 |
| |
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
--"The article you provided a link to didn't include a list of references."
I would suspect that the ones that don't list the journal will be found in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. As it is, several of them reference government publications, and a quick check shows a couple citing the New England Journal of Medicine.
--"How did all these gunshot wounds escape notice?"
"To make sure this is covered by your HMO, I need to know how you got shot."
"Well, I was trying to rape this chick..."
Yup, that works.
His study actually comments on this, you know. There are plenty of reasons someone injured (but not seriously) in the course of a crime isn't going to report it. There's a black market for just about everything, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a few doctors willing to do off-the-books work.
--"Ok, bring a court case, and get laughed right out of there."
The LP has, IIRC. Remember the whole "Census on a Postcard" campaign? I'm pretty sure a legal challenge was part of that.
Wraith
"I'll listen -- as long as what you say doesn't become too obviously phony."
-- Number Six ("The Prisoner")
Last edited by Wraith on 26-03-2002 at 07:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP
The issue no one has seemed to bring up (although it might have, i'm finding that if i try to read everything i will soon be buried as people post faster than i can read) is that to hell with freaken statistics, it is my god given right to own a gun if I damn well please.
But it goes much deeper than that. The number one issue for me regarding guns (and yes, i speak of machine guns, tanks, and whatever else you have in mind) is protection against tyranny. All you statist dolts quoting crime rates and accidental gun use seem to be oblivious to the millions upon millions upon millions of innocent men women and children BRUTALLY MASSACRED by their governments in this century alone.
Lets see Hitler take some of the 80 million gun owners to the death camps. Lets see Pol Pot or Stalin stir up trouble with 300 Million guns in this country.
Like blind sheep you all gloss over the atrocities that have went on in this century and willfully devest your rights and your freedoms into some phantom, benevolent government that wishes to take away your freedom for your own good. WAKE UP.
How dare any of you attempt to lead MY NATION to purges and death camps with your irresponsible rhetoric.
The NRA is right, you can pry my gun from my COLD DEAD FINGERS.
Commie Facist Massmurding bastards. |
Oh, you think it's a lack of guns that caused their deaths, do you?  No, it was a lack of democratic rights. Before these tyrants killed their people they took away their democratic rights i.e. their ability to stop such atrocities from happening in the first place. Besides, if German Jews had guns, what difference would it have made? They would die, irrespective of whether they took a few down with them.
Doesn't it occur to you that you live in a free country? Your perceived threat to your life and liberty by anyone who has a different opinion to your own is paranoia gone mad. Furthermore, it is steeped in hipocrisy.
You are proof that if you tell yourself a lie often enough, you will eventually believe it. The question that constantly bugs me is this:
What limit should there be on personal defence?
Rifles?
Machine Guns?
Grenades?
Tanks?
Nuclear Warheads?
If you think all of these are justifiable, your are a complete nutter!!! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lung
Oh, you think it's a lack of guns that caused their deaths, do you? No, it was a lack of democratic rights. Before these tyrants killed their people they took away their democratic rights i.e. their ability to stop such atrocities from happening in the first place. Besides, if German Jews had guns, what difference would it have made? They would die, irrespective of whether they took a few down with them.
Doesn't it occur to you that you live in a free country? Your perceived threat to your life and liberty by anyone who has a different opinion to your own is paranoia gone mad. Furthermore, it is steeped in hipocrisy.
You are proof that if you tell yourself a lie often enough, you will eventually believe it. The question that constantly bugs me is this:
What limit should there be on personal defence?
Rifles?
Machine Guns?
Grenades?
Tanks?
Nuclear Warheads?
If you think all of these are justifiable, your are a complete nutter!!! |
A democracy that denies rights and freedom to its people is an empty democracy. A democracy without a steady and respected constitution to ensure basic rights is an empty democracy. One of those rights of a free people as enshrined in our constitution is the right to bare arms. Sure we could throw out the constitution altogether and vote gun control laws in to take away our guns, that is a 'democracy'.
As was just noted Hitler was democratically elected. Germany was a democracy. There is nothing unique about voting itself that makes a country pure and safe. People in many times in history have voted tyrants into power.
These are worries that were of foremost concern to the people who established this nation. This is why they established a system of checks and balances. So no one section of the government could overpower the others. Of course this whole system rests on the principle that everyone must obey certain ground rules, certain minimum boundries to ensure they play nice with each other. These rules are the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
To even suggest that the desires and the perceived needs of the moment somehow supercede the principles of our freedom and democracy is blindingly stupid and irresponsible. This country has slid very far into an empty democracy without respect for the constitution. For many people the constitution is just an empty document that can be interpreted to say anything desired. This mindset is a POISON for our democracy and our nation. We are sliding toward tyranny.
Democracy is more than voting, democracy is about preserving the rights of the individual above all. The rights of unpopular people, unpopular groups, unpopular views. You cannot exert your will over an unpopular minority for whatever reasons you think are good and expect our democracy to survive.
Democracy is more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
--"How did all these gunshot wounds escape notice?"
"To make sure this is covered by your HMO, I need to know how you got shot."
"Well, I was trying to rape this chick..."
Yup, that works.
His study actually comments on this, you know. There are plenty of reasons someone injured (but not seriously) in the course of a crime isn't going to report it. There's a black market for just about everything, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a few doctors willing to do off-the-books work.
-- Number Six ("The Prisoner") |
Physicians are legally required to report gunshot wounds. Failure to do so would mean an end to the physician's career. Then again, remeber that according to Kleck we're all a bunch of prejudiced liberals bent on taking away the people's right to bear arms, so why wouldn't we report them? Furthermore most gunshot wounds would require treatment beyond that which a physician's office could provide. Based on statistical probability related to body proportions alone most wounds would involve the abdomen or chest, and even if vital organs were missed such wounds would at least require diagnostic tests no sane physician would attempt in his office. Likewise with head wounds. Even when one considers limb wounds, most will do bony damage that can't initially be treated on an outpatient basis. If black market doctors treating gun shot wounds in their offices existed, the trail of dead bodies would quickly get them shut down. Regarding hospitals, there is no way that Hospital based surgical or ER services could possibly get away with treating gunshot wounds on the sly. There would be too many people involved to hide such activity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
--"Physicians are legally required to report gunshot wounds. Failure to do so would mean an end to the physician's career."
Which is where that whole black-market stuff comes in...
In any case, the biggest factor there is likely an overstatement of sucess on the part of the shooters.
Please do read the study. There are some interesting comments in there on this issue. Like:
quote:
And even when a DGU is reported, it will not necessarily be recorded by the police, who ordinarily do not keep statistics on matters other than DGUs resulting in a death, since police record-keeping is largely confined to information helpful in apprehending perpetrators and making a legal case for convicting them. Because such statistics are not kept, we cannot even be certain that a large number of DGUs are not reported to the police. |
and
quote:
Low as it is, even an 8% wounding rate is probably too high, both because of the censoring of less serious cases, which in this context would be cases without a wounding, and because the survey did not establish how Rs knew they had wounded someone. We suspect that in incidents where the offender left without being captured, some Rs remembered with favor" their marksmanship and assumed they had hit their adversaries. |
Wraith
"I love to go down to the schoolyard and watch all the little children jump up and down and run around yelling and screaming... They don't know I'm only using blanks."
-- Emo Philips
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
This is Wraith's argument, but to interject I find it unlikely that a lightly wounded person who attempted to burglarize a house would go report that wound - possibly he has a friend able to remove a bullet from the shoulder and dress a wound, or maybe he can do it himself, but either way it's not in his best interest to report it.
Note that I'm just guessing and have not even looked at the study. |
You've been watching way too many cowboy movies! Statistically most gun shot wounds will strike the chest or abdomen, if only because they constitute the bulk of the body. They're also what most people shoot for. The shoulder is a relatively small part of the body. Even if someone does manage to "just" get wounded in a limb, most such wounds will involve a bone or an artery. How many friends do you have capable of "fixing" such a wound? Fractures resulting from gunshot wounds are automatically considered "open" fractures. They require operative debridement and a course of IV antibiotics or they develop nasty infections that can be fatal.
When are you guys going to realize that Matt Dillon wasn't real?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
--"Physicians are legally required to report gunshot wounds. Failure to do so would mean an end to the physician's career."
Which is where that whole black-market stuff comes in...
In any case, the biggest factor there is likely an overstatement of sucess on the part of the shooters.
Please do read the study. There are some interesting comments in there on this issue. Like:
and
Wraith
"I love to go down to the schoolyard and watch all the little children jump up and down and run around yelling and screaming... They don't know I'm only using blanks."
-- Emo Philips |
Like I said, there just aren't many gun wounds so minor that a black market doctor could treat them in his office. Certainly even you can understand that penetrating wounds of the abdomen, chest or head would require treatment in a hospital. Even most wounds of the limbs will do damage to the bones, nerves and arteries that will require initial treatment in a hospital. There is no way that treatment of a gunshot wound by a hospital can get by not reported, it's an automatic thing and it doesn't involve a decision by the police. There is no such thing as a black market hospital, they're too big to hide. See, here's the problem, evidently this Kleck guy has as little knowledge of how the real world works as you do. He's just making up explanations as he goes along without any consideration of reality.
As to his last explanation, that some of his "R's" might be overestimating their marksmanship: First, if they lied about hiting someone, they might have lied about everything else. Second, gunshot wounds have a nasty habit of leaving a lot of blood behind. In fact, there is often a telltale spray of blood from the initial passage of the bullet through the victim.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
|
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP
A democracy that denies rights and freedom to its people is an empty democracy. A democracy without a steady and respected constitution to ensure basic rights is an empty democracy. One of those rights of a free people as enshrined in our constitution is the right to bare arms. Sure we could throw out the constitution altogether and vote gun control laws in to take away our guns, that is a 'democracy'.
As was just noted Hitler was democratically elected. Germany was a democracy. There is nothing unique about voting itself that makes a country pure and safe. People in many times in history have voted tyrants into power.
These are worries that were of foremost concern to the people who established this nation. This is why they established a system of checks and balances. So no one section of the government could overpower the others. Of course this whole system rests on the principle that everyone must obey certain ground rules, certain minimum boundries to ensure they play nice with each other. These rules are the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
To even suggest that the desires and the perceived needs of the moment somehow supercede the principles of our freedom and democracy is blindingly stupid and irresponsible. This country has slid very far into an empty democracy without respect for the constitution. For many people the constitution is just an empty document that can be interpreted to say anything desired. This mindset is a POISON for our democracy and our nation. We are sliding toward tyranny.
Democracy is more than voting, democracy is about preserving the rights of the individual above all. The rights of unpopular people, unpopular groups, unpopular views. You cannot exert your will over an unpopular minority for whatever reasons you think are good and expect our democracy to survive.
Democracy is more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. |
You make a lot of assumptions, Ozzy. Australian politics is also full of lunatics, but taking the opposite extreme to their ridiculous extreme puts you on shaky ground. The question you must ask yourself is how much of a threat what you fear is? If you look at Hitler, the signs abounded. Sure, it's easier in hindsight, but do you really think it's likely to happen in the U.S. any time soon?
You still didn't answer my question  How much do you think is enough? Why is the threat of a psychopath being elected to president significantly more than, say, a giant meteor wiping out Texas? I don't particularly care if some farmer miles from anywhere has a shotgun stashed away in their house, but beyond a point it becomes a threat to everybody else. If you can see reason in this i might even take back that 'nutter' comment 
If you have enough checks and balances in your constitution (like you do), you shouldn't need to fear for your life. Your democracy is not under threat of a maniac being elected to president. Rather, such things as the Enron scandal are far more common and threatening to your democracy, because they rely on secrecy for their success. You can't have democracy without a government. The answer is in open government, so decisions are not easily made for their own benefit. Remember, in anarchy the biggest gun wins  Also, if you fear that your constitution may be changed, speak up, but pointing guns won't convince anybody.
I agree with the sentiment about limiting the power of government, but like anything else, it can go too far. The Australian system is similar to the U.S. system, in so far as it has many checks and balances. The main principle of democracy is everyone has everyone else by the balls  The people elect the government, who make the laws within the constitution. Police enforce them, and judges interpret them. Any group which crosses those boundaries is threatening the democracy, which is why you can't let people take the law into their own hands, or let police convict people (by rigging evidence, etc), or let judges change laws. In Australia it is the third group which is threatening democracy, along with the public service. The legal fraternity, through such groups as the Law Reform Commission, recommends changes to law, which always seems to involve making laws ambiguous. This has the effect of empowering lawyers and judges to have more power over laws through the increase in amiguity. It also has the side-effect of creating more money for lawyers through increased legal action to resolve ambiguous laws  To make matters worse, public servants use their PC think tanks to come up with ridiculous ideas to be enacted in legislation. Fortunately, most stupid ideas don't get through parliament, but could you imagine what could happen if unelected representatives had that power?!  As much as we might hate politicians, we reserve the right to vote the bastards out. This also means that the power to change laws must remain with them, within the confines of the constitution, of course.
Besides, if you don't like it, become a politician 
quote:
One of those rights of a free people as enshrined in our constitution is the right to bare arms.
|
What sort of maniacal bastard would deny the right of people to bare their arms?!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
|
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
Lung the Jews had guns. The warsaw uprisings.....And it was a huge moral booster to know some kind of revenge was being meted out.
Oh and Hitler was a democratically elected leader. |
Hello, Faded Glory! We meet on tha battlefield once again!
I think MacTBone answered the first bit.
quote:
I live in a free country. But theres always a chance some asswit might want to change that. in any case ; im ready to head for the hills and join the militia |
You think i wouldn't? Resorting to something on an extremely remote chance of it happening is a bit paranoid, don't you think?
quote:
Guns, RPG's, you cant get guns easier in america than you can in Somalia. Go to a gun show ; ask for there "Barreled Specials or Hot stuff"...lots of illicited stuff. That just a start.
But I believe the supply should be available in the event of tyranny. Your pretty Naive to think freedom may be around forever. Always be ready... |
Isn't it better to prevent rather than cure? Surely, once it comes to defending yourself against the government with guns, isn't the fight for freedom already lost? Your best chance of freedom is to defend the freedom you already have, and that can't be done with guns against the enemy from within. In any case, a bunch of headless people with guns are hardly going to defend your country in the absence of an organised military like the one your taxes pay for.
I believe farmers in Australia should be allowed guns so they can shoot rabbits It's a far better argument and, in our case at least, a greater threat
BTW, where's that Lungmatch turn?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
--"Certainly even you can understand that penetrating wounds of the abdomen, chest or head would require treatment in a hospital"
Right, but so? Look, my father is a police officer. I know that gunshot wounds are not nearly as automatically dangerous as people think. Penetrating chest wounds, yes, will be rather dangerous, but a lot of morons manage to hurt themselves with guns without doing major damage. The principle is the same here.
--"First, if they lied about hiting someone, they might have lied about everything else."
Which is why you ask a lot of questions. And yes, I happen to agree with you on the blood evidence, which is another reason I think the number of hits was rather overstated. Especially since I've seen how people act on a firing range. If they (on non-scoped weapons) have a hard time accurately numbering their hits on a paper target in a relaxed environment, imagine how bad their reports will be in the heat of the moment.
Again, please read the re-eport carefully. He covers all of this stuff and more.
--"Why is the threat of a psychopath being elected to president significantly more than, say, a giant meteor wiping out Texas?"
Because it's already happened several times?  After all, most Europeans on this forum seem to think Bush Jr. is a psycho. We've definitely had some questionable people in power here.
This is the point, after all. Politics is, by its nature, corrupting. The kind of people who desire power over others are almost never the kind of people that should that power.
--"If you have enough checks and balances in your constitution (like you do), you shouldn't need to fear for your life."
You're assuming that the Constitution gets followed. This is the point of the 2nd Amendment, to make sure its too risky for the politicians to flat out ignore it.
It hasn't worked as well as I would like, mind, since the majority of the US federal government's actions these days are unconstitutional, but I worry what they'd be like if they didn't at least have to pay it lipservice from time to time.
--"Silly overly-legalistic Americans. They think that the law corresponds to reality..."
No, just that in an argument over legalities, the law is going to take a central place.
--"Too much strict adherance to rule of law."
Did you know that in a lot of places in the US, it's still illegal to drive your horseless carriage in the street? Strict adherance to rule of law is not our problem...
Wraith
"PH33R my reality!!"
-- Megatokyo
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
--"Certainly even you can understand that penetrating wounds of the abdomen, chest or head would require treatment in a hospital"
Right, but so? Look, my father is a police officer. I know that gunshot wounds are not nearly as automatically dangerous as people think. Penetrating chest wounds, yes, will be rather dangerous, but a lot of morons manage to hurt themselves with guns without doing major damage. The principle is the same here.
--"First, if they lied about hiting someone, they might have lied about everything else."
Which is why you ask a lot of questions. And yes, I happen to agree with you on the blood evidence, which is another reason I think the number of hits was rather overstated. Especially since I've seen how people act on a firing range. If they (on non-scoped weapons) have a hard time accurately numbering their hits on a paper target in a relaxed environment, imagine how bad their reports will be in the heat of the moment.
Again, please read the re-eport carefully. He covers all of this stuff and more.
Wraith
"PH33R my reality!!"
-- Megatokyo |
You're Dad is a police officer? Wow, he must treat alot of gunshot wounds. Perhaps you should ask him how often he's encountered someone who has been shot, and among those how many didn't require treatment at a hospital. Over 80% of gunshot wounds in the US involve the head, chest or abdomen. If you think about body proportion and how people aim their weapons that makes a lot of sense. The legs are proportionately under-represented because people don't generally aim for them.
The likelihood of sustaining "minor injury" from a gunshot wound to the head, neck, chest or abdomen is pretty small. Sit back and think now, about your chest and abdomen being wrapped in perhaps one or two inches of muscle, skin, and fat. The rest of the bulk of those body parts is the "danger zone". Anything going deeper will kill you if untreated. Infections of those areas will become beyond salvage if neglected for more than 12 hours. While you're thinkng try to grasp that the portion of these body parts that is outide of the "danger zone" is really very small. The probability that a bullet striking these areas won't penetrate a body cavity is less than 10%. Wounds to the head have an even greater chance of being serious. Even a wound to the jaw is going to require extensive surgical treatment.
Even a wound to the hand is likely to require surgical treatment. Any wound to the hand is likely to involve fracturing of a bone. Such a wound, allowing ingress of bacteria from the skin, has a high likelihood of being complicated by an infection of the bone, osteomyelitis, if not treated properly. If you take this wound to some hypothetical "black market doctor" who releases him on oral antibiotics you will likely lose the hand or your life, at which point the incident becomes reported.
You say that Kleck has "covered all of this stuff". No, he hasn't. Laughing off the obvious discrepancy between his estimates of persons shot with reality as due to treatment by "black market doctors" is sheer fantasy. The burden of proving that "black market doctors" who treat the gunshot wounds of criminals even exist is on him. That is a serious allegation he's making. Every doctor gets a bulletion from his state board listing doctors being disciplined for improper practices. In almost 20 years of practice I have never seen anyone charged with such an offense. Given the danger inherent in a practice such as treatin gunshot wounds on an outpatient basis there would be high likelihood that eventually someone would die and the offending doctor would be subject to board discipline as well as criminal charges.
What then of the suggestion that perhaps some of the reports of woundings via "DGU' might be mere bragging? Twenty three percent of DGU's reported firing at the "offender". Out of thos 8% reported hitting the offender. That's a ratio of about one- third, which to me sounds about right. From his data it would appear that more than half of the DGU incidents occured indoors, and therefore at close range.
Another thing I noticed is that 65% of the "defenders" claimed to have reported the incident to the police. Surely this can be verifyed? No? Kleck blithely charges all the police in the United States with sheer laziness or gross incompetence because their records don't support his results. I think that the burden of proof is on him regarding this claim too.
Last edited by Dr Strangelove on 26-03-2002 at 22:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
|
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
"Isn't it better to prevent rather than cure? Surely, once it comes to defending yourself against the government with guns, isn't the fight for freedom already lost? Your best chance of freedom is to defend the freedom you already have, and that can't be done with guns against the enemy from within. In any case, a bunch of headless people with guns are hardly going to defend your country in the absence of an organised military like the one your taxes pay for. "
See everyone has this misconception that the only possible use someone could have for a gun is to shoot and kill another. Guns are entirely preventative. Their use is the knowledge that the COULD be used to shoot and kill someone.
This is why they function as a check on government power. A dictator would be less likely to take over when he knows there are 80 million people with guns out there. If that check is gone the likelyhood of a dictator is much greater.
Also I'd like to address the safety and ignorance everyone feels about government. No one realizes how these things happen. Adolf Hitler is not going to march into the United States and get the Nazi party elected tommarrow on a platform of killing Jews. Things don't go that suddenly. Things go very gradually and people usually go along with it.
No one, including Hitler, is going to get on TV and say, "Our government is worried about people being able to think freely and learning things to oppose us, so we are going to burn all books we have a problem with." No, thats dumb. It will be done for your own good, or "for the children". We have censorship and book burning in this country, and the people who do it believe it is a right, honorable thing to do.
Many people in many places want Huckleberry Finn banned from school cause it says the word Nigger in it. Others want Harry Potter banned cause it promotes witchcraft. These people are normal liberals and conservatives that think their agenda is more important than basic freedoms.
Look at Europe for an example of this. In their hypocrisy they have taken away the freedom of many people to avoid loosing freedom. I know that in France the book "Mein Kampf" is illegal. Can't be sold or owned or read. In Germany the Nazi party is outright illegal. Now there are many people who defend this as protecting freedom rather than taking it away, but as things dribble in a bit at a time this slippery slope increases.
Lets say we ban the Nazi party in the US. Then people who speak out against banning the Nazi party must be Nazis themselves, and they should be put in jail. Then liberals make many comparisons to Pat Buchanan and the Nazis. So Pat Buchanon and the Reform Party is banned. Again people who support the party, or oppose its ban must be Nazis too, and they are jailed. Then literature or material that supports Nazis or the Reform party get banned. This is a very useful tool for smashing opposition and finally we have one-party control of our country.
We all dislike Nazis, that is a given. Do we take away their freedom because of it? Hell no. They deserve equal rights just like everyone else. In Germany people disliked Jews, Hitler was able to point the finger at opposing parties, the communists, and declare they were the same as Jews or had great Jewish influence, so he got communists banned.
Hell, look in our own recent history. It isn't so hard to believe. Look at McCarthyism in the United States. People were jailed and cast out of Hollywood and many jobs, blacklisted for years just because of their beliefs. For anyone who says "it can't happen here" is absolutely fooling themselves. It can and will happen if we allow our freedom to be taken away.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
--"Wow, he must treat alot of gunshot wounds"
Treated? No, but do you honestly think that the police don't end up on the scene fairly often in cases involving gunshot wounds?
As for hospital treatement, well, one of his stories involved a guy who shot himself in the foot three times. He certainly needed hospital treatment, but not at first. The first weapon was a .22 pistol, you see (the guy was drunk and decided to clean his guns), which doesn't make much of a wound. Last one was a .45, however...
BTW, I've made far more of the black market clinic thing than Kleck does. In fact, I don't really recall him mentioning that, but he does comment on criminals avoiding medical attention if possible (since "Physicians in many states are required by law to report treatment of gunshot wounds to the police, making it necessary for medically treated criminals to explain to police how they received their wounds.").
Don't blame him for my arguments.
--"That's a ratio of about one- third, which to me sounds about right."
Based on what? I'm just curious.
quote:
If 8.3% really hit their adversaries, and a total of 15.6% fired at their adversaries, this would imply a 53% (8.3/15.6) "incident hit rate," a level of combat marksmanship far exceeding that typically observed even among police officers. In a review of fifteen reports, police officers inflicted at least one gunshot wound on at least one adversary in 37% of the incidents in which they intentionally fired at someone.[78] |
[78] William A. Geller & Michael S. Scott, Police Executive Research Forum, Deadly Force: What We Know 100-106 (1993).
--"From his data it would appear that more than half of the DGU incidents occured indoors, and therefore at close range."
No, based on his data, about a third occur indoors.
quote:
About 37% of these incidents occurred in the defender's home, with another 36% near the defender's home.[80] This implies that the remaining 27% occurred in locations where the defender must have carried a gun through public spaces. |
--"Another thing I noticed is that 65% of the "defenders" claimed to have reported the incident to the police. Surely this can be verifyed?"
quote:
Finally, we asked if Rs had reported these incidents to the police, or if the police otherwise found out about them; 64% of the gun-using victims claimed that the incidents had become known to the police. This figure should be interpreted with caution, since victims presumably want to present their use of guns as legitimate and a willingness to report the incident to the police would help support an impression of legitimacy. Rs who had in fact not reported the incident to the police might have wondered whether a "no"" reply might not lead to discomforting follow-up questions like "why not?" (as indeed it does in the NCVS). Further, it is likely that some Rs reported these incidents but did not mention their use of a gun. |
Here he's blaming the respondants, not the police.
--"Kleck blithely charges all the police in the United States with sheer laziness or gross incompetence because their records don't support his results."
If they are not required to keep records on such things, how is this either laziness or incompetence on their part? Police officers have enough paperwork to deal with as it is, they sure aren't going to be doing stuff they don't have to. They don't have time to, for that matter.
quote:
Nevertheless, in a ten state sample of incarcerated felons interviewed in 1982, 34% reported having been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."[60] From the criminals' standpoint, this experience was not rare. |
with 60 being "James Wright & Peter Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous (1986);" (a book rather than an article).
Wraith
"I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves."
-- August Strindberg
Last edited by Wraith on 26-03-2002 at 23:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
According to one of his tables 23.9 % fired at their "attackers". If 8.3% hit their marks that leaves 15.6% to have fired and missed.
37% occured at the defenders home, 7.5% in a commercial establishment, 4.2% in or near a friend's place, 0.3% at a school, comes out to be avout 50%.
But what did happen to the guy who shot his foot?
Even a .22 fired into the foot will at least partially break a bone, and that's enough to set up the condition for a rip roaring osteomyelitis resulting in either loss of limb or loss of life.
Doctors are required to report of gun shot wounds in ALL 50 states.
Finally, regarding Kleck's statement that he doesn't believe that all his respondents who claimed to have reported the incident actually did so, he's admitting the weakness of the survey. Evidently at each point where we might have a chance to verify his findings his repondents have suffered from a little bit of mendacity. This does indeed lead me to question why we should believe any of his results. If he had reason to doubt some of his results he should have followed up on them.
Over what period of time did this sample of 34% of criminals face armed victims?
I think that police are generally required to report and record any use of a firearm, even if just brandished. Maybe some respondents who reported an attempted crime didn't report the gun use, but that should have been followed up on by Kleck also.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
|
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP
Hell, look in our own recent history. It isn't so hard to believe. Look at McCarthyism in the United States. People were jailed and cast out of Hollywood and many jobs, blacklisted for years just because of their beliefs. For anyone who says "it can't happen here" is absolutely fooling themselves. It can and will happen if we allow our freedom to be taken away. |
Did gun ownership stop McCarthyism?
The best reason to allow people to say whatever they think is that stupid people are more easily identified
As i've said, the most fundamental aspect of democracy is the limitation of power. That means limiting the government, the police, the judiciary, corporations, self-interest groups, and anyone else who desires power at the expense of everyone else. And yes, this includes the gun lobby.
I'm not particularly anti-gun, but allowing psychopathic mass-murderers to horde caches of guns is NOT a justifiable cost of protecting your anonymity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
--"But what did happen to the guy who shot his foot?"
After the .45, he called 911. Ambulance to the hospital and all. He hadn't done anything illegal, just incredibly stupid.
--"Finally, regarding Kleck's statement that he doesn't believe that all his respondents who claimed to have reported the incident actually did so, he's admitting the weakness of the survey."
Yes, but this is a weakness of all such surveys. This isn't something specific to Kleck, but inherent in this type of research.
--"Over what period of time did this sample of 34% of criminals face armed victims?"
Good question. I'll have to see if I can find that book at the library and see what their scope was.
--"Did gun ownership stop McCarthyism"
I wish it had... that was something that should have been ended quicker. Luckily, it wasn't quite necessary.
Wraith
To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
IIRC a spunky lady congresswoman named Helen Douglas, in conjunction with an unflappable President Eisenhower, stopped McCarthy. He did get stopped and guns weren't needed.
Ironically many of his accusations are now known to be true now that we have declassified information available from the old Soviet Union The State Department did have a number of planted double agents. Alger Hiss was a Soviet agent. McCarthy was wrong of course to use the Congress in a manner it was never intended to be used and wrong again when he went after non-governmental persons, such as Hollywood writers, whose politics just didn't matter.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-03-2002 07:40
|