Thursday, May 30, 2013

Snoop Lion's Anti-Gun Video and Colion Noir's Critique

I've always thought it was a weak argument that gun control folks should be concerned with all violence not just gun violence.  First of all, it's just stupid.  Everyone is concerned with all violence, even when we talk about a specific type.  Secondly, since most murders are committed with firearms, it seems like gun violence is a pretty good place to start.

The video was generously sprinkled with personal attacks.  This is what the gun-rights folks do to people they disagree with. Snoop is too old to be convincing as a gangsta rapper, he's "transforming" into Snoop Lion, he's doing a bad imitation of Bob Marley, etc., etc. 

Another common complaint which Colion uses is the "focusing on the gun" thing. This one is a bit baffling because it could just as easily be seen as "focusing on the gun user."  In spite of what the gun-rights fanatics say when trying to mock gun-control people, we all know that inanimate objects don't act on their own.  We know it's a "people problem," we know it's a "people who misuse guns problem." And we know those people are often lawful gun owners.

The key point Mr. Colion tried to make also failed. He said while the video is vilifying guns, "real people are using firearms to protect their lives with." The reason that fails is that the misuse of guns outpaces the defensive use by about 10 or 20 to 1.

Besides all of that, I though the new Snoop video was pretty cool.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. I couldn't get the video to play, so I can't comment on its content. I can, however, note that any objection you post to personal attacks cannot be taken seriously given your history of not only engaging in them, but celebrating the same behavior on the part of others.

    1. Sorry if you find my objections "cannot be taken seriously." I guess what you really wanted to do was turn it around on me, RATHER than consider what I said. That makes your comment one of avoidance AND personal attack.

    2. Please take the time to read my first sentence. And, your guess is incorrect as is the conclusion you've drawn based upon your guess. Allow me to explain. Engaging in personal attacks, as you've done since I've been visiting here, denies you the right to legitimately complain or object to a such behavior by others (please notice that I said "legitimately" rather than "at all" or something similar). Do you really believe you can engage in such behavior and then expect your objections to similar behavior by others to be taken seriously?

    3. First of all, I don't engage in personal attacks. Secondly, even if you think I do, yes, I expect to be taken seriously. Otherwise, what are you doing here?

    4. You don't engage in personal attacks, Mikeb? O.K., no I know you're delusional. There's no doubt. If you can't recognize that calling someone a narcissistic, arrogant, insurrectionist, selfish, and evil bastard with sexual deficiencies is a personal attack, there's little chance that you'll see reason in anything.

    5. Sadly, your expectations are likely doomed to be dashed. As for what I'm doing here...research and practice.

  2. The reason that fails is that the misuse of guns outpaces the defensive use by about 10 or 20 to 1.

    Mike, I've seen you mention this in other posts. And I recall you saying with some authority that that defensive gun uses dont come anywhere near the number of criminal gun uses.
    And when you said that, I asked you to please supply the source for your figures since to my knowlege there are very few studies that attempted to quantify this. The study by Kleck and the study that came up with the infamous Gun Show Loophole statistic that is so often repeated when arguing in favor of this legislation.
    I dont recall ever getting an answer to this question. Perhaps I missed your response. If I missed it, I'd appreciate it if you or one of my learned fellow respondents could set me straight. And if you ever posted this source I'm asking about before I found your site, I'd like to ask the same. I'd love to read about it.
    In the meantime I'd like to suggest that perhaps those on both sides of this argument are relying too much on statistics. I've been guilty of this here and other places in the past.
    Currently, last time I checked, we have a constitutional amendment on the books that guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The current interpretation of this amendment is that its an individual right and can be restricted in some respects at various levels of government.
    My question is, even if the number of criminal gun uses is higher than the number of defensive gun uses, does this justify limiting the ability of a citizen of the means of effective self defense? Or coming from the other direction, if there is ever some way of accurately counting all defensive gun uses and it turns out to be higher than criminal gun uses, then what should our response be to that?
    My current belief is that the number of defensive gun uses is lower due to the fact that for whatever reason, not everyone owns a gun. So its fairly obvious that there will be some criminal gun uses against unarmed citizens, thereby resulting in the the lower nuber of defensive gun uses. That doesnt however negate the utility of being capable of armed self defense.

    1. Yeah, that's Kurt's thing. Even if there were a million gun violence events and not one single defensive use, his rights shall not be infringed.

  3. The most conservative of reasonable estimates about defensive gun uses in a year is 108,000. That outnumbers all gun deaths and even a good percentage (if not all) gun injuries in the same period.

    Noir is spot on, and Snoop Weed, or whatever he's calling himself today, may be fulfilling the terms of a community service sentence.

    1. Greg, aren't you embarrassed to say such nonsense about 108,000 outnumbering gun deaths and injuries? That figure includes a majority of undocumented reportings of brandishings, which, had they not happened MIGHT have resulted in injury. You want to compare what MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED to RECORDED deaths and injuries?

    2. That's the low-end figure, and it's defensive gun uses, not gun crimes. Your insistence that potential victims must suffer mortal injuries before they may use a gun to defend themselves makes you blind to reality.

    3. No, Greg, that's not what I say. What I say is your low-end ESTIMATE of DGUs includes many (90%?) that are undocumented reports. You cannot compare that number to solid documented murders and injuries committed with guns. Even for you, this is incredibly dishonest.

      Many of the DGUs are performed to prevent crimes that would not have resulted in murder or injury, for example, loss of property or simple threatening. Therefore, you have to include those kinds of gun crimes on the other side. There are around 500,000, and that's the DOCUMENTED CRIMES. How many criminal misuses of the gun are not even reported? 10 times or 50 times that number.

      You see now? Guns do more harm than good. It's not even close.

    4. I don't know where you're getting your 500,000 number, but we've been through the numbers before. Each time, you get shown how you haven't understood the data, but each time, you come back with the same old errors.

      So do I see you as being right? No. With regard to all of these numbers, they're all estimates. They're all based on statistical methods, using samples to draw conclusions about the total population. What I do know is that these estimates put defensive gun uses as being close to the number of criminal uses, if not higher.

      What I also know is that when shown a defensive gun use, your reaction just about every time is to say that the good citizen is irresponsible or a murderer. So, of course, you don't see how the estimates work.

      I further know that my rights aren't based on numbers.

    5. Ah, there you go, Greg. When cornered, fall back on the Kurt defense. Your rights are not based on numbers.

      To refresh your conveniently short memory, I reposted the 500,000 figure just now.

      And I'll repeat that these are documented cases of crimes that actually took place, unlike the various DGU claims which are all ESTIMATES.

    6. Mikeb, you didn't read down to the methodology section. Here's what you missed:

      Estimates in this report are based primarily on data from
      the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime
      Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the National Center
      for Health Statistics’ (NCHS) Centers for Disease Control
      and Prevention Center for Disease Control’s Web-based
      Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS).
      Additional estimates come from the School-Associated
      Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD), the National
      Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program
      (NEISS-AIP) data, the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Reports
      (SHR), the Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities
      (SISCF), and the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional
      Facilities (SIFCF).

      Note that pesky word at the start? All of these studies use estimates.

    7. Good point, Greg, but try to put your honesty hat on for a minute. This "estimate" takes things like "40% of all robberies are done with a gun," and "67% of all murders are done with a gun." It then adds the "estimated" percentages together.

      Your DGU "estimates" include as much as 90% brandishings as reported in telephone interviews.

      Even you see the difference between these two types of "estimates," don't you?

    8. No, I don't. These are all estimates made from population samples. And about that ninety percent of defensive gun uses being brandishings, even if true, that doesn't mean that the good citizen wasn't in danger. It just means that showing the gun stopped whatever was about to happen.

  4. MikeB: “the misuse of guns outpaces the defensive use by about 10 or 20 to 1.”

    And what’s that ratio in the UK? 100,000 to 1? Infinite?

    1. Anyone who uses a gun in self-defense in the U.K. is labelled a criminal.