Trayvon Martin

[Balta1701]

As opposed to the people who were killed without trying to protect themselves?

If I give you a 1% chance of being killed if you do not try to protect yourself and a 2% chance of being killed if you do, which do you choose?

 

Are the contents of your wallet worth dying for?

[Y2HH]

If I give you a 1% chance of being killed if you do not try to protect yourself and a 2% chance of being killed if you do, which do you choose?

 

Are the contents of your wallet worth dying for?

 

In this case, you take the 1% option. However, there is no way to guarantee those percentages wouldn't be flipped dependent on the scenario...and in that case, you take the other.

[Balta1701]

In this case, you take the 1% option. However, there is no way to guarantee those percentages wouldn't be flipped dependent on the scenario...and in that case, you take the other.

But the data from now multiple studies says...on average, you're more likely to be hurt yourself when you try to defend yourself. THat's the end result of those 2 studies.

[Y2HH]

But the data from now multiple studies says...on average, you're more likely to be hurt yourself when you try to defend yourself. THat's the end result of those 2 studies.

 

And how do we base how accurate these studies are?

 

"Our results indicate that Stand Your Ground laws are associated with a significant increase in the number of homicides among whites, especially white males. According to our estimates, between 4.4 and 7.4 additional white males are killed each month as a result of these laws. We find no evidence to suggest that these laws increase homicides among blacks."

 

So this is a racial thing? Seems, according to that study, that stand your ground laws are only bad for white people.

 

Seems like flawed results, because logic would say that standing your ground wouldn't matter what color you are. And 4.4 to 7.4 is +/-3...with numbers that low, that's kind of a statistical reach, is it not?

Edited July 2, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

And how do we base how accurate these studies are?

 

"Our results indicate that Stand Your Ground laws are associated with a significant increase in the number of homicides among whites, especially white males. According to our estimates, between 4.4 and 7.4 additional white males are killed each month as a result of these laws. We find no evidence to suggest that these laws increase homicides among blacks."

 

So this is a racial thing? Seems, according to that study, that stand your ground laws are only bad for white people.

 

Seems like flawed results, because logic would say that standing your ground wouldn't matter what color you are. And 4.4 to 7.4 is +/-3...with numbers that low, that's kind of a statistical reach, is it not?

What that might say is that the presence of the law has a big impact on whether or not White people choose to carry.

 

And no, if the quoted margin of error is plus/minus 1.5 (not plus or minus 3), then that means 0 is 4 sigma units away. That means the probability of that result being statistically significant is 99.994%.

 

The other way to evaluate that type of data is to look for...multiple studies performed independently that tell the same story...and we're now up to 2.

[Y2HH]

What that might say is that the presence of the law has a big impact on whether or not White people choose to carry.

 

And no, if the quoted margin of error is plus/minus 1.5 (not plus or minus 3), then that means 0 is 4 sigma units away. That means the probability of that result being statistically significant is 99.994%.

 

The other way to evaluate that type of data is to look for...multiple studies performed independently that tell the same story...and we're now up to 2.

 

I still do not understand the racial component to it...it doesn't make any sense. It means everyone could carry, why is it only affecting whites?

[kapkomet]

I still do not understand the racial component to it...it doesn't make any sense. It means everyone could carry, why is it only affecting whites?

 

 

Because whiteys are evil muthafukkas, yo?

 

Damn, I just blew the stereotypes out of the water of this whole 132 page thread.

[Soxbadger]

There is a racial argument in there. When white people are told that they can legally kill someone, they kill more people. When they are told they cant legally kill someone, they kill less people.

 

It really doesnt matter to me, towns/cities/states should be able to create their own gun laws within reason.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

There is a racial argument in there. When white people are told that they can legally kill someone, they kill more people. When they are told they cant legally kill someone, they kill less people.

 

It really doesnt matter to me, towns/cities/states should be able to create their own gun laws within reason.

 

 

[Y2HH]

 

Seriously...wtf?

 

Are you saying black people do the opposite and like breaking the law...without saying it?

[Soxbadger]

I am saying that a large amount of people who argue gun rights use the argument that criminals are going to have guns no matter what, so the only people that will restricted are those who actually follow the law.

 

I was pointing out that the set of facts posted by Balta can be used both to support his argument and to attack his argument, it just depends on how you want to look at it.

 

Sometimes facts arent politically correct, but you cant just ignore them for that reason.

 

(edit)

 

And I dont really believe it, I think there are probably thousands of different potential reasons for the result.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

Vigilante!

 

[StrangeSox]

Zimmerman: Shooting 'God's Plan'

 

 

[Cknolls]

Vigilante!

 

 

 

That was great. Did you hear the one loser say, i thought he would stop when i was on the ground. Lol! Your lucky to be alive scumbag. Two more of society's poor souls going away. Instead of the hip, he should have aimed a little more to the left so we would have been guaranteed this asshole couldn't procreate.

[StrangeSox]

Zimmerman: Shooting 'God's Plan'

 

This interview has been entered into state's evidence.

[Jenksismyhero]

Vigilante!

 

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20120...|text|FRONTPAGE

 

[Soxbadger]

Vigilante!

 

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20120...|text|FRONTPAGE

 

I can answer this post in 2 words:

 

castle doctrine.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Vigilante!

 

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20120...|text|FRONTPAGE

 

idgi are you still trying to defend Zimmerman?

[Jenksismyhero]

idgi are you still trying to defend Zimmerman?

 

Nah, just pointing out the usefulness of guns.

[Soxbadger]

Im pretty sure most reasonable people think that the horse is already out of the barn when it comes to having weapons in your house.

 

The question is about having guns in public, when those guns present a danger to innocent citizens.

[Jenksismyhero]

Im pretty sure most reasonable people think that the horse is already out of the barn when it comes to having weapons in your house.

 

The question is about having guns in public, when those guns present a danger to innocent citizens.

 

Which is just a silly distinction IMO. If we think it's ok to protect your property or person with deadly force, whether you do it on your own property or in a public place shouldn't matter. That was the intent of the SYG law and of course some attorneys and judges are testing the limits of it's application.

[Soxbadger]

Which is just a silly distinction IMO. If we think it's ok to protect your property or person with deadly force, whether you do it on your own property or in a public place shouldn't matter. That was the intent of the SYG law and of course some attorneys and judges are testing the limits of it's application.

 

Its not a silly distinction at all.

 

First of all you are co-mingling arguments. This isnt about whether you have the right to use deadly force in public (you do), its about whether you have the right to use a gun in public. Those are 2 very different things. If someone attacks you, you can kill them with your fists in public, you can take a brick and bash in their skull, you can curb stomp them, you can use a bat. So its not about protecting yourself with deadly force, its about the use of guns.

 

And the reason guns are different is because guns pose a threat to other innocent people. So while you may protect yourself and shoot the bad guy, you could also shoot and kill an innocent civilian. So (imo) when we weigh the risk versus reward of having guns in public, the risk outweighs the reward.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Its not a silly distinction at all.

 

First of all you are co-mingling arguments. This isnt about whether you have the right to use deadly force in public (you do), its about whether you have the right to use a gun in public. Those are 2 very different things. If someone attacks you, you can kill them with your fists in public, you can take a brick and bash in their skull, you can curb stomp them, you can use a bat. So its not about protecting yourself with deadly force, its about the use of guns.

 

And the reason guns are different is because guns pose a threat to other innocent people. So while you may protect yourself and shoot the bad guy, you could also shoot and kill an innocent civilian. So (imo) when we weigh the risk versus reward of having guns in public, the risk outweighs the reward.

 

I'm not co-mingling anything. We've created an acceptable use of guns in the home to protect yourself. I'm saying extend that to the public arena under the same justification. The "innocent" argument doesn't fly either unless you think everyone lives alone.

[Soxbadger]

I'm not co-mingling anything. We've created an acceptable use of guns in the home to protect yourself. I'm saying extend that to the public arena under the same justification. The "innocent" argument doesn't fly either unless you think everyone lives alone.

 

No they live in a house with people who are related to them or their friends who therefore understand the risk of being in a house with firearms.

 

Conversely, I, a random human on the street, have no idea who has a gun and would prefer that I was not shot by someone trying to "protect" themselves.

 

There are many things that can be done in your own home or on your property that would be considered illegal in public.

 

Why cant I have sex with girls on the street?

 

Why cant I pee on the street?

 

Why cant I drink an open container on the street?

 

Why cant I drive my all terrain vehicle on the high way?

 

We already differentiate public/private for a ton of nonsense. Yet you are arguing we shouldnt differentiate when its something that can actually kill people?

 

I actually can be persuaded, but it would require the other side agreeing that there should be basically no laws. Which generally gun rights activists arent in favor of. At least Im consistent.

[StrangeSox]

Nah, just pointing out the usefulness of guns.

 

It seems pretty crass to do so in a thread about a horrible incident in which some dumb ass hunted down an innocent child.