You can’t disregard “urban”. It’s exactly the problem with what he said. The point of the study was actually to look at the social network of the community.
We already went over the data in this thread repeatedly. I’m done with doing any work to help you in particular. Fear overwhelms whatever your meager capacity for intellect might be so that it isn’t worthwhile giving you facts. But the facts regarding gun homicide that we’ve already discussed in this thread is that something between one half to one third of gun homicides were committed by people with no criminal record.
I’m just trying to stop you from lying about it. Or being so stupid that you speak out of ignorance.
Science isn’t done by selecting the person who seems most credible or the estimate that falls in the middle. Stop being so stupid!
We don’t think there MIGHT be a counterbalancce in defensive gun use. We know for FACT that there is defensive gun use. One of the other posters (Kable I think) used to post a defensive gun use pretty frequently. We have evidence that the number MIGHT be (and probably is) very large in comparison to the number of murders committed by legal gun owners.
We are not the ones ignoring data here. You are. Everyone on the gun nut side of the argument has conceded that the availability of guns have facilitated some murders that might not have occurred if guns were not available to law abiding citizens.
We qualify that by saying that most of the innocent people being killed are not being committed by law abiding citizens, so we think the number we should use for determining the detriment of a law abiding citizen’s access to guns be the number of murders committed by legal gun owners.
Several people on your side entirely ignore the beneficial effect that gun ownership can have on society. And most (like you) pretend that they just don’t know enough to give it very much consideration.
Gun nuts may be obstinate in their insistence on their constitutional rights but gun grabbers have a blind spot that makes them incapable of thinking about guns rationally and logically.
Wait? Are you saying that the AWB WASN’T the centerpeice of the most recent push for gun control? Were you guys really just after virtually meaningless background checks at gun shows?
Are you tired of me rubbing in how stupid it was to pursue an AWB? Then back away from it and stop saying you support that sort of retardedness. Its like when the Republicans kept complaining about how the left kept saying that they were waging a war on women while they pursued transvaginal ultrasound requirement before abortions. If you don’t want people to call you stupid about guns then stop trying to do stupid things like an AWB.
Yeah, its pretty transparent when you play statistical games by entirely ignoring something with 90+% confidence because it doesn’t meet 99% confidence as if that 90+% confidence means that the information is irrelevant and useless. I’d quit while I was behind too if I were you.
You first.
What about him? And why do you think he fucks his mother?
Then it’s about fucking time you presented it. Are you afraid it can’t stand the light of day, or what? You’ve endlessly repeated a line *asking *for that data, as if you thought you were making a useful point or something, and now you claim to have had it all along?
One can’t “ignore” data that isn’t presented.
We qualify that by saying that most of the innocent people being killed are not being committed by law abiding citizens, so we think the number we should use for determining the detriment of a law abiding citizen’s access to guns be the number of murders committed by legal gun owners.
[/quote]
Except that if the policies you support, or the reality you defend, does not allow gun ownership to be effectively banned for this population you call “LAC’s”, without offering a definition of those, either, then you’re dismissing (or shall we say ignoring?) data you happen not to like.
That’s another thing you have been entirely reticent about asserting and defending - what those beneficial effects you claim to exist actually are.
AWB was not in the fucking bill, fool. :rolleyes:
No, we’re tired of you telling such a foolish lie.
To repeat: Where’s your fucking data about real defensive gun uses? Do you have it or are you going to continue to demand it while you wait for Wapner?
Its been presented. You keep failing to understand the difference between evidence and conclusive proof.
Law abiding citizen are people who are legally allowed to own guns. I’m not sure wtf you are talking about. You care to restate that using English?
Put simply, anyone that commits murder with a gun they are not legally allowed to possess aren’t going to be very deterred by your laws. And this small subset of the population are also the people who commit the majority of gun murders…
I refer to the benefits of guns in society and then point to defensive gun use as an example and you don’t understand what benefit I’m talking about?
You’re too stupid to have an opinion but like I said before, the centerpiece of the gun regulation push was an ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN, they wanted magazine caps and all sorts of other shit too but the centerpiece was an ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN. And when you couldn’t get that (or anything else, really), you tried to hide your total failure with a fig leaf and you couldn’t even get that because your side had created so much mistrust and lost so much credibility with your stupidity that congress voted down a meaningless, ineffective rule about background checks at fucking gun shows.You lost and you will keep losing as long as you keep being stupid.
:dubious: So I just imagined the push for an Assault Weapons Ban? Jeez talk about rewriting history.
I’ve provided it. It may not be conclusive proof that meets Hentor’s standards of statistical certainty but its evidence that you are ignoring. So when are you going to provide contradictory evidence.
Seriously, do your side a favor and leave your side of the argument to others, you’re not smart enough to defend a position when the facts aren’t almost entirely on your side (fortunately for you, you’re a liberal so the facts tend to be on your side). Especially when you are ignorant about the subject matter.
Proof that you have no clue what any of the science means or how to interpret it. Go ahead and quote where I’ve said anything remotely like this about DGU data.
You were also babbling about 95% versus 99% certainty in regards to the data on criminal history of gun homicide offenders. Did you just learn something about confidence intervals or something?
OK, so maybe I just missed it. Where do you give a shred of weight to every fucking study out there coming up with significant numbers of defensive gun use?
Is this statistics thing something a lay person could understand do you have to be a statistics scientist to be able to tease out the meaning?
The way it seems to me is there was a study… several studies in fact, that all point to significant numbers of defensive gun use. You come along and throw around some technical jargon and immediately people like Elvis think that means he can ignore just about every study ever done on defensive gun use.
Is THAT what you intended to say? that the studies are meaningless and provide no information about defensive gun use at all or is it evidence that doesn’t rise to the level of certainty like so many things that we base our arguments on?
In the end it doesn’t matter because your side keeps losing this debate in the real world because your side can be arsed to look past the fact that guns are lethal to figure out (or even give a shit) about the facts about guns. Every time your side is presented with new facts (well, they’re old facts but they’re new to many people on your side of the argument), you run around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to figure out how to explain it away or why you don’t need to change your opinions despite the new information. You can’t win with ignorance, the republicans only get away with it because they have so much experience at it.
Look, I’ll say it again–I’m pro-gun-rights, and every defensive gun use study I’ve ever seen, including every one you’ve linked here, has suffered from SEVERE methodological flaws. Including the DoJ estimates.
I’ll continue to go on record as believing it is not possible, in this political climate, to do a defensive gun use study using any data-gathering methodology short of, say, attaching always-on gunsight cameras to a representative sample of gun owners who are prepared to consider defensive gun use an option.
The isssue with defensive gun uses isn’t a statistical technicality. It is so simple that laypeople can understand it. I’ve gone over this ground with you specifically multiple times, even handing you very easy reads about the problems.
None of it sticks with you, so that you come back only a month or two later without even a shred of recall about the issues. It seems like it’s all just a blur to you, leaving you free to make claims like I’m new to this data and that I have to run around struggling to hand wave it away.
The problem is that you aren’t rationally motivated about your position to begin with, so facts and evidence can’t really change anything for you. You feel vulnerable and scared, and guns make you feel more in control. No study can touch that emotional connection, just like one cannot simply give someone with OCD facts that make their compulsions go away. I no longer have any interest in trying and I came to see that all the time I was spending trying pointlessly to help you understand science was getting in the way of my actually publishing my own.
Terry McAuliffe won the governors race in Virginia, despite supporting gun control and having endorsed the AWB. I know you’re convinced that opposing gun control makes Democrats stupid losers, but you never have produced evidence to support that.
**Damuri Ajashi: **The number of gun deaths has been rising slowly but steadily each year since 1999. Over 400,000 people have died from firearms in that time frame. Look at that number again: 400,000 people.
Do you seriously believe that guns *saved *more than 400,000 lives in that time span? That more than 80 times a day, someone is using a firearm to successfully defend themselves from attack, like thisguy, or maybe thisguy?
Change “more” to “less”, and that statement fits the majority of anti-gunners. When people complain they feel “intimidated” and “threatened” because a person who’s been law-abiding and responsible enough to get a permit open carries a holstered firearm, for example. No amount of logic or evidence seems to change a hoplophobe’s unshakable conviction that only a delusional yahoo would ever want to carry a gun, and that ipso facto gun carriers are an existential threat. That this is an incredibly arrogant slap in the face to permit holders seems to get overlooked too.
A. Where? and B. If you have it, why the fuck do you keep *asking *for it?
Wrong. YOU fail to understand the difference between data and handwaving.
And still account for a damn large number of killings, don’t they? Yet you insist on not considering that little problem. :rolleyes:
Show us the data. Show us that DGU’s exist in numbers greater than, or even comparable to, the murder rate. Or else you could STFU, yanno.
Then where was that in the bill? Show us. Or admit you’re hallucinating, and as such should not be allowed to touch a gun yourself.
Three minutes to Wapner. Yeah.
You’re part of the problem, friend. It won’t be easy for you to accept, when and if you finally do, but that’s what the evidence shows. Meanwhile, the killings continue.
And I’ve gone on record saying that counting defensive gun uses is and always has been a distraction, because it’s a pointless statistic. All you want to know is if guns make people safer, right? So take two populations controlled for all factors, except one population is armed and the other population isn’t armed. Which one suffers more deaths and injuries over a period of time? Problem solved, no reason to count defensive gun uses or attach cameras to anything.
We don’t feel ‘intimidated’ or ‘threatened’ simply because someone is carrying a holstered firearm. We feel threatened because there is an awful lot of evidence that suggests introducing guns into just about any scenario imaginable not only rarely improves the situation for the parties involved, it increases the danger for everyone around you. If *you *were the only one in danger from your penis extension, nobody would give a rat’s ass.
Incidents of armed, non-LEO people stopping/killing armed criminals in the act of a felony are rare and wonderous events - and even then you need luck on your side. Don’t take my word for it, ask Joe Zamudio: He’s the ‘armed hero’ from the Tuscon shooting. He admits how lucky he was, because he came *this *close to shooting the wrong guy when he mistook the guy in front of him with a gun for the shooter.
If you’re not lucky, you get this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or…well, you get the picture.
You’re correct in one sense tho: given the tremendous damage guns cause vs the miniscule ‘benefit’ :rolleyes: they offer even under the most generous of assumptions, and given the rarity that you would ever both need and be able to defend yourself from death or bodily harm with your gun, only a delusional yahoo would want to carry around a gun for ‘protection’. Only a delusional yahoo should want a gun in the house for ‘defense purposes’; not when there are far more effective, cheap, and perfectly safe means of intruder-proofing your home. I never have to worry about my security alarm system accidentally shooting my son in the head.
I’m glad I don’t live in your tiny, scared paranoid little section of crazy.
I refer to the benefits of guns in society and then point to defensive gun use as an example and you don’t understand what benefit I’m talking about?