Maybe it is OK to defend yourself....

[CFLarsen]

I gave the information in a link. You were to lazy to read the linked articles. I have stated many times the information was contained in the links I posted. This simply shows that you have not read anything I have posted.

All I asked for was a number. I find it very interesting that it took you so long to find it.

No, you did not give a source for your information.

Yes, I did. Lott, first page of this thread.

You are simply too lazy to read the linked articles. When you have read it, please tell me if you agree that about a third of all gun killings in the US is caused by DGU's.

 

[merphie]

All I asked for was a number. I find it very interesting that it took you so long to find it.

The information was there. I foolishly expected you to read the information before opening your mouth.

Yes, I did. Lott, first page of this thread.

You are simply too lazy to read the linked articles. When you have read it, please tell me if you agree that about a third of all gun killings in the US is caused by DGU's.

No I read that post where you quoted information out of context. The data for DGU is totally different from what I was presenting. *different survey and author* You would know that if you had actually read my links.

Which data set do you intend to use? What information specifically do you want to use from that data?

Your comparison earlier is not accurate either. The number of 1000 is used as a ratio not an actual figure. The number of incidents he was talking about was 2.3 Million DGU from that specific survey of 1,015 people. You cherry picked the number 1000 from where he was talking about 95% of DGU don't result in the death of the criminal (or a ratio represented as 1:1000) and media bias.

Where is your figure for 6,500 gun deaths in 1999 coming from? I want a specific reference. If you intend to use this data in some analysis I want to know what your source is exactly. Otherwise there would be no guarantee I would find the exact data set. Providing a link shouldn't be hard.

Even if I accepted your number of 6,500 the comparison would futher be completely off. If a criminal is shot then it is classified as Justifiable Homicide. This is reported in the NIBRS system under Aggravated Assault: Additional Homicide Circumstances (code specifically as 20 or 21) The FBI doesn't generate statistics on this information because it is not considered a crime.

So any comparison between some imaginary number of 1000 or (even 2.3 million) and 6,500 would not be possible.

 

[Leif Roar]

Because a single group having all the guns gives too much power to that group. I am not suggesting everyone should be required to have a firearm, but we must have the choice.

What's the difference between that argument, and this one?

"Because a single group having all the rocket propelled artillery gives too much power to that group. I am not suggesting everyone should be required to have rocket propelled artillery, but we must have the choice."

I could have understood (although not necessarily agreed with) the argument that "the public need to have firearms to protect itself against power abuse by the goverment" prior to the advance of mechanised warfare, but I just don't see how it makes much sense today. Light, irregular milita just isn't going to be able to do much on their own against a tyrannical goverment supported by a modern army.

 

[CFLarsen]

No I read that post where you quoted information out of context. The data for DGU is totally different from what I was presenting. *different survey and author* You would know that if you had actually read my links.

Which data set do you intend to use? What information specifically do you want to use from that data?

No, no, no....I am pointing to two researchers who get to the same result.

Surely, you are not going to suggest that one is wrong and the other is not?

Your comparison earlier is not accurate either. The number of 1000 is used as a ratio not an actual figure. The number of incidents he was talking about was 2.3 Million DGU from that specific survey of 1,015 people. You cherry picked the number 1000 from where he was talking about 95% of DGU don't result in the death of the criminal (or a ratio represented as 1:1000) and media bias.

No, no, no....Lott was very specific. If Lott is right - and Klecks data supports him - then we are looking at around a third of all gun deaths coming from DGU.

Where is your figure for 6,500 gun deaths in 1999 coming from? I want a specific reference. If you intend to use this data in some analysis I want to know what your source is exactly. Otherwise there would be no guarantee I would find the exact data set. Providing a link shouldn't be hard.

You are an incredible hypocrite, demanding specific references, when you yourself have such a hard time delivering yourself.

Even if I accepted your number of 6,500 the comparison would futher be completely off.

So, you are not even interested in the link. You have already made up your mind to dismiss it. Don't waste my time, then. Feh.

If a criminal is shot then it is classified as Justifiable Homicide. This is reported in the NIBRS system under Aggravated Assault: Additional Homicide Circumstances (code specifically as 20 or 21) The FBI doesn't generate statistics on this information because it is not considered a crime.

It is still a gun death. Deal with it.

So any comparison between some imaginary number of 1000 or (even 2.3 million) and 6,500 would not be possible.

OK, let me get this straight: You are dismissing Lott's numbers, estimations and conclusions?

 

[merphie]

No, no, no....I am pointing to two researchers who get to the same result.

Surely, you are not going to suggest that one is wrong and the other is not?

their results were not identical nor did they use the same method. I had never discussed Lott's data.

No, no, no....Lott was very specific. If Lott is right - and Klecks data supports him - then we are looking at around a third of all gun deaths coming from DGU.

Their results were similar, but I do not see how you are getting this third of gun deaths number.

You are an incredible hypocrite, demanding specific references, when you yourself have such a hard time delivering yourself.

No, I provided links. You did not. If you expect me to be able to follow along with you I need to be able to look at what data you are talking about. I gave you the information in a link from the first post of this thread. I posted a second link with even more details about the first link on the first or second page. Look up the definition to hypocrite.

It's nothing more than a personal attack from you.

So, you are not even interested in the link. You have already made up your mind to dismiss it. Don't waste my time, then. Feh.

You shold have gave the link from the start as I did. I dismisse it because your reasoning is flawed and a comparison is not possible the way you were suggesting.

It is still a gun death. Deal with it.

The justifiable homicide is not a crime. Poor criminal. A criminal should consider it job hazard.

OK, let me get this straight: You are dismissing Lott's numbers, estimations and conclusions?

I am dismissing your numbers, estimations or conclusions.

 

[CFLarsen]

their results were not identical nor did they use the same method.

Same method: Phone survey.

Same result: 2.3/2.4 million DGU.

I had never discussed Lott's data.

Have you even looked at it?

Their results were similar, but I do not see how you are getting this third of gun deaths number.

No, and you are not interested. You made that clear. Oh, well.

No, I provided links. You did not. If you expect me to be able to follow along with you I need to be able to look at what data you are talking about. I gave you the information in a link from the first post of this thread. I posted a second link with even more details about the first link on the first or second page. Look up the definition to hypocrite.

It's nothing more than a personal attack from you.

Bull. I am attacking your claims, not you. I know nothing of you as a person.

You shold have gave the link from the start as I did. I dismisse it because your reasoning is flawed and a comparison is not possible the way you were suggesting.

No, you dismissed it out of hand, before you saw it.

The justifiable homicide is not a crime. Poor criminal. A criminal should consider it job hazard.

So, people cannot be prosecuted for killing someone, if he is suspected of a crime? (Remember that a person is not guilty until proven so in a court of law).

I am dismissing your numbers, estimations or conclusions.

Those are not my numbers, estimations and conclusions. Those are Lott's and Kleck's. Deal with it.

 

[merphie]

Same method: Phone survey.

Same result: 2.3/2.4 million DGU.

Did they use the same questions? What demographics did they use? Actually the results were different. Mine showed 2.3/2.4 million and Lott's showed 1.5 to 3.6 Million. You would know that if you had read either of them.

Have you even looked at it?

Yes, have you?

No, and you are not interested. You made that clear. Oh, well.

Make some sense and then I will consider your claim. What you said ealier was not possible with the data you were using.

Bull. I am attacking your claims, not you. I know nothing of you as a person.

Doesn't mean you can't make the comment.

No, you dismissed it out of hand, before you saw it.

I dismissed you claim because it's not possible. Show me a link for the 6,500 figure and I will accept it. Then we can start from there.

So, people cannot be prosecuted for killing someone, if he is suspected of a crime? (Remember that a person is not guilty until proven so in a court of law).

Duh. It wouldn't be under justifiable circumestances if the man was not guilty.

Those are not my numbers, estimations and conclusions. Those are Lott's and Kleck's. Deal with it.

Lott or Kleck did not make your claim. You are the one distorting the numbers. You cherry picked numbers from their research to support your own pet theory.

 

[The Fool]

I have one particular problem with all these stories people tell to the phone pollsters about how they would have been killed if they had not had thier gun to pull........where are all the dead bodies of those that did not have a gun to save themselves????. If you extrapolate the number of people who claim to have been saved from death or serious injury by pulling thier gun to the non gun carrying populaton..... where the hell are all the dead bodies and seriously injured people who don't carry guns and could not defended themselves with one???????? anyone got any ideas?

look at the numbers of defensive gun uses claimed and project them to the non gun carrying population......Telephone polls collecting fairytales, what a joke,

 

[CFLarsen]

merphie,

OK. This is not going anywhere. Whatever I show you, you dismiss. Fine. Your loss.

So, let's go with your data. Let's take a look at the 2,3 million DGU number.

How many of these incidents end up with a dead person?

 

[merphie]

I have one particular problem with all these stories people tell to the phone pollsters about how they would have been killed if they had not had thier gun to pull........where are all the dead bodies of those that did not have a gun to save themselves????. If you extrapolate the number of people who claim to have been saved from death or serious injury by pulling thier gun to the non gun carrying populaton..... where the hell are all the dead bodies and seriously injured people who don't carry guns and could not defended themselves with one???????? anyone got any ideas?

look at the numbers of defensive gun uses claimed and project them to the non gun carrying population......Telephone polls collecting fairytales, what a joke,

Look at the crime statistics for your answer. Who is to say that those who are not armed would be killed? Maybe they are raped or servely beaten. I am not saying that a person could have instantly prevented the crime if they were armed, but I would suggest their chances could be improved. Look at the case of Warren Vs. District of Columbia.

If you had actually read the article that I referenced you would see some of the figures for information you were talking about. Just in case you over looked it.

Source

 

[merphie]

merphie,

OK. This is not going anywhere. Whatever I show you, you dismiss. Fine. Your loss.

Your claims must make sense and be possible. When you show me something that could be possible from the data you are using I will discuss it. I dismissed you claim because it was not possible or have a fine thread of reason.

Repeat, repeat, repeat. Let me know when it sinks in.

So, let's go with your data. Let's take a look at the 2,3 million DGU number.

How many of these incidents end up with a dead person?

My article did not show a figure for deaths of the offender. It suggested 8% of the DGU ended with the victim shooting at and wounding the offender. They said 8% was probably high.

You would know this if you read the article.

 

[CFLarsen]

My article did not show a figure for deaths of the offender. It suggested 8% of the DGU ended with the victim shooting at and wounding the offender. They said 8% was probably high.

8%, then. That's 184,000 cases where the "offender" was wounded.

How many of these died?

 

[merphie]

8%, then. That's 184,000 cases where the "offender" was wounded.

How many of these died?

See? Yet again you did not read what I posted. The answer to your question is in the first sentence of what you quoted.

This is going to take a long time if I have to constantly repeat myself.

 

[CFLarsen]

See? Yet again you did not read what I posted. The answer to your question is in the first sentence of what you quoted.

This is going to take a long time if I have to constantly repeat myself.

I had hoped that you would not merely stick to just one article.

You do realize that there are other sources of information than your article?

 

[merphie]

I had hoped that you would not merely stick to just one article.

You do realize that there are other sources of information than your article?

You have to tell me what you intend to use. You said my data. I gave you the available information from my referenced article.

Is there something you would like to use in addition to my referenced article?

 

[CFLarsen]

You have to tell me what you intend to use. You said my data. I gave you the available information from my referenced article.

Is there something you would like to use in addition to my referenced article?

That is entirely up to you. You are the one who advocates that the widespread of gun ownership prevents crime.

You do see the problem, don't you? With that 2,3 million number, we should have a substantial amount of dead bodies lying around. From defensive gun use, that is.

Where are they?

If you can't find them, do you think it is possible that the 2,3 million number just might be a tad too high?

 

[merphie]

That is entirely up to you. You are the one who advocates that the widespread of gun ownership prevents crime.

You do see the problem, don't you? With that 2,3 million number, we should have a substantial amount of dead bodies lying around. From defensive gun use, that is.

Where are they?

If you can't find them, do you think it is possible that the 2,3 million number just might be a tad too high?

You can suggest any information you would like to use in this discussion. I asked that you provide links so I may review the information.

To clarify, I never said gun ownership would prevent all crime. The article never said that 2.3 Million resulted in death of the offender. My article gave no figure for deaths. You are trying to misrepresent the information from the article.

I would bet any dead bodies would be taken to the morgue. I assume you could find total figures from the CDC. That would probably include all gun deaths and not just ones from a DGU. Since a DGU is not considered a crime it would not show in crime statistics.

What is your point?

 

[The Fool]

Look at the crime statistics for your answer. Who is to say that those who are not armed would be killed? Maybe they are raped or servely beaten. I am not saying that a person could have instantly prevented the crime if they were armed, but I would suggest their chances could be improved. Look at the case of Warren Vs. District of Columbia.

If you had actually read the article that I referenced you would see some of the figures for information you were talking about. Just in case you over looked it.

Source

rubbish....you accept peoples anonymous stories of daring heroics and swashbuckling tales of the wild west as fact.....Ring people up and ask them if they have seen aliens, then use the numbers of people that tell you stories about seeing them as evidence they exist.... Ask them if they have seen elvis...Use this as evidence that elvis is alive. The possibilities of this sort of polling process is limitless.....hey, I forgot about Atlantis....ask them if they have ever visited Atlantis.


Its a simple point, think about it....if all these people are being saved from death or injury by thier guns where are all the extra deaths and injuries among those that do not carry a gun?? where are all the extra dead unarmed people?

 

[merphie]

rubbish....you accept peoples anonymous stories of daring heroics and swashbuckling tales of the wild west as fact.

if you are suggesting the survey is flawed then show your evidence instead of your opinion. If I apply the logic of your "wild west" theory (which is completely ignorant and shows you watch to many movies) then I could safely say that any survey is completely worthless. This would include the NCVS and the UK version of the Victim Survey. I am glad you pointed out this problem since you are an expert in statistics and surveys.

Its a simple point, think about it....if all these people are being saved from death or injury by thier guns where are all the extra deaths and injuries among those that do not carry a gun?? where are all the extra dead unarmed people?

The survey doesn't address those who were not armed. You want me to prove that crime doesn't exists? You want me to prove a negative?

I would suggest the crime statistics would obviously be a good place to look. If they are a victim of a crime then no one stopped the crime.

I can give you a really good example of a crime that could have been prevented. Look up "Warren Vs. District of Columbia"

 

[The Fool]

if you are suggesting the survey is flawed then show your evidence instead of your opinion. If I apply the logic of your "wild west" theory (which is completely ignorant and shows you watch to many movies) then I could safely say that any survey is completely worthless. This would include the NCVS and the UK version of the Victim Survey. I am glad you pointed out this problem since you are an expert in statistics and surveys.

sigh....you really don't get it do you. A survey that ask people who carry guns to tell you stories about how they have been saved by the gun you may learn a lot about gun carriers attitudes towards the issue...It it will tell you absolutely squat about how safe you are with, as compared to without, a gun....



The survey doesn't address those who were not armed. You want me to prove that crime doesn't exists? You want me to prove a negative?

I'll have one more go...then if you still don't follow I'll give up.
This survey claims that many people who carry guns have had thier lives saved because of the gun.....so what about all the people that don't carry guns? Why are they not dying in the same numbers as the gun carriers would have died if they did not have the gun?
get it yet????
lets make it even simpler...assume the population of america was 20, 10 with guns and 10 without....half the gun owners say they would have been killed or seriously injured if they had not been carrying a gun......with me so far? Now lets look at the unarmed population....oops we find that half of them are not dead, how can this be? they have no gun to defend themselves......with me still?

Now whats your thoughts on why they are not dead?

Only gun carriers get attacked? or how about THE STORIES ARE FIGMENTS OF PEOPLES PARANOIA....





QUOTE]