Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Do armed civilians stop mass shootings? The evidence is equivocal because, of course, if someone stops the shooter before he starts killing, there’s no way to prove for certain how many victims he would have shot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
Gun owners should adopt the Obama method: he claimed his economic policies resulted in nine million jobs created or saved. Can’t prove that, of course, because how do you prove a job-not-lost any more than a life-not-lost? But saying it’s so makes it so, right?
Armed citizens have saved millions and millions of lives as murderers were discouraged before they started killing or stopped before killing many victims. Saying it’s makes it so. Prove it’s not.
Joe Doakes
and remember – the standard on the left is “if it saves just one life…”
We are way, way past that…
Hello Joe!
As usual you are poorly informed and factually wrong.
The reality is that guns in the hands of civilians are NOT stopping mass shootings, or any other crimes to a significant degree. The facts are not on your side. An example of facts:
http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2015/03/little-self-defense-in-minnesota-gun-law-report-suggests/
The right is either ignorant of or deliberately ignoring and denying entire fields of research that have had practical success in stopping mass shootings. Apparently you have missed the news feeds of the many attempted mass shootings at schools and colleges just this week.
I have yet to see one right wing candidate who knows these fields of stud exist in psychology, sociology and criminology, much less that there are specific journals devoted to it, like the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, or the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit 2 group at Quantico, or the concepts like the Werther Effect or the Columbine copy-cat effect.
For example, of 74 plots and attacks across 30 states, 53 were prevented from happening, and 2 resulted in actual attacks, with 89 killed, 126 injured, and 9 shooters committing suicide. THAT is what Obama statistics look like, hard facts
Of those, 14 aimed to attack on the Columbine anniversary, and in 13 cases the perps wanted to achieve a higher body count than Columbine, with Columbine the yardstick for mass shootings. Ten more made specific references to emulating the Columbine shooters. Three went to Columbine ‘on pilgrimmages’, etc. Virginia Tech and Fort Hood get these shooter pilgrimmages too — and are on the look out for these people.
We don’t focus on the successes which demonstrate we KNOW how to prevent these shootings, we just don’t fund the efforts sufficiently. And we know that gun control is helpful in preventing these shootings, but ignoring the successful preventions of mass shootings, like gun control, pretending we can’t do anything about them (or that we need to do the wrong things, like focus on video games) is a political decision of willful ignorance.
There is a huge role in many mass murders in social media for example. And contrary to what Jeb(? not !) would have you believe, stuff doesn’t ‘just happen’, it is not inevitable, it is avoidable; mass shootings are typically planned over a long period of time, and notice given that they will happen.
So let me refer you to these articles which lists specifics of what has been stopped, how it has been stopped, and how gun control DOES work to stop these shootings. I have yet to see one of you pro-gun right winger bloggers who promote lax gun laws EVER mention knowing about publications like the Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, or research published in Behavioral Science and the Law – which are the kind of publications I check, and sometimes reference in posts.
No, you fools think you can figure it out from your armchair, while indulging in ridiculous hero fantasies with your guns that rarely if ever happen. You promote an ideology of willful ignorance and avoidance of facts. Shame on you,, and shame on your candidates.
The standard on the left is not ‘if it saves one life’, the standard on the left is what is pragmatic, what is objective and factual, what is counter-intuitive, and what more can we learn. The right simply tries to obstruct the gathering of that information, and the action on it, at the bidding of the gun manufacturers.
oops – missed a typo, should read ‘field of study’, not stud(s), however fun that kind of study can be.
For anyone with a serious interest in factual information, MoJo just published an excellent piece. Don’t bother if you haven’t the mental discipline and concentration to read longer in-depth writing (and no, you won’t get liberal cooties, it is an excellently written and sourced piece). They have a companion piece on the copy cat shootings — I strongly suspect that the latest mass shooting in Oregon will turn out to be another one.
We’ve already seen the false claims common to both Oregon and Columbine of Christians being targeted; they were not. Still waiting for a correction from the self-serving GOP candidates who were trying to exploit that for political gain; but I won’t hold my breath because I doubt it will be forthcoming. It wouldn’t serve their base pandering to be factual.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/09/mass-shootings-threat-assessment-shooter-fbi-columbine
My bad again – apparently I should have been more careful of the cut and paste link.
Here is the correct one (good thing it’s Friday).
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/columbine-effect-mass-shootings-copycat-data
THIS coming from Penigma’s Chihuahua is a hoot: “For anyone with a serious interest in factual information”
“As usual you are poorly informed and factually wrong.”
Something Dog Gone could say to the mirror every morning, before blathering on about “the right” and “right wing candidates”.
A serious and factual Mother Jones *snort*.
Oh my, what is this: http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?page_id=55536
DG – I’m just getting on the road to an exceptionally busy day.
But if there’s any part of your premise left to be skinned when I finally get done with this day, I’ll see to it, or at least sweep up the flinders, later today.
apparently I should have been more careful of the cut and paste link
You should be even more careful with picking sources that are so often wrong and so very easily beaten senseless.
And – doh – you totally missed Joe’s point.
It wasn’t about the facts of armed self-defense (which, as I’ve shown constantly, support my case and demolish yours at every turn); it’s about how liberals (like yourself) spin the presentation of stats.
DogNabbit doth protest too much. Must have struck a talking point protection switch.
DG
In a city with one party Progressiverule, where CC permits are intentionally difficult if not impossible to get, where 5 people were shot and murdered last week, where YTD 354 people were shot dead, where in 290 of those 354 gunshot deaths no suspect has been charged (a 23.5% homicide clearance rate), where 79% of the victims are black, where 69% of the perpetrators are black, where a person is shot every 2 hrs 51 mins, tell me DG how do you explain Chicago?
Stand back, while I dump this steaming pile of #fail out on the table and dissect it; no fear, it won’t take but a minute.
I have yet to see one of you pro-gun right winger bloggers who promote lax gun laws EVER mention knowing about publications like the Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, or research published in Behavioral Science and the Law – which are the kind of publications I check, and sometimes reference in posts.
[Looks for citation from any of the above…finds the following]
For anyone with a serious interest in factual information, MoJo just published an excellent piece.
MoJo? [Chuckles]
Checks her MPR link….finds a FACT:
“I’m not going to make the argument that this makes us safer,” then-Rep. Frank Moe, DFL-Bemidji, said on the day the Minnesota House of Representatives passed the legislation. “I’m not sure that it does. But what I do think is that this liberty is one we have to fight for. Our forefathers fought for it and now it’s our time to fight for it.
[Drops mic, walks off stage]
The Journal of Threat Assessment and Management and Behavioral Science and the Law are both subscription based. Since they are dg’s go-to sources for FACTCHECKING and RESEARCH (second only to MoJo of course), she should have no trouble pasting a few excerpts which are pertinent to the topic at hand from each, excerpts which can’t be found online for free….unless she have just screwed up and posted easily verifiable lies again.
tic tock, tic tock….
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/tam/index.aspx
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsl.v33.5/issuetoc
The Journal of Threat Assessment and Management and Behavioral Science and the Law are both subscription based. Since they are dg’s go-to sources for FACTCHECKING and RESEARCH (second only to MoJo of course), she should have no trouble pasting a few excerpts which are pertinent to the topic at hand from each, excerpts which can’t be found online for free…unless she has just screwed up and posted easily verifiable lies…again.
tic tock, tic tock….
dg? Hello?
tic tock, tic tock…
“The reality is that guns in the hands of civilians are NOT stopping mass shootings, or any other crimes to a significant degree.”
Of course not – mass shooters have been shown to gravitate to locations where carrying a weapon is prohibited. The law-abiding permit holders generally won’t bring a weapon into a situation where theiy will run afoul of the law. The only way to test your theory is to allow people to carry everywhere. Then civilians will be able to deter mass shooters.
Dog Gone, you are a delight: a constant and reliable source of amusement. If you didn’t exist, Mitch would have to invent you to lighten the tone around here.
Nobody in Minnesota used a permitted firearm for self-defense last year? Excellent, crime is dropping as carry permits increase. Herd immunity. You’re welcome.
Other fields of study have success stopping massacres? Good, but insufficient, else the Oregon killings would not have happened. We don’t propose to replace FBI profilers with armchair amateurs, we propose to supplement them with on-scene first responders to save lives at the massacres the experts fail to prevent.
If a fire breaks out in a school, you expect trained amateurs to use a fire extinguisher to stop a small blaze from becoming a conflagration until the professional firemen arrive. If a parent has a heart attack during a basketball game, you expect trained amateurs to use the defibrillator to start it beating until the professional paramedics arrive. If a nut shows up with a gun, you expect everyone to sit quietly at their desks until it’s their turn to die. Why?
oh, oh, oh DG I’ve got a solution – Pass a law that makes it a crime to commit a mass murder in a gun free zone. – that’ll stop them cold.
dg? The excerpts?
Is this another 100k reader story, dg? Are you using lies again to bolster your dim witted twaddle?
Oh no dg. You remember that “false” claim some of the shooting victims made about being asked if they where Christian? Yeah, well even Slate, which always gives MoJo a run for its money, factually speaking, is hedging their bets.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/were_the_oregon_shooting_victims_christian_martyrs.html
You won’t get moonbat cooties, but the smack down might leave a nasty mark.
Mitch, you’ve met dg, serious question: If she popped up publicly, would we realize there is something wrong with her right away, or would it take half an hour?
JD: These incidents are newsworthy because they are rare.
JD says: “Armed citizens have saved millions and millions of lives as murderers were discouraged before they started killing or stopped before killing many victims.”
Is this your version of dynamic scoring?
The only way to find out is to ban all guns and see if more people get murdered!
I am no expert, but I believe that in nations that have banned privae gun ownership, there has been an increase in strongarm robberies and “hot” burgalaries.
But that’s beside the point. The constitution doesn’t guarentee the right to bear arms so that people can be saved from murderers, it says “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
When you want to find out how well a vaccine works, you find two sets of test subjects and give medicine to one set. We could use that method to see if permitted carry reduces massacres:
Set 1 will be places where lots of people carry firearms – police stations, gun stores, shooting ranges, Red States.
Set 2 will be places where few people carry firearms – schools, military bases, Blue States.
Is this your version of dynamic scoring?
Yet again, EmeryTheAntisemiticSoci@list shows his lack of logicity and critical thinking. Oh, wait.., you have to have a brain to think.
What we have established in this thread is a pattern.
Teh Peeveee conjures up world class fantasy acquaintances and neighbors to nail his amphigory to. dg relies on respected journals to which she has no access to bolster hers.
Is it a coincidence these two, who bay at the moon at the same, lonely corner of the interwebs also share the debilitating mental disease of pathological lying? IMHO, no.
Liberalism is, in itself, a disease. There is no surprise that it attracts mentally deficient clods dragging their pre-existing dysfunctions along with them.
I’d be remiss, of course, not to point out that Emery exhibits a variant of dg’s pathology, plagiarizing the thoughts of more intelligent people than himself. I think he’d be welcomed with open arms at Peevee’s playhouse.
Does Berg’s law cover this phenomenon?
I gives me great pleasure to embarrass dg one more time.
Seems the kid that was chosen to live by the shooter has some FACTS to share:
“Harper-Mercer fired into the center of the room and began asking students one by one if they were religious. The shooter fired at one student who said he was Christian and another who said she was Catholic.”
http://m.startribune.com/nation/331856391.html?section=/
Shooting. Christians.
“dg relies on respected journals to which she has no access to bolster hers.”
To get read most of these journals, many of them online, all you need is access to a college library. Registering for an extension class will do the trick. I have access through work.
It is tempting to look a paper’s abstract and assume that it contains all you need to know about some bit of research. The caveats, though are usually in the body of the paper, or at least the specific weaknesses of the methodology are explained in the body of the paper. The abstract is kind of a sell-job. It is there to give you just enough info to decide if the full paper merits your attention.
Too many journalists, pundits (and commentators!) cite studies. If they were honest what they would cite is the abstract. It is all that they have read, and it’s easy to find. A web search will turn up the abstract, but reading the entire paper requires paying a fee or going through a laborious login process. Plus you have to read the paper itself, which is generally more technical and jargony than the abstract.
Both left and right are tempted to cite unread research to buttress their arguments , but the left is more prone to fall into the trap of believing that matters of opinion and value need to be based on “fact” than the right.
Yep. Articles in scientific journals are just like patents. Abstract is a sell job. You have to look at the claims at the end to get the real story, and body gives you supporting info how you got there. By itself, abstract is useless and could be misleading.
Blue and JPA, you give her more credit than is due. She didn’t even bother to read abstracts. If she had, she wouldn’t have cited Mother Jones.
I think, with dg, there is an aspect of envy involved as well as the mental dysfunctions. She reads something here, or elsewhere, by someone who is clearly her intellectual superior, and it pisses her off. I’m guessing Joe and Blue drive her off the edge every day. She probably can’t even understand most of it, but the coherence of a thoughtful insight is evident even to a dimwit such as she. So she heads off on a scavenger hunt for scraps of things that sound impressive, and dumps them in a heap.
HCFC
the coherence of a thoughtful insight is evident even to a dimwit such as she
to paraphrase R Newman “She may be a dimwit, but she’s Our Dimwit”