:rolleyes:
Man, you keep saying that, but there’s literally no way to know (given how poor the studies on the subject necessarily are). What he “thinks” is pretty much exactly as valid as any rolling some dice.
But we do know the number is greater than zero right? So that means that there is SOME benefit that guns provide to society, right? The gun grabbers too often pretend that because we don’t have reliable data on exactly how much defensive gun use occurs we must act as if none exists. Almost every argument on the gun grabber side entirely ignores any benefits to gun ownership, almost every argument on the gun nut side addresses (in some cases poorly) or at least acknowledges the problem of gun violence.
ETA: And not every guess is valid. We have some idea of the scale that we are talking about.
He was a good friend, I knew him well, but for a moment, I dunno, he just kinda looked like a deer:
I imagine the average person who is talking about benefits is talking about NET benefit–that is, (positive gun uses) - (negative gun uses)
This has not matched my experience.
When the person talking about the benefits of guns is responding to a post that assumes no benefit to guns at all I think a reasonable person of good faith would assume that I was talking about a gross benefit not a net benefit. Especially when they are responding to my statement:
“Because they never seem to take the benefits of guns in society into account. There is only a downside to guns in society as far as these people are concerned.”
If the gun grabbers referred to guns in terms of (negative gun uses)-(positive gun uses), THEN I could see how a reasonable person of good faith could assume that the average person would be talking about net positive benefits of guns to society. As it is, the gun grabbers never tell both sides of the story, there is only one side as far as they are concerned.
And I think most gun nuts would say that guns present a net positive to society but at least they acknowledge there are negative aspects. The gun grabbers rarely if ever acknowledge a positive aspect to guns in society.
There are dozens of posts in THIS thread that does exactly that. For every post you find in this thread where a gun grabber thoughtfully weighs the benefits of private gun ownership in society against the harms of private gun ownership in society, I will find two where they entirely overlook the benefits of guns. See the most recent post by Dragonash.
Sure, it was just an unarmed old man with Alzheimer’s, but still…in the gunowner’s defense, it was dark, and he couldn’t really make out what he was shooting at.
Well, maybe killing this old guy was actually of net benefit to society? I mean, who are we to judge, really. Perhaps this guy would have blown up a building full of orphans or something.
So there. Guns just might be of net benefit. It’s possible.
I note with amusement that one of the stalkers adopted the nom de guerre “Manly McBeefington.”.
Pardon me, but your pathological, crippling gun-requiring insecurity is showing.
Sociologist publishes study finding vast majority of gun murders committed by tiny percentage of urban criminals:
Not sure I understand the significance of “some contact with the public health system”. Explain the implication?
Drugs and/or gunshot victims ?
I was thinking ‘exposed to TB’.
Okay, that guy? THAT guy is using his gun as a penis substitute.
Your summary horribly misrepresents the findings in a way biased to your preferred intepretation. Who’d have thunk that? Specifically, the study only involved a six square mile section of urban Chicago. Of course the majority of gun homicides in a small urban area are going to be committed by urban criminals, you dumb fuck. Did you imagine that fatass lumpy bald white suburban gun strokers were sneaking into urban areas to kill “urban” people?
The fact that a small percentage of residents were responsible for a large percentage of gun homicides is also not surprising. My colleagues have been publishing such findings (that a small portion of the population is disproportionately responsible for a large proportion of overall offending) for decades. It would only be surprising to someone who thinks that all “urban” people are equally likely to kill. Someone, perhaps, who consumes a steady diet of NRA literature that shows a.bunch of “urban” faces coming to get him.
Gun strokers simply cannot understand actual scientific evidence. They fuck it up just like this every time.
My last post was perhaps a bit too harsh. Sorry about that.
And: No, we still do not have any good idea of the scope or scale of defensive gun uses, unless some study has been published in the last month that I’m not aware of. As I previously tried to explain to Damuri Ajashi, given three fundamentally flawed estimates, “the one in the middle” is not therefore the best estimate.
So ignoring the use of the word urban, do you think that the majority of gun crimes are committed by criminals or not? Or can you completely disregard the entire statement because he used the word urban? Its no secret that most gun crimes are committed by people with criminal records, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.
You don’t have a good idea but you still vilify people who defend gun rights and express outrage that everyone doesn’t think like you even if gun ownership in society MIGHT by an huge net benefit to society, after all, you don’t really know, do you?
And where do I pick the one in the middle because its in the middle. I pick the one from the DOJ because they seem the most credible and the fact that the estimate is higher than the estimate by the gun grabbers and lower than the estimate by the gun nuts is no surprise to me.
But good luck with the gun regulation thing you’re doing, try not to fuck it up the next time you get a crack at it with stupid shit like an AWB or something retarded like that. If you are going to fall on your sword over lost causes, at least let that lost cause be something that will at least be marginally effective in achieving your purported goal, like licensing and registration.
ETA: BTW how the FUCK did this study ever get funded? I thought the NRA has banned all research in the area? Isn’t that what some of you were whining about a while ago
You have no idea either, yet you raise it as a point of argument frequently. We have evidence that there is a societal detriment to widespread and easy access to firearms; there MIGHT be (and probably is) a counterbalance in defensive use but we don’t have reliable numbers on how significant it is in comparison. Yet somehow we’re the ones guilty of basing our position on poor data and incorrect assumptions and not you. Funny, that.
Hey, could you stamp my “AWB reference” card here? I get a stamp every time you bring up AWF as a strawman to claim that the gun control advocates are all incompent idiots. I’ll just add this completed card to the six-feet-high pile I’ve got right here…
No. Go back and re-read, and perhaps the obvious error in your interpretation will present itself.