members of the household

The very thing a person fears- a violent death, traumatic injury or violent crime is more likely to happen to gun owners and their families (or friends) than gun gun owners.

[paulsby]

8. that's been debunked several times

fwiw, correlation =/= causation.

[depakid]

9. It most surely HASN'T been "debunked"

and certainly not by some shallow high scool statement like that.

Botom line is- like global warming deniers or anti-vaccine types,some folks just refuse to accept the science for what it is, preferring their own emotional responses or inaccurate beliefs instead. An all too common phenomena in America.

[paulsby]

10. it's not science. it's voodoo

here's a hint. correlation =/= causation

that's a fundamental principle, that ANTI-scientific people, like you, ignore.

even a given that households with a firearm are more likely to have peopel in the home killed by same, it does NOT follow that the decision to have the firearm is the causal factor.

that's elementary logic.

for example, nearly every criminal gangbanger household has multiple firearms.

and a VERY high %age of criminal gangbangers lives and dies by the gun.

that signficantly affects the stats, but it does not mean the decision to have a gun CAUSED the deaths/.

the decision to be a criminal gangbanger did.

there are several other reasons, but this is the simplest for people to grok, who DON'T (such as you) understand the science or basic statistics.

that statistic, among other problems, does not eliminate those households where firearms are CRIMINALLY possessed (felons, etc.).

[depakid]

11. Yep- relative risks determined through epidemiological data and analysis are voodoo

Now you're sounding like th anti-circumcision crusaders.

[paulsby]

12. if you can't understand elementary analytical reasoning

which you clearly can't, then you can't properly critically read said studies.

here's another hint. city dwellers in countries that consume rice as a staple food are more likely than those that do not, in having atomic bombs land on their heads.

does this mean that eating rice as a staple food causes atomic bombs to explode?

no

correlation =/= causation

[depakid]

13. I understand quite well

what the studies say and what they statistically control for. That you don't like the findings doesn't invalidate the results.

Anymore than they would in any other study of this sort.

Here's a hint: They're not experimental studies- but comparisons of two population groups- one with guns present in the house, one without. The diffierences found between them are significant (and IMO, compelling enough to say it's a not wise move at all in terms of risk assessment for most folks to buy keep a gun (or guns) to "protect yourself or your family).

[X_Digger]

27. I notice in the other thread where you brought this up..

That you didn't respond to the Kleck quote about how the 'other variables' really haven't been subjected to weighted control.

"This association was at least partly attributable to confounding factors that are known to be strongly associated with both gun ownership and homicide victimization, such as dealing in illicit drugs (but not drug use) and membership in a street gang. Either of these confounding factors alone is associated strongly enough with gun ownership and homicide victimization to produce a spurious odds ratio of 2.8, and neither factor was controlled by the researchers. Indeed, most factors that increase the risk of homicide victimization in a way that is evident to the subjects are likely to also motivate some of them to acquire a gun for self-protection."

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Yes, let's exclude any self defense uses wherein the assailant doesn't die

that will make for a useful study, yes?

[Tejas]

25. Your "science" is easily debunked by 5th grade logic

People who ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft, and murder will not obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm.



I see the above as a logical statement, no emotion and about as accurate as it gets, please feel free to debunk it.

[Furyataurus]

16. So since I have more knives in my home

I'm more likely to be "stabbed"? Or I have more different kinds of "rope" than guns so now I'm going to be "hanged"????


You do realize Kellerman even said his "statistic" was flawed.

[tekisui]

3. That is ridiculous.

It is based more on some gun owners paranoia than reality.

There is no comparison between the two.

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. Really? People aren't using fear of guns for political purposes?

"People with guns will snap and kill en masse" is the new "Commies are everywhere",

and anyone who objects to their efforts is labeled an enabler.

Read some of the more hysterical posts here at DU re. recent shooting incidents for
examples.

[tekisui]

15. There is absolutely no parallel.

Political witch hunt, based on the fear of an 'other' compared to people being afraid of mass casualty shootings in public places.

Hearings in Congress to expose any who have involvement or connection compared to a few anonymous poster on a website saying their should be restrictions to gun ownership.

Get over you feigned victim-hood.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Unreasonable fear of getting shot is more reasonable than unreasonable fear of 'subversives'

OK, got it.

[tekisui]

18. Poor pitiful gun owner, everybody's out to get you.

:rofl:

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. I don't own a gun. Bzzt. Next contestant!

Anyway, I thought the gun owners were all supposed to be plotting feverishly (with the active or tacit
encouragement of the NRA and the RW radio/TV types, of course) in their
basements and double-wides to take out their frustrations in a final blaze of glory.

Or something like that.

[tekisui]

21. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

You stared an OP trying to connect McCarthyism to people voicing concern over mass shootings.

When someone knocks on a gun owners door to take the gun away, or hearings are held to out a gun owner, repost. Until then, get over yourself.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Give me a good reason why things should get that far

I looked at all the bile, hatred, and general invective directed at gun owners in general and the
NRA in particular. You'd think it was 1952, and the NRA was the ACLU

People used the intertubes to let Congress know that messing with the Second Amendment is Not
A Good Thing. It worked (for the moment).

You may not care for the results, but that's the American way.

Would that this had happpened earlier in the decade to protect the rest of the Constitution,
but at least it was halted this time around.

[jeepnstein]

24. I don't think...

you'll catch Tekisui going so far as to call for a ban of anything at this point. What you will find in most of his posts is a willingness to protect the Constitution while trying to allay the fears of a portion of the population. I've yet to hear him be as insulting or mean as I have sometimes been on this board.

Gun owners are being vilified in the press and on the web. I expected the dialogue to turn ugly after the Heller decision was announced. It is my experience in politics that the side that perceives itself as on the losing end of a battle usually turns ugly. It has not turned into an official government witch hunt like the McCarthy Era, not by a long shot.

[damntexdem]

4. No, it's "fear of attacks" that gunnuts are using to destroy our society.

They try to limit the rights of communities to defend themselves through gun control, and to limit the rights of the rest of us to walk the streets without the fear of nutcases toting guns.

[jody]

6. Why do you want to prohibit people from arming themselves for self-defense when government is not

obligated to defend individuals?

Anti-RKBA groups want to disarm victims and pro-RKBA groups want to disarm criminals.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. How about "objecting to the Patriot Act = objecting to an 'assault weapon' ban"

Using a natural fear of a real (but statistically limited) eventuality, "terrorism" or "spree shooters"
to hype passage of unConstitutional laws.

I see no difference.

[Taitertots]

26. The people terrified of guns

Always seem so scared. They need to drastically limit gun rights because some study got them all worked up. It is not that they are paranoid about guns, they just don't want them in their house because someone might break in, steal it and kill them with it.

The president openly wants to ban whole categories of the most popular firearms. He has openly advocated many other anti gun positions, including supporting the Chicago and DC gun bans. We are not paranoid about guns, we just want to get them now because the president openly wants to drastically restrict them.