Man with concealed carry license stops gunman

[12AX7]

Oops. My bad, I thought it was the "let's skip due process" part.

Why do you hate America?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why do you hate America?

Because America made me defender her all these years. Hated that. If the money wasn't so good I would have quit when they offered me a medical.

 

[The Norseman]

Where do these figures come from?

What do you care?

Do you have any studies to show? You provided a figure, and you say it comes from studies. Surely, you shouldn't be so coy. Which studies?

The ones done by the federal government.

It's bollocks.

LOL Okay.

Which part did you think I casually oversimplified?

By attributing more murders to gun ownership. You just happened to be the first to say it but it's been said time and time and time again as if it were fact.

Now, I betting you're gonna nitpick and claim that you're right when you limit violence and murders to gun violence and gun murders but there is still no causal relationship, especially extrapolated to the United States.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

By attributing more murders to gun ownership. You just happened to be the first to say it but it's been said time and time and time again as if it were fact.

That's a cross gunners are going to have to bear while guns keep killing people.

 

[12AX7]

What do you care?

I don't. I know they're pulled from the collective gun community's ass.

So do others.

 

[phiwum]

What do you care?

The ones done by the federal government.

Do you understand how conversation and argument work?

Wildcat at least provided a link when asked a second time. I couldn't quite find the relevant passage in the link and I'm still not sure how they came up with the number or what the precise claim is. I'd appreciate a clarification from anyone who knows.

But you really must realize that if you claim studies show such-and-such is the right figure, then you have to be prepared to tell us which studies or else give up the claim as unsupported when challenged. That's just how it goes.

 

[12AX7]

Do you understand how conversation and argument work?

Wildcat at least provided a link when asked a second time. I couldn't quite find the relevant passage in the link and I'm still not sure how they came up with the number or what the precise claim is. I'd appreciate a clarification from anyone who knows.

But you really must realize that if you claim studies show such-and-such is the right figure, then you have to be prepared to tell us which studies or else give up the claim as unsupported when challenged. That's just how it goes.

Check out the Washington Post article on post #55.

 

[phiwum]

It's bollocks.

I didn't read the whole article, but it seems to be attacking the claim that there are between one and 2.5 million defensive uses per year, due to a study from Florida State.

Since Wildcat mentioned 300,000, I don't think this is the study he's referring to, so this article appears to be irrelevant (unless we know whether his study has the same methodology as the FSU study).

 

[phiwum]

Check out the Washington Post article on post #55.

Thanks. Per that article (and the excerpt you quoted) the CDC study doesn't seem confident in any of the estimates published so far.

So, it doesn't really seem like this paper is a good citation for the figure of 300,000 defensive uses per year.

 

[12AX7]

So, it doesn't really seem like this paper is a good citation for the figure of 300,000 defensive uses per year.

It's not.

Like I said, when you press gun owners for evidence of this number they get kinda sketchy at best.

 

[cullennz]

Brilliant

Thankfully everyone was carrying guns

 

[Amazer]

By attributing more murders to gun ownership. You just happened to be the first to say it but it's been said time and time and time again as if it were fact.

From the following article
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

In 60% of all homicides in the USA a gun is used. Compared to The Netherlands 31%
Homicide by firearm rate 2.97 vs 0.33 per 100.000
Average firearms per 100 people 88.8 vs 3.9

And from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Intentional homicide rate 4.7 vs 0.9 per 100.000

So all in all I'm pretty confident that a higher rate of gun ownership, coupled with ease of access to those firearms does indeed lead to a higher murder rate.

Now, I betting you're gonna nitpick and claim that you're right when you limit violence and murders to gun violence and gun murders but there is still no causal relationship, especially extrapolated to the United States.

I don't need to nitpick... the numbers speak for themselves.

That said, I'm open to the idea that I've interpreted the data incorrectly but then you'll need to do a bit better then just claiming that without any corroborating evidence. The ball is in your court.

 

[The Norseman]

That's a cross gunners are going to have to bear while guns keep killing people.

Pro-gunners don't have to bear the burden of criminals, just as you do not have to bear the burden of a rapist because you're male.

I don't.

Exactly. You are convinced of your position regardless of what the facts may say and it seems there's nothing that will convince you otherwise.

Do you understand how conversation and argument work?

Wildcat at least provided a link when asked a second time. I couldn't quite find the relevant passage in the link and I'm still not sure how they came up with the number or what the precise claim is. I'd appreciate a clarification from anyone who knows.

But you really must realize that if you claim studies show such-and-such is the right figure, then you have to be prepared to tell us which studies or else give up the claim as unsupported when challenged. That's just how it goes.

There are a few honest anti-gunners here and I don't mind engaging them and producing evidence. These studies and papers and numbers have been produced over and over again and every new thread that pops up, the anti's all rush in breathless and clamoring for evidence that's out there and accessible; and any response is used as victory.

From the following article
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

In 60% of all homicides in the USA a gun is used. Compared to The Netherlands 31%
Homicide by firearm rate 2.97 vs 0.33 per 100.000
Average firearms per 100 people 88.8 vs 3.9

And from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Intentional homicide rate 4.7 vs 0.9 per 100.000

So all in all I'm pretty confident that a higher rate of gun ownership, coupled with ease of access to those firearms does indeed lead to a higher murder rate.



I don't need to nitpick... the numbers speak for themselves.

That said, I'm open to the idea that I've interpreted the data incorrectly but then you'll need to do a bit better then just claiming that without any corroborating evidence. The ball is in your court.

It's exactly as I said; you're taking an incredibly complicated sociological phenomenon and attributing a direct correlation to a simple idea of mere gun ownership. I say this because of all of the other exceptions to this "low gun ownership/low crime" meme. Or how do you explain them under your theory?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Pro-gunners don't have to bear the burden of criminals, just as you do not have to bear the burden of a rapist because you're male.

Well, I used to teach women how to handle themselves if they were attacked. I felt it was something I should do. YMMV

 

[12AX7]

Exactly. You are convinced of your position regardless of what the facts may say and it seems there's nothing that will convince you otherwise.

I'm convinced the gun community has pulled that figure from their collective asses and used the higher-end of estimates.

Show me these "studies" that solidly confirm the number of DGUs you guys claim. Should be really simple to do.

 

[fuelair]

Studies.

Do you have any studies to show?

I accept such may well exist, but it is not my job to find them. You are quoting /saying they exist, you just need to tell us where. Specifically. So we can A) compare them against each other as well as counter studies and B) verify they are from legitimate sources and C) verify you were not misinterpreting them.

 

[phiwum]

There are a few honest anti-gunners here and I don't mind engaging them and producing evidence. These studies and papers and numbers have been produced over and over again and every new thread that pops up, the anti's all rush in breathless and clamoring for evidence that's out there and accessible; and any response is used as victory.

Well, I don't usually participate in gun threads, and as an occasional reader of such threads, your reluctance to state explicitly the source of these numbers comes off as a forfeiture of the argument. At the least, you should perhaps provide a link to prior discussions.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I accept such may well exist, but it is not my job to find them. You are quoting /saying they exist, you just need to tell us where. Specifically. So we can A) compare them against each other as well as counter studies and B) verify they are from legitimate sources and C) verify you were not misinterpreting them.

You're mistaken. If somebody demands links that doesn't mean they have to provide links. It's not a two way street.

 

[WildCat]

Have you purchased that study?

You don't need to purchase it, you can read it from the link I provided. I was wrong though with my figure of 300,000. According to that report (page 15) the low end of DGUs per year is 500,000.

Now, please provide your evidence.

 

[WildCat]

WaPO:

The study that gun-rights activists keep citing but completely misunderstand




Be sure you guess high.

The 108,000 figure is completely made up. Here's what the CDC study says about it: "The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."

It comes from a survey in which the question wasn't even asked!