Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
White Men and Guns

Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
Sat, Mar 30, 13 at 8:15

From the Washington Post

Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country in recent years - not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine - have been committed by white men and boys.

What facets of white male culture create so many mass shootings?

Why are so many white men and boys producing and entertaining themselves with violent video games and other media?

Why do white men buy, sell and manufacture guns for profit; attend gun shows; and demonstrate for unrestricted gun access disproportionately more than people of other ethnicities or races?

..when the criminals and leaders are white men, race and gender become the elephant in the room.

When white men try to divert attention from gun control by talking about mental health issues, many people buy into the idea that the United States has a national mental health problem,,,,,,,,,,,,,

But women and girls with mental health issues are not picking up semiautomatic weapons and shooting schoolchildren. Immigrants with mental health issues are not committing mass shootings in malls and movie theaters. Latinos with mental health issues are not continually killing groups of strangers.

Why are white male congressmen leading the fight against gun control?

Here is a link that might be useful: Link


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Or maybe we should ask why white male congressmen can't seem to get their acts together and do something to promote gun control?

But there are a few white women we need to throw in that mix also.

Good article, mom. And very good questions.

Kate


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Do you think this is a fair assessment of gun violence? While the mass shootings are horrific, and mostly committed by white men or boys, there is an entire generation of young black men who are killing one another with guns as their choice of weapon. Granted that these are generally not assault weapons or multi clip guns they are using, but handguns which are not even part of the discussion. So, in part I agree. Focusing on guns is not the answer, focusing on why, and trying to resolve the why is the key.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

While the police need to address all gun violence, it is mass violence--massacres, a pile of dead bodies, murdered in a couple minutes by a total stranger--that is the issue at the moment.

Or are you arguing that we must stop all crime before we are allowed to address the specific problem of mass murder in a couple minutes by a stranger--especially of little 6 year olds?

There might be wisdom in addressing one issue at a time instead of insisting on doing nothing until we can figure out how to handle everything at once.

Kate


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

There was a study I will look for it. From my memory which is not as good as it use to be......The profile of mass /multiple murder was white privilege or perceived privilege. African American was personal killings and turf wars although criminal it was business related of the drugs.

The final analysis was African American killed for personal reason White was detached killings.

What they found was the common thread was gun killings were the majority men white and black. Guns were not the weapon of choice for women. Women used knives and poison.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

What constitutes mass murder to you Kate?

And every morning on the chicagotribune.com website you can read about how many people in Chicago were shot overnight. Often it’s in the 20’s. Often it’s little kids that are killed. Innocent bystanders. But that doesn’t move the needle at all. Are those lives not as worthy? Do their deaths not justify our outrage? Over 500 people in Chicago have been murdered by gun violence this year and over 2,500 people have been shot.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

"Why do white men buy, sell and manufacture guns for profit; attend gun shows; and demonstrate for unrestricted gun access disproportionately more than people of other ethnicities or races?"

I hadn't thought of it that way! "White men" are following a perfectly legal path, exercising their right as Americans to keep and bear arms.

What about those unnamed "other ethnicities or races" you cite? How are they getting theirs?


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

I rarely side with the conservative sector, but that opinion piece is riddled with holes.

"Imagine if African American men and boys were committing mass shootings month after month, year after year."

They do. Inner cities constantly deal with rival gang shootings, often with multiple victims... some, innocent bystanders... funny how such things rarely make mainstream news.

And what about all the drug cartel violence in the southwest? Those shootings don't count as shootings because of ethnicity? Or is because of the drugs?

"Why are so many white men and boys producing and entertaining themselves with violent video games and other media?"

Who says only white boys play violent video games? For that matter, who says only white men write the coding for, or produce them? And who says video games, violent or not, have anything whatsoever to do with the violence in our nation?

"Why are white male congressmen leading the fight against gun control?"

Probably because our country has a disproportionate number of white representatives as compared to other ethnicity.

And that's only 3 examples of the obvious holes, lacking credible statistics for backup, within this story...

Exactly how many threads on guns do we need to grasp the idea that some of you don't like them and want them all to go away? The fear mongering on this subject is simply over the top.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Sat, Mar 30, 13 at 10:19

The fear mongering on this subject is simply over the top.

By proponents on both sides of this issue.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Jodi: "I rarely side with the conservative sector, but that opinion piece is riddled with holes."

Jodi beat me to it. Opinions are like...well you know.

So who are the authors of this opinion piece (kind of like a Letter to the Editor, right)?

"As a little girl, Charlotte Childress slept on the garage floor so her beloved cat would not have her kittens alone. Charlotte says the treatment of animals is her "button" - the issue most emotionally charged for her of all equity issues.

Twenty-five years ago, Charlotte became a vegetarian, when she didn't know anyone who was a vegetarian. Charlotte became involved in issues of fairness and inclusion in high school and has been standing up as a leader for change ever since. She was the first female mechanical engineer at her job in industry and at NASA, and later, as a college professor.

With $1 million in grants from the National Science Foundation, Charlotte researched what math, science, engineering, and technology would be like if the perspectives of females, African Americans, Latina/os, and American Indians were included.

Charlotte taught a wheelchair-building class in rural Mexico after taking a sabbatical to study Rehabilitation Engineering.

Locally, Charlotte led the 5-year effort to rename the eastern 217 acres of Alton Baker Park (now called the Whilamut Natural Area, in honor of Kalapuya Indians) and the installation of the Talking Stones.

Charlotte has presented more than 50 workshops or speeches in ten states during the past fifteen years and has published more than a dozen articles and two books, including Clueless at the Top, written with her twin sister, Harriet."

And the co-author? Well, they are identical twins and pretty much write together. Does that still count as two opinions? Now, that's sort of interesting.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

So, until the drug cartels are wiped off the face of the earth, we should ignore the fact that an entirely different category of crime--namely, massacres of innocent youngsters in a couple minutes by total strangers with no personal or material motive involved--also exists.

Don't think so.

Kate


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

I guess it depends on your definition of massacre.

Her name never made national news. There were no headlines screaming for gun control. There were no teary eyes in the White House. And no one dared utter the obligatory, ‘it’s not supposed to happen here,’ as they so often do when the young and innocent are so tragically taken.

Heaven Sutton was seven years old when she was killed last summer, struck by a stray bullet as she sold candy and snow cones in her front yard on the eve of Chicago’s hottest day of the year.

Her grief stricken mother pleaded for peace. The mayor expressed his outrage. And Chicago��"where gun violence is as routine as the L train into the South Side��"buried yet another of its young. Heaven joined the more than 270 school aged children to be killed in Chicago in just three years.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

So, we should focus all energy on shootings by white individuals of white individuals and leave other ethnic groups to sort out their own social problems?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but in my opinion ALL areas of social decay are growing... not just one. We can't focus on just one thing... that's called tunnel vision. One must look at all parts of the total package, so to speak.

We have to spread out that focus to include all the intertwined variables that are causing such social decay.

This isn't a white thing, or a black thing, or a latino thing... it's a global thing. War and violence have always been a part of our patriarchal society. And it's not a problem within only one culture... various types of violence are global.

And again, as a population grows, so grow the internal problems... by sheer number. Add to that our instant access to local and global news and information, the vast network of "media"... and, well... now we can see exactly what happens as it happens... something we couldn't do just a few decades ago. And our media can guide that which we see...

Guns are not the problem... they're just the tool. Without solving the underlying problems, the violence won't end.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

SOB because I cannot handle another armed OP.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

The slaughter of black, inner-city teenagers has been going on for decades.

Lets have a look on whats been done about it......

NRA leads the charge to get rid of strict concealed carry laws in Ill, specifically Chicago.

NRA-influenced senators continue to block naming any head of the ATF, since Bush admin.

NRA-influenced budget bills gut funding for the ATF, making enforcement of federal laws near impossible. See Jon Stewart clip at the link. Keep in mind that city and state gun laws stop at the border, and inter-state gun trafficking is a Federal Issue.

Anyway, back to the spirit of the WaPo piece, we've heard from Wayne LaPierre and other leaders of the white community on what needs to be done: more guns.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

"we should ignore the fact that an entirely different category of crime--namely, massacres of innocent youngsters in a couple minutes by total strangers... Don't think so."

I don't think so, either. Did someone say that it should be ignored? I don't think so. We should be looking at why they are doing it, not necessarily how they are doing it. I think we can be pretty sure it's not because the perpetrators or their parents are/were liberals or conservatives.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

We should be looking at why they are doing it, not necessarily how they are doing it.

~snort~.

Lets look at drunk teenage drivers, shall we? You're saying we shouldn't be concerned where they got their booze, just the emotional and social reasons they're getting drunk and driving around?


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

The conservative or pro-gun side, they have a very good point.

The killings on a massive scale of (mostly) black victims by (mostly) black perpetrators is far higher than the (mostly) white victims and (mostly) white perpetrators... yet the outrage is aimed toward the weapon of choice for the "white mass murderer" category.

I'm not quite sure why. Sometimes I think that people are afraid to condemn a certain category for fear of being called racist. Some feel that putting the emphasis on white crime will somehow prove they are NOT racist.

And then there is another group of people (thankfully they are a minority) who don't care about black crime or the thousands of dead black people... and even worse, there is a VERY small minority who are actually glad that thousands of black/latino are being murdered by guns.

I keep saying it... the weapon of choice for murderers and criminals are handguns. Until people are brave enough to stand up and support a ban on handguns, it is hypocritical to try and manipulate the criteria (weapon of choice for white, mass murder of mostly white strangers for detached reasons only) of how to take care of the gun problem.

When 88% of your murders are happening with a handgun... your gun problem is a HANDGUN problem. Why are you people so afraid to say it's time to ban handguns if you really want to solve the gun problem?


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

The premise is faulty. As you can see here, it is not just a white male problem.

The big splashy rampage killings are primarily done by males with a few females as the exceptions. However, to say that males need to have a conversation (whatever that is supposed to accomplish) about rampage killers is like saying that females need to "have a conversation" because of people like Diane Downs, Susan Smith, and Andrea Yates.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Violence knows no political side... it's part and parcel of our patriarchal society because it always has been... and as man evolved, so did his tools of violence.

At one time, rocks and spears were the weapons of choice. The reason for violence? Don't know... wasn't there.

It's not the tool... it's the reason behind the violence. In today's world, there are many underlying variables to the social decay that brings such violence.

There are millions of respectable, responsible, law abiding gun owners in America... of all ethnic groups... and crime is also a part of all ethnic groups.

The opinion piece reads like a racial review of poor reasoning... in my opinion.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

When 88% of your murders are happening with a handgun... your gun problem is a HANDGUN problem.

The only time we get any societal-wide sense of outrage is when white suburban kids get blown to pieces with semi-automatic 'assault' rifles with 30 round magazines - Sandyhook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, etc. Which is why the legislation is about magazine sizes and banning semi-automatic black plastic weapons, and the legislation is not addressed at some gang banger in Chicago shooting up a street with a gun stolen in Mississippi.

The people in Chicago, and other large cities, know fully well where their problem lies.

This post was edited by david52 on Sat, Mar 30, 13 at 12:17


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Dave: "~snort~.

Lets look at drunk teenage drivers, shall we? You're saying we shouldn't be concerned where they got their booze, just the emotional and social reasons they're getting drunk and driving around?"

I'm not saying that; you just said that, David.

-----------
Hamilton: "Sometimes I think that people are afraid to condemn a certain category for fear of being called racist. Some feel that putting the emphasis on white crime will somehow prove they are NOT racist."

I think so too. As Shakespeare wrote: ""The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (comes from Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III, scene II). Is that telling? You tell me.

----------


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

The OP is a specious argument.

Saying that most mass-shooters are white is entirely missing the point, or intentionally injecting race into a non-racial issue. The relevant point is that most mass-shooters are mentally ill kids who have managed to not be jailed or killed (as is likely to happen to their black, hispanic, or less well-off white analogs) or properly diagnosed because they were protected by parents of means.

The reason mass-shooters are not girls is because girls do not have a y-chromosome.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Thank you, Brown. :-)


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

I listened to a very interesting NPR segment earlier this week.

Evidently the overwhelming majority of blacks experience gun violence in the form of murder ( not mass murder.. ..just the run of the mill kind)

Conversely , by the same percentage, white men are likely to experience gun violence in the form of suicide.

Not sure what that means but it struck me as interesting.....

Here is a link that might be useful: This is an extract from the show but does not address the black issue


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

So, according to the NPR segment, concerning gun deaths, more black men than white men die at the hands of another, and more white men than black men die by their own hand.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

i don;t think that is what it is saying.....

I took from it black men were more likely to have been touched by gun violence in the form of murder rather than suicide.

Not sure that is the same as what you are saying.....


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Oh right, sorry. I read "majority of blacks experience gun violence in the form of murder" to men that they were getting killed. You mean to say that they are killing and being killed. I was thinking that the NPR segmemt was talking about victims only, not the killers as well. My mistake.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

In the "black" experience, the killer survives the victim while in the "white" experience, the killer dies by his own hand and cannot be counted twice as experiencing gun violence.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns


The common element is not race, it is guns. Yes, I know, someone has to pull the trigger but the violence is always worse when a gun is available. And shootings become absolutely horrific when powerful weapons are used.

Now I understand that Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and a few other GOP Senators have indicated that they will filibuster any gun reform. That is frustrating for those of us who seek reasonable, rational measures to begin changing the culture of gun violence. The NRA and the RW of the GOP has absolutely soured the debate and saddened those personally impacted by gun violence.

However, the gun manufacturers, the NRA, the crazy Fox News Tbag RW and the gun zealots will never win this.
They will never stop the efforts of the vast majority of people in this country to press on for reform. We realize that these problems are not going away and in fact, they will only get worse if we do not act.

There is a segment of our society that will cling to their guns to the day they die. On the other hand most people envision a future that is quite different from the paranoid views of the Right. We see a brighter future for our country with fewer guns and with less gun violence. We know it will be hard to get there, but at least we want to start the journey. And forget about the Connecticut effect. We won't be stopped by the NRA, by Fox News, Limbaugh, Lapierre, or a couple of Radical Republican Senators.

This post was edited by heri_cles on Sun, Mar 31, 13 at 0:28


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

The common element is a disregard for life... whether the lives of others, or one's own.

The TOOL is often a gun.

In the absence of a gun, another tool is usually chosen.

People don't stop violent behavior or suddenly develop a respect for life because there's no gun available to them.


.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Actually when it comes to suicide that is not the case.

Again on the NPR programme I listened to, a large percentage of teenagers, and young adults , shoot themselves, almost impulsively, when a gun is available to them because they can do it so quickly and easily .

Of course these are troubled kids and booze or drugs are often involved but guns, especially with male teenagers, is the method of choice when available.

When there is an element of time and thought they usually don't go through with it.

edited to add link

Here is a link that might be useful: Guns and suicide

This post was edited by chase on Sun, Mar 31, 13 at 9:24


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

That's an obvious choice, though, Chase... people with an authentic intent to end their lives would want it done quickly and with as little pain as possible. At least, that's how I'd think about it. I'd use a gun, myself, as first choice for suicide... IF I ever wanted to commit such an act.

My second choice would probably be a huge overdose of something that would initially cause release of pain, and then death... like heroin, or something... but the availability factor would present quite a problem. I suspect it would in a lot of cases.

I don't really want to open a discussion on suicide, though, another social taboo not openly talked about very much... mainly because I'm not an expert in the field and only have my own opinions to share on the issue... and because I would imagine everyone has their own ideas about it, from a religious standpoint and otherwise, and I think you'd find that a plethora of preferred exits can exist, along with a long line of reasons... however unrealistic or silly some may sound to us.

I've heard a few folks say they would prefer to go out in a blaze of high speed glory on a motorcycle, swerving into a cement embankment at the last second... and probably a hundred other ways given by just as many people.

We'll probably never truly know why some people do the things they do... whether they take their own lives, or take others with them... or just take others' lives.

What I'm getting at is that violent behavior is not hinged upon the fact that a gun is handy. How many cases of domestic abuse occur in homes which contain guns, but those guns are not involved? And how many victims are injured badly enough to be hospitalized, or even expire, at the hands of someone with access to guns who uses hands, instead?

When all the pros and cons are added up, I just don't see that guns are the end all to end all in violent behavior... or even suicide. There are simply too many people who DO handle firearms with the safety, respect (for the law and otherwise) and responsibility such items are due to make a reasonable argument against them as a total social pariah.

We constantly talk about those few highlighted in the media who use firearms wrongly and without respect... but the flip side of that picture has a huge statistic that's rarely, if ever, mentioned. To me, all these threads read like politically rhetorical campaign ads against gun ownership, regardless of the purpose for which one might own a firearm.

I've been around guns my entire life... I've used them to hunt, to target practice, to release livestock and other animals from incurable illness and suffering, and they're kept in case the dogs fail at stopping a home invasion... and in all my 53 years, not one incident of carelessness or misuse has occurred, and not one accident has happened. And it matters not what kind of firearm we're talking about, or how many rounds the clip holds. The key is having a healthy respect for what they can do, and maintaining and enforcing a set of laws that protects everyone's rights. I live in a state with very strict laws, and I'd be happy to see those same laws made into Federal ones.

It's a tool... like any other with the capacity to harm another if placed in the wrong hands. It's my opinion that our laws are not being enforced as they should... if our systems worked, there wouldn't be so much plea bargaining and so many repeat criminal offenders walking the streets... and those who need mental or psychological care would get that care through a health system that wasn't so unavailable to so many.

It's a debate that grows ever more tiring as the media circus ramps the rhetoric along with the fear factor... on BOTH sides of the aisle.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

What a torturous route to asserting that guns don't kill people, people kill themselves and that most violence does not involve guns. Gosh, most Americans don't own guns and domestic violence is mostly a means of controlling someone else. Can't control them when they are dead.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Around here guns are thicker than fleas. I can think of 2 suicides by gun, 1 a shotgun, the other a revolver. I know of 3 by drowing in our flood control impoundments and 4 by hanging. There have been several by over doses and 1 by slitting wrists. Both the gun suicides were at our flood control impoundment, damned ugly for sure.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

I was watching Candy Crowley of CNN grilling Little Lindsey this am. Towards the end she asked him directly if he would support universal background checks. He was figuratively hopping from foot-to-foot trying to obscure the question...mostly going back to the mental health mantra. Finally, after about a half dozen questions, she pinned him down. His answer was, "no."

Something I didn't realize during this interview process...Senator Reid's version of the gun control legislation doesn't include anything about automatic weapons or extra large clips. It was focused on the background checks issue.

The other thing that was brought up was that according to polls, gun control support among the general public has fallen back to pre-Newtown levels. So basically the Sandy Hook killings are just a blip on the no-gun control highway.

The gun nuts are focusing just on mental health stuff and ignoring entirely day-to-day drive by shootings in GA or Chicago or Texas or your average day-to-day stick-the-gun in-your-mouth-and-blow-your-head-off suicides.

Daily, the Republican Party becomes more and more relevant in their path to ruining our society.

-Ron-


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Well, ya know, Marshallz... I once left a gun sitting in the corner... and for months it didn't move... not even an inch... not one inch. Therefore... I must conclude that it IS people that kill other people or themselves. Because that gun could have gotten up and went in search of people to kill any time it wanted... if it truly could. But it couldn't. It's an inanimate object!

It requires a person to operate it. Everyone knows this.

Anti-gun slogans do not speak to reality.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

I see the gun violence discussions as not that all the deaths by guns will end but just as we have other laws as a tool to lessen the amount of deaths.

I am a responsible gun owner and I want only responsible gun owners to be able to buy a gun. I do not want straw purchases to happen. I do not want someone that is mentally ill have the opportunity to buy a gun and go home and shoot his wife and baby in the crib.

I know that this is not going to be easy as all laws that some do not understand the system they only live in their own little world. The Health Care it is the same fight. So for the good of all the ones that want a certain standard for all will continue the fight.

All you have to do is look through history the good for all has never happened without a fight. It always works out for the good. There are fewer gun owners so I do think this is a fight that will be won.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

I think the only way this country will see a constructive furtherance of firearm legislation is through state and local government. Over time, this will be the only way to move ahead on these issues. In a way, the same thing has been happening with gay marriage and gay issues recognition. It's all been driven at the state level.

In some ways, our Congress is becoming irrelevant when it comes to social issues and social legislation.

-Ron-


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

"In the absence of a gun, another tool is usually chosen."

If you're a female, another tool will be preferred. Knives, razor blades, poisons, (including drugs) and ropes are all options females turn against themselves.

"The common element is not race, it is guns."

No, the common element is intent to kill.

"Yes, I know, someone has to pull the trigger but the violence is always worse when a gun is available."

No, violence is not always greater when a gun is available. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens can and do stop violence all the time.

You don't know that because liberal propagandists and their lap dog media don't want any conflicting information messing with your mind and their dogma. You're not aware of the frequent events that undermine your argument, and that keeps you exactly where the liberal propagandists need you to be.

Here is a link that might be useful: Source


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

I'm Caucasian and 64, have the same 3 guns my father gave me as a teen. The part that bothers me is that a person would have an issue with background checks when wanting to sell/purchase a gun.
I would be suspicious of anyone who didn't feel they could wait 30 days (time enough to check criminal/mental issues) for either function. If the deal is made and that is the only hangup, there shouldn't be an issue. Who needs a gun in a hurry?
Getting mental health records could be a problem.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

From Nik's link:

"People are very surprised to learn that survey data show that guns are used defensively by private citizens in the U.S. anywhere from 1.5 to 3.4 million times a year."

It is amazing, isn't it, that all these millions and millions of people, every year, up to 10,000 a day, shooting bad guys or shooting at bad guys, never get reported to the police and never make it into newspapers or anything.

This post was edited by david52 on Sun, Mar 31, 13 at 14:10


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

You don't know that because liberal propagandists and their lap dog media don't want any conflicting information messing with your mind and their dogma.

Paranoia is a wonderful thing to cherish.

-Ron-


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

How many reports would ya like david, I have a very long list of news paper reports of gun owners preventing crime. Many times just showing the weapon sends the perps on a run. Should I begin now, it could take a whole lot of space here?

Ron you may have notice, automatiocs have beeen outlawed for 70 years.

I and most gun nuts have no problem with insta check. We have a proble with registration, we have a problem having to go thru those restrictions on private sales to family ad friends. I dont want to wait more than 30 minutes to make a purchse, any more is unreasonable. I dont always find the gun I want a block down the street.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

How many reports would ya like david, I have a very long list of news paper reports of gun owners preventing crime.

So, at 3.4 million times a year, divided by 365 days, I get 9,315 times a day, where somebody with a gun stops a crime.

Why not list off what you have for, say, last week. See how many of the 65,000 times this supposedly went on that you've read about. Or for that matter, in any one given week in the past 5 years.

Surely, if this happens as often as this enormous extrapolation from the original data claims, there must be thousands and thousands of examples in any week.

Or, you can do like the "researcher" did, and find 40 incidences that were self-reported over the period of a year, and start multiplying out by lots of zeros.

Funny how nobody has ever been able to replicate that study. Or even come close.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

"Paranoia is a wonderful thing to cherish."

Right back atcha, Ron. ;-)


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

So if guns don't kill people...and people kill people...then why the big "to do" over licensing and registering people who buy use and sell guns?


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

We have a lady sitting in Congress now whose husband was killed and her son critically injured by this man. He is black and was originally from Jamaica. The island nation, not the Jamaica in New York.

I guess this must be one of those exception to the rule things.

Here is a link that might be useful: Colin Ferguson


 o
Mass murders and spree murders

I keep hearing that this is typically a crime committed in the U.S. but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Here is a link that might be useful: Partial listing


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

David:

"It is amazing, isn't it, that all these millions and millions of people, every year, up to 10,000 a day, shooting bad guys or shooting at bad guys, never get reported to the police and never make it into newspapers or anything."

.....

"Or, you can do like the "researcher" did, and find 40 incidences that were self-reported over the period of a year, and start multiplying out by lots of zeros."

I'm not too much into debating the subject, but I think you're being a little unfair here.

This "reseacher" according to another article relating to this "research".

"John R. Lott, Jr a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.He has been a senior research scholar at the Yale University School of Law, a fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law, a visiting fellow at Cornell University Law School and a Hoover Institution fellow. He has taught at the University of Chicago, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, UCLA, Rice University and Texas A&M University. In 1988 and 1989, he was chief economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission. He is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns."

I think these credentials give him enough "authority" to take away the quotes you put around "researcher".

In Nik's link he very clearly lays out some of the reasons you might not be reading too much about the cases involving a gun used to stop a crime. His "research" involves a lot more than your "find 40 incidences that were self-reported over the period of a year, and start multiplying out by lots of zeros..."

I doubt that Lott earned his credentials with that kind of "research".

You're not being honest.

another article, same man

Nik's link if you need it.

I don't know if the statistics will actually support me or not, but, if I were a bad guy, I'd have to consider the possibility that someone inside that home I'm going to break into might have a gun. That thought alone might deter me.

It's not going to make the headlines tomorrow:

DAVE'S HOUSE NOT BROKEN IN OVERNIGHT.

SLEEPS WITH GUN NEXT TO BED.

Hay


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Here ya go, David. Thanks for your willingness to learn. Full article linked below.

FTA: "A 63-year-old Philadelphia man shot and killed one of two men who broke into his home early Sunday morning after they climbed into the residence through a second-floor window and fought him, police said.

Having received a report of someone breaking in a building in the 1400 block of South 6th Street in the city's Southwark section at 12:53 a.m. Sunday, police were heading there when they received a second call that shots had been fired.

The resident told them two men had apparently climbed onto a roof and then came through his bathroom window, police said."

Here is a link that might be useful: source


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Roll Call!!!

How many of you have a gun in your home and didn't have an intruder last night?

You OK, Dave?

Hay


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

American Enterprise Institute:

Some AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy.[3] More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions. Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow; former Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an AEI visiting fellow; and former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar.

Doesn't get much more contaminated than that.

-Ron-


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

I would be suspicious of anyone who didn't feel they could wait 30 days (time enough to check criminal/mental issues) for either function. If the deal is made and that is the only hangup, there shouldn't be an issue. Who needs a gun in a hurry?

AGREE!


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

How many of you have a gun in your home and didn't have an intruder last night?

No gun, and no intruder.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

"No gun, and no intruder."

Freeloader!

Guess you won't be needing one of these signs.

Just so you won't be feeling so guilty for your freeloading, here's a couple of signs for you. One for your house, one for your neighbor's.

Give us a good chance to test out Kellermann's thesis. Let us know how it goes.

(I'm actually not sure how it will go. Dave has said that guns are one of the first things burglars go for. Keep us posted.)

Hay


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

One of the halmarks of good research is the ability to replicate the results.

That has never happened with this guy's work.

Not even close.

60,000 crimes prevented a week. Right. Yet only 1 every 2-3 weeks ever makes the news.


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

"One of the halmarks of good research is the ability to replicate the results.

That has never happened with this guy's work.

Not even close.

60,000 crimes prevented a week. Right. Yet only 1 every 2-3 weeks ever makes the news."

Never? How do you know that? I'd be curious to know what you're talking about here.

For reference, Here's Nik's article by Lott that started this, I think.

"I often give talks to audiences explaining that research by me and others shows that guns are used much more often to fend off crimes than to commit them. People are very surprised to learn that survey data show that guns are used defensively by private citizens in the U.S. anywhere from 1.5 to 3.4 million times a year. A question I hear repeatedly is: "If defensive gun use occurs so often, why haven't I ever heard of even one story?"

That's the very, very first paragraph, the source, I suspect, for your "60,000 crimes prevented a week."

He goes on to talk about your question about why you don't hear about them. Believe it or not.

But, I think it's a good place to talk about his
"anywhere from 1.5 to 3.4 million times a year". I think your "60,000 per week" is taking just that top number, 3.4 million per year.

I DON"T KNOW WHAT LOTT IS REFERRING TO so this is some speculation on my part, but it's a good chance to talk about statistics and surveys and bell curves and confidence intervals.

We see "confidence intervals" a lot when we see statistical studies.

A 95% confidence interval is that segment between -2 and +2 standard deviations. 95% likely that something will occur is in this interval. The area under the curve between -2 and +2 is 95% of the total area. That's the nature of 'bell curves".

I think this is his 1.5 million to 3.4 million per year. He says later that,"A survey of 1,015 people I conducted during November and December 2002 indicates that 2.3 million defensive gun uses occurred nationwide in 2001."

That 2.3 is the average of his 1.5 and 3.4, allowing for some rounding.

His best estimate? 2.3 million per year, 44,000/week. He actually gives equal weight to the possibility that it's only 1.5 million a year, 29,000/week, as it is 3.4 million per year, 60,000/week.

How likely does Lott feel that 60,000 is the right number? I suspect, just like any statistical research, he's giving you his 95% confidence interval boundaries.

If that's the case, how likely would LOTT believe that the number is 60,000 per week? Not very. The probability, if this is indeed a 95% confidence interval, according to him, that it's 60,000 or higher, is half of 5%.

2.5%,

Even Lott doesn't believe it and wouldn't be betting a lot of money on it unless you gave him more than 40 to 1 odds.

A little discussion about statistics that might help.

Please feel free to correct me.

Hay

This post was edited by haydayhayday on Mon, Apr 8, 13 at 12:04


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Hay, the NRA gun types ran with the higher estimate form his work, so thats what I did as well.

A few weeks back, there was a thread on how the bogusness of gun arguments, and I gave examples of both sides. One was some survey where 6 ER doctors had seen a gun in their hospital or something, and had extrapolated out to the nation by year making to look like ER's were armed camps.

One was this - I found the original paper Lott did, where he quotes himself in Nik's link, A survey of 1,015 people I conducted during November and December 2002 indicates that 2.3 million defensive gun uses occurred nationwide in 2001.

The original study: 40 people who claimed they had used a gun in self defense, then he extrapolated that out to 2.3 million a year. Later, if I have time, I can find the original article he wrote.

That claim - 2.3 million a year, or 44,230 a week, has never been replicated by any other survey, and certainly has no support by reports in the press. In Nik's link, he argues that this is bias by the press - I'd say nonsense. If it bleeds, it leads, and in this day and age of huge political pressures on deregulating guns and making them more available because of self-defense, you'd think they'd be all over the place, with gun owners rushing forward to claim how their .357 just saved their life.

- Extrapolation from 40 out to 2.3 million.
- No collaborating evidence.
- "main stream media bias" - what about FOX and the noise machine?
- no replication of the survey results in the past 10 years.

Meh


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Dave, this 'Extrapolation from 40 out to 2.3 million."

His second parqraph:

"Obviously anecdotal stories published in newspapers can't prove how numerous these events are, but they can at least deal with the question of whether these events even occur. During 2001, I did two detailed searches on defensive gun uses: one for the period covering March 11 to 17 of that year, and another for the period July 22 to 28. While these searches were not meant to be comprehensive, I found a total of 40 defensive gun uses over those two weeks. Some representative examples:

I don't see any suggestion that he's extrapolating anything at all from these 40. YOU on the other hand want to suggest that?

"Hay, the NRA gun types ran with the higher estimate form his work, so thats what I did as well.

So far, it's only YOU that I've seen running with this number. How many times have YOU posted it on these threads? 10? 20?

"no replication of the survey results in the past 10 years."

Really, how do you know that? Some more of your extrapolating?

I've got to go for the day.

Hay


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

What? He found 40 defensive gun uses. He then states that there are between 1.5 and 3.4 million a year.

I'd call that extrapolation.

As for no replications of the study: find another one. Any similar study of how often guns in America are used to deter crime. I'd be happy to read it.

Oh, look, the National Resource Council took a look at his work....

"Partially in response to Lott's book, a sixteen-member panel of the United States National Research Council was convened to address the issue of whether right-to-carry laws influenced crime rate. In 2004 they issued the report "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" which examined Lott's statistical methods in detail, including computation of the statistical uncertainties involved, and wrote
The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.[2]
There was one dissent among the sixteen-member panel, who felt that Lott's analysis was valid, that is, more guns do indeed result in less crime.[3]
A 2010 re-examination of Lott's work and the NRC's analysis, as well as six years of additional data, found that
We buttress the NRC’s cautious conclusion by showing how sensitive the estimated impact of RTC laws is to different data periods, the use of state versus county data, particular specifications, and the decision to control for state trends. Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from the array of models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime.[4]

at the wiki link, you can follow all kinds of supporting and contrary links

For more fun, mediamatters.org, that annoying librul media scrutiny site, tears into his work pretty well....

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/17/who-is-gun-advocate-john-lott/191885

Here is a link that might be useful: link to wiki article, which gives support/decent


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

'What? He found 40 defensive gun uses. He then states that there are between 1.5 and 3.4 million a year.

I'd call that extrapolation.

Stop talking to that strawman sitting on your lap and go read the first two paragraphs. I've got them for you above.
You and your strawman are doing the extrapolating.

You're all over the place with your last two links.

One thing I saw at one of your links seemed to suggest that Lott has found in his surveys that:

"98 percent of defensive gun uses involved only brandishing a weapon"

which might very well explain why, according to your extrapolations and your strawman,

"It is amazing, isn't it, that all these millions and millions of people, every year, up to 10,000 a day, shooting bad guys or shooting at bad guys, never get reported to the police and never make it into newspapers or anything."

Your strawman must be a lot of fun.

"Hay, the NRA gun types ran with the higher estimate form his work, so thats what I did as well.

I'd guess, on this forum, that, absent Bill Vincent, Fancifowl would be our candidate for "NRA gun types". Without looking it up I have a pretty distinct memory of Fancifowl saying, as would Lott, that he thought you and your strawman's number is probably too high.

Your strawman must be a lot of fun.

Let me know if I'm missing something here.

Hay


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Mr. Lott interviewed 1000-odd people, 40 of which said they had used a gun in self-defense over a two week period, and some number of them said all they had to do was show the firearm.

From that, he calculated, or, in my words, "extrapolated' out to his statement that guns were used 2.3 million times. 98 % of which times, they just had to show the gun.

This is the basis of his claims on both the number of uses, and the number of times they just had to show their gun.

There is no other basis of his claim. If you don't agree, feel free to find his actual data and the methodology from which he makes his claims.

Mr. Lott went on to publish books about concealed carry permits and the reduction of crime.

Both bits of work have come under considerable criticism, see link for details.

Here is a link that might be useful: link

This post was edited by david52 on Tue, Apr 9, 13 at 11:58


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Wow, david, this Lott guy sounds like a few of our posters here--the more their errors are pointed out, the harder they push their (incorrect) position!

Great article at your link, david. But for those who don't like to wade through detailed exposes of all of Lott's shenanigans, here are a couple excerpts illustrating what this guy has been up to.

Earlier this year, Lott found himself facing serious criticism of his professional ethics. Pressed by critics, he failed to produce evidence of the existence of a survey -- which supposedly found that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack" -- that he claimed to have conducted in the second edition of "More Guns, Less Crime". Lott then made matters even worse by posing as a former student, "Mary Rosh," and using the alias to attack his critics and defend his work online. When an Internet blogger exposed the ruse, the scientific community was outraged. Lott had created a "false identity for a scholar," charged Science editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy. "In most circles, this goes down as fraud."

And here is another example:

But this is not the first time Lott has been accused of overstating his results. In early 1997, Lott testified before Nebraska lawmakers with advance galleys of his Journal of Legal Studies article in hand, claiming to have proven a causal link between right to carry laws and lower crime. Yet soon afterwards in the same journal, economist Dan Black and criminologist Daniel Nagin found that slight alterations to Lott's data and model dramatically skewed the outcome. For instance, removing Florida from the analysis caused the beneficial impact of right to carry laws on murder and rape to vanish entirely.
Lott had an answer to Black and Nagin -- as he has for each subsequent critic. They tend to be mind-bogglingly complicated, involving things like ordinary least squares and Poisson distributions. In calling Lott's overall thesis junk science, Skeptical Inquirer magazine noted his tendency to make "arguments so complex that only other highly trained regression analysts can understand, let alone refute, them." This was not meant as praise.


I think I know enough about this defender of NRA mistaken arguments (blindly repeated by NRA supporters--also erroneous). More reading would just reveal more fraudulent scholarship.

Gee, I wonder why Lott is no longer associated with any academic institution? Maybe because he is an example of everything (short of plagiarism) that academic institutions abhor in its researchers?

And Lott is the "intellectual" arm of the NRA? What a laugh!

Kate


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) " Authorities say a 4-year-old boy grabbed a loaded gun at a family cookout and accidentally shot and killed the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy.

Investigators say Wilson County Deputy Daniel Fanning on Saturday was showing his weapons to a relative in a bedroom of his Lebanon home when the toddler came in and picked up a gun off the bed. Sheriff Robert Bryan says the weapon discharged, hitting 48-year-old Josephine Fanning.

She was pronounced dead at the scene. The child is not related to her or her husband.

Bryan says the shooting was a terrible accident and that within seconds of Fanning placing the gun on the bed, the toddler picked it up.

The gun was not Fanning's service weapon and the sheriff says the deputy's weapons are normally stored in a safe.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

-Ron-


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

I wonder why Lott is no longer associated with any academic institution?

Wait, you don't consider the American Enterprise Institute a stronghold of academic excellence?

"More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions. Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow.....


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

Exactly, david. The American Enterprise Institute is a political organization devoted to promoting any and ONLY studies committed to the same political causes (i.e., right-wing/conservative causes).

It's a haven for failed and pseudo- academics who couldn't hack it in the real university world but can pretend that their political appointment to the AEI is the equivalent of academic recognition--NOT!

: )

Kate


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

I see this character is highly respected....in gun-nut circles.

The January 25 edition of The New York Times featured an op-ed by John R. Lott Jr., a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, in which Lott cited a "recently completed study" of the American Bar Association's (ABA) ratings for federal district and circuit court nominees to allege that the "association's liberal bias on its evaluations is there for all to see." In spite of Lott's long record of dishonesty and misinformation in his scholarly works, The New York Times allowed him to trumpet his "new" study -- completed December 2004 -- on its opinion page.

As Media Matters for America previously noted, Lott has been caught using fraudulent data, has been accused of lying about it to cover his tracks, and of using a fake Internet persona to hype his own falsified work. Lott claims to have conducted a 1997 survey on defensive gun usage, but evidence strongly suggests he never conducted it. A February 11, 2003, Washington Post article noted that Lott's "critics are asking: What national survey? Lott has been unable to produce the poll data, which he says were lost when his computer crashed." Lott also misrepresented the findings of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on voter disenfranchisement in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.

Additionally, Lott omitted from his New York Times op-ed a finding from his "recently completed" December 2004 study that seems to undercut his allegation of bias in ABA ratings. In the op-ed, Lott addressed the alleged disparity in ABA ratings between Republican and Democratic appellate court nominees from 1977 through 2004 but made no mention of the ratings for district court nominees. That may be because Lott's study found that the ABA ratings for Democratic district court nominees were lower than those for Republican nominees. According to Lott's study:

Lott's byline has often appeared on the Los Angeles Times' opinion page, as well. In a June 28, 2005, Los Angeles Times op-ed, Lott used false statements and misleading comparisons to assert a supposed link between falling crime rates and the September 2004 expiration of the federal assault weapons ban. As Media Matters noted, Lott committed a basic statistical fallacy by assuming that falling crime rates and the expiration of the weapons ban were somehow linked: correlation does not imply causation. Also, it was unclear how exactly Lott was able to assert the supposed link, as the state-specific FBI crime data he cited was -- at the time -- not scheduled to be publicly released for another four months.

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, author of the "Political Animal" weblog, issued a plea to The New York Times on January 25, asking its editorial page to "do your credibility a favor. Stop publishing this guy." Citing Lott's dubious scholarly record, Drum continued: "In a decent world, he would have been blackballed from polite editorial society long ago." Media Matters endorsed a similar November 2004 plea from Drum to Michael Kinsley, then-editorial page editor of the Los Angeles Times, to stop publishing Lott's columns.

-Ron-

This post was edited by fouquieria on Tue, Apr 9, 13 at 13:13


 o
RE: White Men and Guns

I love the expression, "If you're going to be in the front lines, expect to get shot at."

Poor Lott.

YOU write seven books, some on very controversial subjects like this, breaking new ground in research, and see how often your work is attacked.

Two days ago I asked you about YOUR numbers and I've been sent on a wild goose chase. I get a lot of character assassination of Lott, but still no answer. I get a couple of links, none of which deal with my questions, but still no answer. You get more of the HT crew in here to agree and help you along. Still no answers.

And you think Lott's not credible?

When we all gather in Las Vegas with Marshall we'll continue the conversation. Until then, I think I'm out of here. Been there, done that. (Not Las Vegas. Never been there and never expect I will.)

Hay


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here