[JamesWWIII]

Originally Posted by schoy

Just stop. This is why and how statistics can be manipulated to prove a point.

Couldn't help but notice that you didn't aim this same criticism at our Canadian poster's "17% of unnatural deaths" statistic, which is an even more obviously manipulated figure. Hmm...wonder why that might be? You're not another one of those tiresome individuals who only take issue with statistics when they run counter to your own viewpoints?

Of course, context matters. If you choose to pursue a career path in the illicit drug trade, your personal risk of being killed by a gun is greatly increased over someone who pursues a career path in the culinary arts. If you never swim in any natural body of water, your personal risk of being attacked by a shark in your lifetime is very nearly zero. However, there has to be a way to discuss the general risk (or incidence, call it what you like) of events like these occurring randomly within a certain population, and that's what fravel was expressing. Pedantry doesn't weaken his point. Being murdered by firearm in the United States is a rare event, even more so if we take context into account.

[CigarPundit]

TL/DR every post on statistics regarding guns in society, so maybe I’m missing something. But to me, discussing violent crime statistics as a means of advancing gun control policy arguments misses a fundamental point: Freedom is not free. A free and open society in which people are citizens with individual liberty rather than subjects of the State carries with it a number of risks that we willingly tolerate as a price we pay for freedom. The right to keep and bear arms is certainly one such risk. It has resulted in a country that has hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation. There are so many guns in this country that attempting to purge them from our society—even if it were Constitutionally permissible and desirable from a policy standpoint (which it isn’t)—would be virtually impossible. Thus, we must recognize that attempts to limit access by law abiding citizens to firearms will have little impact on the bad guys, who will always be able to get them anyway.

There are many other examples of the tolerance of risk as a price of freedom. The fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments all operate to increase the likelihood that bad guys, including violent criminals and deranged Muslim jihadists, will escape detection, prosecution, and conviction for their crimes. But these are very important rights that we should not be willing to give up based largely upon emotional reactions to highly publicized, but statistically insignificant, events, or contorted analyses of statistics in general, which are easily manipulated anyway.

[schoy]

Originally Posted by JamesWWIII

Couldn't help but notice that you didn't aim this same criticism at our Canadian poster's "17% of unnatural deaths" statistic, which is an even more obviously manipulated figure. Hmm...wonder why that might be? You're not another one of those tiresome individuals who only take issue with statistics when they run counter to your own viewpoints?

Of course, context matters. If you choose to pursue a career path in the illicit drug trade, your personal risk of being killed by a gun is greatly increased over someone who pursues a career path in the culinary arts. If you never swim in any natural body of water, your personal risk of being attacked by a shark in your lifetime is very nearly zero. However, there has to be a way to discuss the general risk (or incidence, call it what you like) of events like these occurring randomly within a certain population, and that's what fravel was expressing. Pedantry doesn't weaken his point. Being murdered by firearm in the United States is a rare event, even more so if we take context into account.

I didn't respond to that other statistic because I didn't see it. I don't have time to pick apart every statistic that appears on these forums, just the ones that I see and the ones that I feel are the most egregious. If you want to address the other ones that you believe are misleading, by all means go right ahead.

Edit: there's also no such thing as "general risk". By using such a term, you're just conflating incidence with risk, which as I have shown, are different concepts.

[JamesWWIII]

Originally Posted by schoy

I didn't respond to that other statistic because I didn't want to see it. I don't have time to pick apart every statistic that appears on these forums, just the ones that I see that I feel are most threatening to my worldview.

Fixed that for you, bud.

[Maynard]

I'm apparently in late on this, but does all the skepticism mean that I wasted the $700 worth of legos I bought to make this? Please reply quickly, I need to go underground before I'm swept up by the Hasbro commission on conspiracy charges.

https://www.brickwarriors.com/produc...ngton-r4-c.jpg

Originally Posted by Maynard

I'm apparently in late on this, but does all the skepticism mean that I wasted the $700 worth of legos I bought to make this? Please reply quickly, I need to go underground before I'm swept up by the Hasbro commission on conspiracy charges.

https://www.brickwarriors.com/produc...ngton-r4-c.jpg

Looks like a heavy barrel version with no bayonet lug...you should be good.

[Captain Blood]

What happened to a 3D printed gun at the range

https://www.wfaa.com/mobile/article/.../287-581760605

(Via WFAA)

[JamesWWIII]

Originally Posted by Real Dodger

What happened to a 3D printed gun at the range

https://www.wfaa.com/mobile/article/.../287-581760605

(Via WFAA)

Fairly predictable stuff there. Yet this is the type of thing that bed-wetting anti-gun nuts have their panties in a wad over.

[Yapakanichi]

whoever thought making a 3D printed plastic gun was a good idea didn't think the physics through.....

Now with that said....I think what needs to be brought up is people making these, creating a mold, and mass producing these guns in a more durable material...

EDIT: They do have metal

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by schoy

Just stop. This is why and how statistics can be manipulated to prove a point.

You're confusing incidence and risk. Incidence is not the same as risk. If all I wanted to know was the incidence of gun deaths in the overall US population, then your calculation may be correct. But it is a much different calculation when we get into the risks of gun ownership or gun use in the US.

Let's take death by lightning strikes. 15 people have died of lightning strikes so far this year, which makes the incidence of lightning strike deaths approximately 0.000004%, a very small number. However, if I were to carry a 10-foot metal pole on a bare mountaintop during a thunderstorm, the risk of lightning strike death would surely be significantly higher.

Let's go back to gun fatalities. The risk of dying due to a gun-related incident is surely different for, say, a child staying in a hospital vs a 30-year-old man going hunting with his inebriated buddies without safety vests on. Or a college student at an Ivy League school vs a black teenager in South Central LA. When we're talking about risks posed by an activity, you need to evaluate the context in which the risk exists; you don't just look at the entire population and then use it as the denominator. The 0.004% number is only useful to an immigrant considering whether to move to the US and wants to know the chances of being killed by a gun, assuming he closes his eyes and randomly picks a location to live. Other than that, that figure is completely meanigless.

The incidence of lightning strikes on people carrying 10ft metal poles during a lightning storm / the population of people carrying 10ft metal poles during a lightning storm is a pretty damn good risk metric.

You are talking about the risk of gun ownership or use in the US. The gun related deaths (not purposefully self inflicted) in the US / the population of the US is a pretty decent risk metric. If you disagree - what metric do you think would be better?

edit: how about % of the population that owns guns? Well, that has actually dropped over the last 50 years while the gun related deaths has increased over the same period. That is more of a correlation than a risk metric, and we all know correlation <> causation, but it's a stab at trying to think of what you might be looking for here.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by schoy

I didn't respond to that other statistic because I didn't see it. I don't have time to pick apart every statistic that appears on these forums, just the ones that I see and the ones that I feel are the most egregious. If you want to address the other ones that you believe are misleading, by all means go right ahead.

Edit: there's also no such thing as "general risk". By using such a term, you're just conflating incidence with risk, which as I have shown, are different concepts.

I feel like you shouldn't try and teach about what risk is if you don't understand it yourself. You are fundamentally wrong, incidence and risk are directly related to another when looking at any form of historical data. If not looking at historical data you are usually using judgement to form an opinion of risk only.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by knowthebattle

whoever thought making a 3D printed plastic gun was a good idea didn't think the physics through.....

Now with that said....I think what needs to be brought up is people making these, creating a mold, and mass producing these guns in a more durable material...

EDIT: They do have metal

Firearm mold kit availability preceded 3D printing. Making your own firearm at home has been a thing as long as firearms have existed. The 3D printing has only brought awareness to people whom didn't realize it.

[Maestro]

Well States are suing the feds for not putting an end to this, and the courts have agreed so this whole idea of digital plans to print a gun are all on hold again.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fe...D=ansmsnnews11.


I think we will all agree this is heading to the supreme court. Congress will need to put a law in place which says you are not allowed to print a gun. Plastic gun are only illegal from a detection standpoint. From the Federal law stand point it does not say you can not make or own one, just not allow to carry it somewhere that does not allow it to be detected by a screening system.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/fire...t-made-plastic

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Well States are suing the feds for not putting an end to this, and the courts have agreed so this whole idea of digital plans to print a gun are all on hold again.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fe...D=ansmsnnews11.


I think we will all agree this is heading to the supreme court. Congress will need to put a law in place which says you are not allowed to print a gun. Plastic gun are only illegal from a detection standpoint. From the Federal law stand point it does not say you can not make or own one, just not allow to carry it somewhere that does not allow it to be detected by a screening system.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/fire...t-made-plastic

Would your imagined legislation only limit designs for a digital printer, or would it go so far as outlawing hard-copy books that teach someone how to build a firearm by hand?

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Would your imagined legislation only limit designs for a digital printer, or would it go so far as outlawing hard-copy books that teach someone how to build a firearm by hand?

I think they will end up at the point of outlawing the actual possession, there is already case law on this you can find books on building bombs today, but it is illegal to make one or posses the materials to make one. Your not allow to have a fully automatic gun, unless your a class 3 license dealer or collector. They could go down this path, but congress right now is so jammed up on worrying about who not to offend this may never happen.


From the looks of it the lower courts will ban everything and the Supreme Court will just through it all out. Congress is the only ones who can really stop this if they want to.

[CigarPundit]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Your not allow to have a fully automatic gun, unless your a class 3 license dealer or collector.

That’s simply not true. All you need is a tax stamp and state law permitting, many of which do. Perfectly legal to own a full auto.

[CigarPundit]

It’s also not as simple as Congress passing a law. The law would need to be Constitutional.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by CigarPundit

That’s simply not true. All you need is a tax stamp and state law permitting, many of which do. Perfectly legal to own a full auto.

yes true, i meant you have to buy it from someone which has the FFL/SOT (special occupational tax) or Class 3 FFL dealers. Then you have to pay your tax stamp go through length background checks and in some state find two people to stand up for you and say you will not hurt anyone and then find someone who is willing to sell you one which meet the current laws.


Reagan made owning a fully-automatic weapon manufactured after 1986 illegal, the federal government capped the supply making the guns left in circulation prohibitively expensive.

S.49 - Firearms Owners' Protection Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-c...senate-bill/49

So there are laws which limit ownership of various classes of guns.