"The Venn Diagram of Gun Owners"?

[Hoopla Phil]

Mods. I do not post this with name intact as a call out. I did consider editing out the name in the picture but decided if I did that I could be infringing on copyrighted material. As such I've left it intact, unedited, so as to give proper credit for the original work.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RweDA7XftZk/TbdFJ0ZGp_I/AAAAAAAAGH4/c0jFThzjGRs/s1600/Mikeb302000+post.jpg


A = criminal gun owners
B = law-abiding gunowners
AUB =all of the in-between guys, including but not limited to the following.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.


I realize there are others, please feel free to mention them in the comments. And I apologize for the disproportionate diagram. The AUB section should be much, much larger.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The above is a Venn Diagram made by a person that is very active in the gun control debate. What I'm curious about is the potential ramifications, denial of rights, and the reasoning behind (and definition of) those listed as "in-between guys" (I assume "guys" would also include women).

Should a person that has ever dropped a gun be denied their 2A rights?

I'm also fuzzy on "abuses his wife or children in any way". Gender faux pas aside, it's the "any way" that seems way over broad to me.

Should an elderly or differently abled person be denied their 2A right? (Hell, they would appear to be a bigger target for robbery (violence)than an average person and would really need their 2A rights for their own defense.

Any how, I thought that this diagram bears a lot of possible discussion on gun police in the U.S. Thank you for your time.

[ileus]

1. What no please leave a comment.

[Hoopla Phil]

9. Lol. I did edit that portion out. I did not see that part a relevant to

the discussion of the diagram and the other issues with the groups. I figured it could also be considered a "call out" to have left it in.

[jmg257]

2. It is an attempt by the originator to show how he thinks most gun owners fit into

a group on the same level as criminals, a group elsewhere defined as "a danger and unfit".

Apparently elders and handicapped folks, and anyone who has ever dropped a gun, somehow meet a presumption of his and - like drug addicts, spousal abusers, himself and other crimials, unconvicted felons, and any others who knowingly violate laws - are dangerous people who must be mandated against to deny them rights, even those rights specifically secured in the Constitution.

(the US Constitution that is, not Italy's)

Have no clue how elderly and handicapped, etc. get mixed up with criminals & felons, but I suspect brain damage or chemical imbalance has something to do with it...maybe a dysfunctional family life.

[Iktomiwicasa]

13. "...but I suspect brain damage or chemical imbalance has something to do with it."

Yes, on the part of the original author. It would explain alot!

[OffWithTheirHeads]

3. Here is my diagram. I pulled it out of my ass, just like the one posted.

Responsible, law abiding gun owners...85%
Criminals, idiots, teabaggers and others who should not have guns but do...15%

So what?

[rl6214]

14. Please not this comment:

"And I apologize for the disproportionate diagram. The AUB section should be much, much larger."

You say the criminal intersection would be 15%, the originator of this diagram says that should be "much, much larger".

That's what he always says, that most gun owners are criminal or like him, have own guns legally or ILLEGALY.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

19. Huh? I just question the emperical data

Where did these facts come from? My guess is his ass.

[TheWraith]

4. He's simply saying the hidden truth that underlies gun control arguments.

Gun control is built on the foundational assumption that average people can't be trusted with the right to own a gun, because people are filthy savages who need to be under strict control in order to remain civilized. It's right there in the wild arguments pulled out that allowing people to have guns for self defense is going to result in them murdering people over parking spaces. What kind of horrible opinion do you have to have of your fellow human beings in order to believe that shit? You have to believe that you're a rational, thinking human being, and those "other" people are all sheep and monkeys.

That's why gun control is fundamentally a conservative position born out of a conservative mindset. Guns and power for the elites, because the average people can't be trusted with them. A caste system at it's best. It's an accident of history that gun control has become associated with liberals, due to the reaction over assassinations in the '60s. And the right figured, as it ever does, anything that the left is for, they have to be against. But only so much--the right wing is still ardently pro-gun-control when it comes to weapons for brown people.

[Atypical Liberal]

5. Some corrections on the diagram.

First of all, what Mike is really talking about is called the intersection, not the union.

Second of all, one of the people he classifies as being in the intersection are:

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.

As Mike has admitted elsewhere, "After the military I owned guns both legally and illegally over a period of about 15 years." (http://tinyurl.com/6ee7qqa), he himself is a member of that intersection.

So by Mike's own admission and diagram, he considers himself lumped in with anyone who has abused women or children and not been convicted of it, anyone addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge, and the elderly and/or physically incapacitated.



And yet Mike expects us to take his opinions on gun control as rational.

[Coyote_Bandit]

6. Ya Know

somebody needs a pretty basic lesson in both logic and criminal justice.

A venn diagram depicts the overlap between two or more groups. Here we have two groups (1) criminal gun owners and (2) law-abiding gunowners. It is logically inconsistent for the same person to be both law-abiding and a criminal offender. That means the two groups are mutually exclusive and cannot overlap.

Certainly there are any number of factors that might cause a law-abiding gunowner to engage in criminal activity and move from one group to the other. But the ones implied here reflect bigotry and sterotypes. Absent a criminal conviction people are to be presumed innocent. The status of being addicted to drugs or alcohol or being mental ill does not make one a criminal. Or inherently violent. Neither does being careless or negligent or old or physically incapacitated. Or verbally abusive toward a spouse or child. It is just as accurate to suggest that someone who is unemployed or poor or homeless or having an extra-marital affair has cause to engage in criminal activity.

[jmg257]

7. "It is just as accurate to suggest that someone who is unemployed or poor or homeless or...

"or" indeed.

"But the ones implied here reflect bigotry"

We have a Bingo!

[PavePusher]

8. Pre-zactly. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. ding! ding! ding!

the circles are the same size denoting that there are the same number of law abiding gun owners as illegal gun owners. not buying that either.

[rl6214]

15. What he really means to have on the labels are:

Those not convicted of any crimes and those convicted of the various things he stated thereby saying all gun owners are criminals but not all have been convicted yet.

[SteveM]

11. The prohibitionist MUST demonize the thing, then the user of the thing. nt

[Katya Mullethov]

17. Sometimes

you gotta break a few eggs .

[azureblue]

12. wrong graph

A bar graph would be much better. Mike should know already when a Venn diagram is preferable and it does not work in this case.

as far as #'s 1-5, almost all of that is unprovable- that is, not stats or records to back up the groups, so leave that out.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. He has a bad Venn diagram too.

He has A U B labeled wrongly. It should be A intersection B for the area of the overlap. I can't make the upsidedown U that stands for intersection. A U B is all of A and all of B.

[rl6214]

18. More info on the origin of this Venn Diagram

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2011/04/mikeb302000-united-nations-agent.html

Mikeb302000, United Nations AGENT PROVOCATEUR, plays with ...

[GreenStormCloud]

20. He appears to be well known on the internet. N/T

[Atypical Liberal]

21. Interesting information.

That serr8d guy has done a lot of investigative work on Mike B.

[rl6214]

22. Yeah, apparently he is well know on gun blogs

[ileus]

23. I notice the King still didn't comment even in a thread dedicated to him.

I wonder why he won't comment in other threads?

[X_Digger]

24. If he didn't start the thread, he couldn't care less.

He's posted in 6 threads not of his own making, and 81 others that he did.

442 of his 450 posts are in his own threads.

Seems a bit self-aggrandizing to me.

[Hoopla Phil]

26. It has been the supposition of some that he is in the employ of the

U.N. to advocate for gun control in the U.S. over internet. The fact that he posts from a U.N. terminal tends to support that supposition. If that is the case he has no reason to even look at threads he has not created, much less post in them.

[Euromutt]

28. Not especially likely if he's in Rome

Off the top of my head, there are three UN agencies in Rome: the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Food Programme (WFP), and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). None of them have any institutional interest in agitating for gun control, so it's more likely our friend Mike is simply an idealist pursuing that particular agenda as a private citizen, and he's just posting from a work computer. If he were stationed in Turin (UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, UNICRI) or Vienna (UN Office on Drugs and Crime, UNODC), I might get a little suspicious, but even then, it's important to bear in mind that UN agencies strongly tend to defer to the national sovereignty of member states. Attempts to harness the Programme of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons to the chariot of gun control advocacy is pretty much entirely the work of member states' delegations egged on by NGOs like IANSA.

[Hoopla Phil]

25. Well, I didn't post this as a call out so I'm going to be careful in how I say this.

What I posted in the O.P. is in fact the original work of a D.U. member. I left his info intact so as to give credit on what may have been copy written material. I posed a couple of questions regarding the "groups" outlined in the original work, others have also found legitimate critique of the work. That being the case, I am VERY surprised that the person creating the original work has not come in to defend his work against the critique.

[Francis Marion]

27. Sloppy 'thinking'

Logical impossibility as defined. This argument doesn't deserve answering, but what the heck.

Any of these traits:

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated. (edit- 'cept this one.)

...Disqualify a person for categorization as:

B = law-abiding gunowners

[Euromutt]

29. "Overbroad" is the term, all right

As is common among advocates of increased gun control, no attempt is made to distinguish between offenders who (use firearms to) commit mala in se on the one hand and those who commit mala prohibita involving firearms on the other. Indeed arguably, the attempt is made to intentionally blur that line in order to allow uninformed readers to make the mental association with the former, when the bulk of what is under discussion is the latter.

By way of a (not entirely) hypothetical example: a gun owner transports a long gun in the cargo area of his car, say, on the way to or from a shooting range or hunting area; the weapon is unloaded, in a soft case, and has a fastened cable lock threaded through the action. Along the way, his route takes him within three blocks of one or more K-12 schools (which is hardly surprising, since schools tend to be located near major roads).
Variation: a person buys a brand new long gun at a gun shop or sporting goods store, and transports it home in his car in the original packaging, in this case a cardboard box. He doesn't even have ammunition for the weapon in the vehicle. Again, his route takes him within three blocks of a K-12.

Are such people "criminal gun owners"? In Mike's book, yes, because they've violated the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (as reworded in 1996) by possessing a firearm in a "school zone" (on or within 1,000 feet of a public, private or parochial school providing primary and/or secondary education) without the firearm being unloaded and in a locked container (yes, even if there's a lock on the gun itself). Never mind that they haven't actually done anything that could possibly harm anyone; never mind that they complied with the spirit if not the letter of the law; never mind that there are so ludicrously many potential offenses listed in federal law that researchers have found themselves unable to compile even part of them; technically, it's a felony and to some people, that's all that counts.

And then he lists stuff that isn't even technically illegal like being "addicted to alcohol" or dropping a firearm. I've dropped a firearm on occasion, though there was no round chambered (or in the magazine) at the time, it was in my own concrete-walled garage, and there was nobody else home at the time. This is the moral equivalent of banning someone who's ever scraped a concrete post or crashed their gears from driving.

Yes, yes, I get that what he's listed are indicators of potential future criminal or negligent behavior, but the simple fact is that in a free society (like ours notionally is) we're not supposed to deprive people of their freedoms or punish them preemptively, because of what they might do. Hell, once you start down that road, where do you stop?