"The studies have shown and proven that a gun owner is 9 times more likely to use the gun on themself or a loved one in a misfire or a suicide than to ever use it on an actual criminal." source this in the future, but I can believe it

but that's called Darwinism. JUST KIDDING! It's people who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun because they don't have proper handling techniques.

"Also Yanik, with all due respect, they are a bunch of degenerate hillbillies."

um.. remember that PEW article i sourced? 52% believe in gun rights? so not everyone may own a gun, but the majority of people in america can respect the right to own it.

"People with College Degrees who have read about basic sociology dont think like this. "
my sister, Sophie, has a sociology degree and is doing graduate work in Tucson at the U of A (she went to Arkansas, but now it's Arizona so we keep the U of A title yay)

and she definitely believes in gun rights. She's in favor of gun control too, but she understands the basic idea that people should be secured against the government. This is a woman who is liberal in my mind, and has much differing opinions on tax policy and subtextual racism in our society than i do (different argument, we can talk about this stuff later if you want) but we both agree on this

having the right to own guns is not inherently stupid.

is she single?

Wow, thanks for trying to take the fun out of the thread's much needed comic relief, brain.

@brainbomb

yeah, but she has two kittens so i dunno if you got an opening there

"is she single?"
Also, piece of advice, knowing everything I know about the Yanik's, DON'T OH GOD DON'T

you know how it is down here, i'm in southern missouri. everyone owns guns, its a way of life. I am not against gun ownership entirely. I have tried and tried to understand any reasonable purpose for why an american would need a heavy assault weapon.

So perhaps I ought to clarify what I am against.

1. Guns for the purpose of stockpiling out of fear.
2. (see #1) Ownership of 3 or more guns, as there is zero logical reason for this.
3. Ownership of AR-15's, Silencers, Scopes, and weapons which are clearly intended to inflict harm on HUMANS.
4. Ownership of armor peircing bullets (see #3)
5. Ownership of weapons able to bring down aircraft
6. Ownership of land mines
7. Ownership of machine guns in general, because... why?

I think these are simple talking points. I live in a house where my sibling owns guns, she is a professional shooter. I obviously do not consider my sister stupid, and I know she isnt some hillbilly. However, I think she is making the same mistake alot of people in this part of the country are. She is trusting her safety by owning guns. She thinks something can and will happen, so she owns them. I fundamentally disagree with her on this.

Some of her friends are literally surgeons and doctors who own guns and SERIOUSLY think ISIS is coming for us. They actually sit around talking about how they better get to the shooting range to practice because ISIS will be coming for us soon...

yeah, it's best the Yanik cul... *COUGH* *COUGH* i mean family genetics doesn't spread

@yanik, I also have two kittens. tell her to look up my facebook art page.

https://www.facebook.com/Art-by-Heath-155003537881042/

"Guns for the purpose of stockpiling out of fear."

if you have guns for reasons other than fear, then you're a psychopath


"and weapons which are clearly intended to inflict harm on HUMANS."

i assume you mean accessories... or perhaps ONLY humans... but then scopes are very common in hunting as well.


"3 or more guns"

well, a handgun, a hunting rifle, and maybe an antique, or a back up handgun: one in the bedroom in a lockbox under the bed, one in a panic room or safe.

"Some of her friends are literally surgeons and doctors who own guns and SERIOUSLY think ISIS is coming for us"

hahaha that's hilarious. ISIS doesn't even care about Missouri, they might not even know it exists. What they want are the big city targets, and right now they're not as involved in the USA: i mean that in the sense, that the attacks we've had are ISIS-inspired, some radical decided to pledge allegiance to ISIS before killing people: see california and florida, BUT... the contact was initiated from there end.

so yeah you're right those reasonings suck

"if you have guns for reasons other than fear, then you're a psychopath"
Or Canadian

@TrPrado

I dunno man those Canadiens are frickin creepy. Ever seen a map THEY'RE RIGHT ABOVE US.

i'm proposing to congress a "preemptive strike" cus they'll be coming for us

I do think there is such a thing as a gun collector. they have them simply the same way a guy keeps a nice set of golf clubs, or baseball hats. and on the surface this isnt a big deal especially if he/she is hardworking, pays their taxes and just collects them because they legally can and they dont even really use them.

Its a whole different type of guy who collects them and carries 3 on himself at all times and walks into Chipotle and wonders why everyone is staring at him. And if you think this is a joke, no, its truly not. At one point Chipotle hosted a day where they encouraged gun owners and conceal carry holders to bring their guns to chipotle for a free burrito.

It doesnt technically matter WHY you want a gun. currently there is nothing stoppping you. You dont have to go through a whole heck of a lot to get one. Obviously this is the problem. Clearly the gun lobby spends massive amounts of money to make anyone against guns, or pro gun regulations look stupid. They will attack people, and keep as many politicians in their back pocket to protect the nature of the business. The NRA does not keep a tally of how many people die from their products, and yet we make cigarettes accountable for every single death and cancer patient even though theres a warning label. We tax cigarettes through the roof at this point, but we dont have the same approach to liability cause and effect with guns.

So yes, I sound like I am some libtard, as krellin puts it. Quite often, the truth is, yea id love to see a full gun ban. Would be thrilled to live in a country without them. Watch closely, the next time there is a massive knife attack in Japan, or Australia, just watch. Look at the comments section and see how many snyde remarks by people appear. Watch how often people make callous jokes when a killing spree goes down that DOESNT involve guns. For instance when the van crashed into the crowd in france, there was instantly a whole segment of reddit douchebags coming out of their moms basements to make comments about how we should regulate vans now.

This kind of talk shows you why a reasonable dialogue will never be reached.

So go fire up another bowl in the crack pipe and load up your semi automatic, just in case uncle sam comes for your guns and your dang freedom.

The fun part is that the UK are now trying to implement knife bans.

Nothing funnier than watching a Libtard piddle himself at the sight of a firearm.

lol

Mm no but my friend doug shot himself in the head by accident and died. It may be a suicide or maybe not. I have no fear of "seeing" a gun. ive seen plenty.

Id rather my friend were still alive and he didnt get shot. I guess that an emotional argument but death and injury are emotional things. I dont even support death penalty anymore

JamesYanik:
"so i looked at the alternative sources (the other 10), and THEY added in alternate definition to rape, HERE IS THE DOJ DEFINITION:
[...]
whereas these other sources added in what is commonly referred to as sexual harassment as "rape". one of them even referred to what is known as 'cat-calling'' as a form of rape..."

Didn't look very hard, did you? One of the most common sources for the 1 in 6 estimate is the National Violence Against Women survey, linked below, and its definition of rape is "forced vaginal, oral, or anal intercourse." You can even see the exact survey questions they asked just to be sure there's no confusion about whether they actually meant cat-calling or harassment.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf

There are legitimate conflicts of methodology and definition between different organizations attempting to measure the incidence of rape. Uncritically taking the DOJ's numbers at face value while dismissing other estimates with bullshit claims about their definitions is at least as ridiculous as uncritically taking the higher estimates at face value.

What's ridiculous is dismissing the issue of rape or sexual assault because you can't agree on exactly how often it occurs.

whoa whoa whoa, I wasn't dismissing it Bo, don't try putting words into my mouth

@lethologica

I am so sorry, I was misunderstanding the statistic, I'm trying to keep a track of how many damn things are on this forum and I read the annual rape rate at 1 in 6, not as a statistic throughout an individual woman's lifetime

thanks for clearing that up from jmo's original post, that one is my fault.

Oh, yeah, you didn't say "I'm dismissing this," therefore I'm putting words in your mouth.

Your post was entirely dismissive. You found statistics that fit the skewed point you were trying to make and then even said that those were unrealistically high. Likewise, you dismissed some of the sources that jmo posted because they didn't quite fit the separate definitions of rape and sexual assault that you posted, from one of his sources no less.

You're a male in college. If you don't understand the wide-reaching implications of rape and sexual assault in this country and particularly on college campuses, including yours (and sadly I don't even have to know where you go to credibly say that), you need to do a lot of research and shore up on it before you go to a party and do something that you don't think fits under a broader definition of rape or sexual assault but someone with more authority than you does. I'm on a conduct board and on a committee that is supposed to (and typically fails to) help reduce the rape culture around my campus and men make someone else a victim of their own ignorance and stupidity all the fucking time.

@bo

read what I said. My original post was talking about the annual rape rate, while he started talking about the percent chance a woman will ever be raped.

then once Lethologica corrected me, I apologized. I thought that jmo's original post had been 1 in 6 annually, which IS incorrect, but I saw my error and corrected it.

"You found statistics that fit the skewed point you were trying to make"

I found Bureau of justice statistics that are true. I don't know what you're complaining about on that account.

The USA is I think the 14th highest in annual rape rates? It's absurdly high, but no: I do not agree with some of the new age sampling methods, such as the ones that created the 1 in 5 College statistic for women - if you want to argue THAT number with me, then we can have that debate


Does America have a problem? GOD YES.

Also Bo stop with the

"you're a male in college" so what? Because I'm a male in college, I can't understand issues that don't directly effect me? Jesus the arrogance in that. Argue what I say, not because I have a penis

The female statistic for getting raped, including that the report said 4 in 5 rapes are unreported, but I'll multiply by 9 for a 1 to 10 ratio: .061*9=.549

half of a percent of women on campuses will face sexual assault on their time on campus. THAT IS STILL HIGH- admitting that, but it is not 1 in 5.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

I'm a white male leading a privileged life and going to college. Why would I be able to understand empathy?

you're part Mexican so you're oppressed enough to have thought that is meaningful

"Because I'm a male in college, I can't understand issues that don't directly effect me?"

For a guy who says "don't put words in my mouth" as much as you do, you seem to do a great job of putting words in people's mouths. Not all men are rapists but the vast majority of rapists are men. Last I checked, the vast majority of men have penises. Ergo, the vast majority of rapes are committed by people with a penis.

Does that mean you are inherently guilty if accused? No. Does that mean you don't understand sexual assault and rape? No. Does that mean you do? No. You need to. If you already do, great. If you don't, then learn. That's it. Nobody insulted you and if your pride is hurt then you're the one hurting it, not me. I'm not assuming to know you, I'm just perfectly knowledgable through a shitload of personal experience that a ton of guys don't know what rape actually is.

"half of a percent of women on campuses will face sexual assault on their time on campus."

.549 is not half a percent. Can you direct me to the math that you're using here? Neither number is right anyway. The 1-in-5 number is typically attributed to this publication:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf

"Data were collected using a Web-based survey from over 6,800 undergraduate students (5,466 women and 1,375 men). Data indicate that 13.7% of undergraduate women had been victims of at least one completed sexual assault since entering college: 4.7% were victims of physically forced sexual assault; 7.8% of women were sexually assaulted when they were incapacitated after voluntarily consuming drugs and/or alcohol (i.e., they were victims of alcohol and/or other drug- [AOD] enabled sexual assault); 0.6% were sexually assaulted when they were incapacitated after having been given a drug without their knowledge (i.e., they were certain they had been victims of drug-facilitated sexual assault [DFSA]). Detailed data were collected on the context, reporting, and consequences of sexual assault. Self reported rates of sexual assault victimization and perpetration among males were very low. The primary implications of the CSA Study are the relative rarity of cases of DFSA and the need to incorporate alcohol and drug messages into sexual assault prevention and risk reduction programming."

I haven't read the report in its entirety. I don't know where the 1-in-5 number actually is in there. If you find it and think you have a case for contesting it, you should probably contact them instead of arguing it with me.

Except nobody would assume I'm Mexican unless I told them.

@bo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/23/were-one-in-five-college-women-sexually-assaulted-the-debate-over-numbers-continues/



that's the 1 in 5 statistic, and the sampling method used was a VOLUNTARY response survey through a telephone poll of 1053 people across 4 colleges

the sampling technique was AFWUL, but the results made it's way all the way up to POTUS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7rMm1i-xQQ

and sorry, the statistic on half a percent was without the 10x factored in yet, I messed up my steps once again BLEH I have paper due Friday that we just got assigned yesterday that I'm struggling with so i'm a lil out of it...ANYWAYS

the percent of women, assuming the 10:1 ratio is correct (of the number of unreported rapes to reported rapes), is 5.49% chance, whereas it is less otherwise if you only take the reported data, but obviously many are going unreported... onwards!!!

just check out my link from one post ago, I'm not going to try to rework everything right now I'm kind of strung out, but if you have any more specific questions i'll try to answer them

Lol, James, of course it made it up to the president. In fact, the NCJRS often reports directly to and is used by the US Department of Justice, which you cited earlier and called "fact" - correctly so. I'm not a statistician and I'm not even gonna comment on their methods because I just posted a thread about CNN literally not even polling people in a certain major demographic in order to skew results. I'll just say that there is no way in hell they are ever gonna be able to put together useful statistics in anything but a voluntary response survey.

The number of unreported cases on campuses around the nation is "greater than 90%" - so your 1 in 10 number is reasonable, but at >90%, there is not much breathing room between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 or even a more dramatic number. Obviously, it's impossible to know for certain. The figure that the NCJRS uses is reasonable depending on what variables they used. The 5.49% is also reasonable with the variable you used but you'd have to read their report. I wouldn't blame you if you didn't want to bother.