Children accidently shoot someone every 36 hours

[Brain357]

And another reason to not use the NCVS...they can't even count those things they are actually studying correctly, let alone something like guns that they aren't actually studying...

National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do. But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........

The two aren't related. Rape and sexual violence is under reported due to the victims. Gun nuts love talking about DGUs however. Many people this board make them up even.

Your gun studies are obviously not accurate. You have 16 that all disagree ranging from 500k-3.6 million. If it was an accurate way of calculating DGUs they would arrive at similar numbers. Your own studies prove they are not accurate.

Brain.....you are looking more foolish than you usually do.........The NCVS actually studies rape and sexual assault.....and gets it wrong....they don't study guns....and get it even more wrong....

Unrelated. The ncvs can't force rape victims to report them. Gun nuts however love to talk DGUs.

 

[2aguy]

Keep in mind all 800k wouldn't be violent crimes. Most would be property crimes. And the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. The 108k estimate by the ncvs is far more accurate.

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

For your consideration on the accuracy of the NCVS.....

And another reason to not use the NCVS...they can't even count those things they are actually studying correctly, let alone something like guns that they aren't actually studying...

National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do. But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........

Now the NCVS specifically studies sexual assault....and it gets it wrong this much....

But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault.

So imagine how off the NCVS methods are when it doesn't even claim to study self defense with a gun..........

Unrelated. Victims often don't like reporting rapes. Gun nuts love talking about DGUs.

The NCVS can't even get it right with what it is actually studying.....and they aren't studying guns and you think they will be more accurate than they are with rape.....

 

[Brain357]

108K would make it 480:1. I'm saying 30:1 would be a reasonable point at which to consider guns not worth the risk, so you still need to make up a factor of 16 somewhere.

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

For your consideration on the accuracy of the NCVS.....

And another reason to not use the NCVS...they can't even count those things they are actually studying correctly, let alone something like guns that they aren't actually studying...

National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do. But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........

Now the NCVS specifically studies sexual assault....and it gets it wrong this much....

But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault.

So imagine how off the NCVS methods are when it doesn't even claim to study self defense with a gun..........

Unrelated. Victims often don't like reporting rapes. Gun nuts love talking about DGUs.

The NCVS can't even get it right with what it is actually studying.....and they aren't studying guns and you think they will be more accurate than they are with rape.....

Stop embarassing yourself. The ncvs is dependant on positive responses from victims. Due to the nature of sexual violence victims often don't report them. No such issue with DGUs.

 

[whitehall]

Do they even teach radical lefties how to do research and/or how to understand statistics? According to the CDC which keeps statistics relating to gun deaths there simply are no statistics regarding children pulling the trigger in accidental shootings. About 530 accidental shootings occurred in 2011 and that number doesn't even correspond to the claim that persons are shot by accident "every 36 hours".

 

[Brain357]

Do they even teach radical lefties how to do research and/or how to understand statistics? According to the CDC which keeps statistics relating to gun deaths there simply are no statistics regarding children pulling the trigger in accidental shootings. About 530 accidental shootings occurred in 2011 and that number doesn't even correspond to the claim that persons are shot by accident "every 36 hours".

They have been tracking them. I have posted several accounts. They do happen all the time.

 

[Brain357]

Happen all the time and no charges in this case. How can that be?
No charges in Buckeye boy s accidental shooting

 

[2aguy]

What am I making up a factor of 16 for? I'm not suggesting banning guns.

Are you counting all the crimes committed with guns? We only have 10k homicides each year. Gun owners are a minority. The most lives saved possible is under 10k.

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

For your consideration on the accuracy of the NCVS.....

And another reason to not use the NCVS...they can't even count those things they are actually studying correctly, let alone something like guns that they aren't actually studying...

National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do. But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........

Now the NCVS specifically studies sexual assault....and it gets it wrong this much....

But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault.

So imagine how off the NCVS methods are when it doesn't even claim to study self defense with a gun..........

Unrelated. Victims often don't like reporting rapes. Gun nuts love talking about DGUs.

The NCVS can't even get it right with what it is actually studying.....and they aren't studying guns and you think they will be more accurate than they are with rape.....

Stop embarassing yourself. The ncvs is dependant on positive responses from victims. Due to the nature of sexual violence victims often don't report them. No such issue with DGUs.

Brain...apparently they do talk....because the one study gets them to respond by actually asking them about the attack...and that is reported in Slate....not a right wing source and definitely not the NRA.....so if they talk to the CDC about the attack....why didn't they talk to the NCVS.....?

National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs.

NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do. But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault.

So...you are wrong...the CDC gets them to talk, the NCVs does not.....so again...the NCVS is not even close to being reliable.....and that is just on the subject it is supposed to be studying.....and then you have defensive gun uses which is isn't studying at all.....

The CDC specifically asks them about intimate details of the attack...and they answer.....the NCVS does not.....

Dittos guns...the NCVS isn't a gun study.....doesn't directly ask about guns......so it is crap.....

 

[2aguy]

Happen all the time and no charges in this case. How can that be?
No charges in Buckeye boy s accidental shooting

Because the gun didn't kill the other boy.....and not everyone hates guns and gun owners the way you do brain.......

 

[Brain357]

Technically, the upper limit on lives saved per year is the number of self-defense uses against violent crimes per year, wherein we assume that every thwarted violent offense would lead to a death. Obviously that's not realistic, but that's the hard upper limit.

You've cited 75 accidental shootings in the first four months of 2015, roughly a third of which were fatal. Extrapolated to the whole of 2015, that's 225 shootings per year, 78 of which are fatal. I'm comparing this number (255) to the average yearly number of thwarted violent offenses, which you're claiming is 108,000, and that yields a ratio of 1:480.

As far as I'm concerned, the certain harm caused by one accidental shooting is preferable to the harm that would potentially be caused by 30 violent crimes. Hence my "cutoff" is 1:30. The actual ratio, 1:480 is therefore too high by a factor of 480/30 = 16. If you wanted to make the argument that banning guns would reduce harm (which up until now I thought was the point you were arguing) you would need to make up--meaning "find other factors to account for"--this remaining factor of 16.

If you're not interested in banning guns or discouraging Americans from owning them, you can ignore all of the above. But in that case, I don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. In my experience, people only post about gun tragedies when they're making a case for stricter gun control.

For your consideration on the accuracy of the NCVS.....

And another reason to not use the NCVS...they can't even count those things they are actually studying correctly, let alone something like guns that they aren't actually studying...

National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do. But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........

Now the NCVS specifically studies sexual assault....and it gets it wrong this much....

But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault.

So imagine how off the NCVS methods are when it doesn't even claim to study self defense with a gun..........

Unrelated. Victims often don't like reporting rapes. Gun nuts love talking about DGUs.

The NCVS can't even get it right with what it is actually studying.....and they aren't studying guns and you think they will be more accurate than they are with rape.....

Stop embarassing yourself. The ncvs is dependant on positive responses from victims. Due to the nature of sexual violence victims often don't report them. No such issue with DGUs.

Brain...apparently they do talk....because the one study gets them to respond by actually asking them about the attack...and that is reported in Slate....not a right wing source and definitely not the NRA.....so if they talk to the CDC about the attack....why didn't they talk to the NCVS.....?

National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs.

NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do. But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault.

So...you are wrong...the CDC gets them to talk, the NCVs does not.....so again...the NCVS is not even close to being reliable.....and that is just on the subject it is supposed to be studying.....and then you have defensive gun uses which is isn't studying at all.....

The CDC specifically asks them about intimate details of the attack...and they answer.....the NCVS does not.....

Dittos guns...the NCVS isn't a gun study.....doesn't directly ask about guns......so it is crap.....

Every gun study has vastly different answers proving they are crap. They also takes a mere 50 positives and extrapolate to 2.5 million. Ridiculous.

 

[Brain357]

Happen all the time and no charges in this case. How can that be?
No charges in Buckeye boy s accidental shooting

Because the gun didn't kill the other boy.....and not everyone hates guns and gun owners the way you do brain.......

They still happen all the time.

And you work for the gun companies or the nra.

 

[2aguy]

Happen all the time and no charges in this case. How can that be?
No charges in Buckeye boy s accidental shooting

Because the gun didn't kill the other boy.....and not everyone hates guns and gun owners the way you do brain.......

They still happen all the time.

And you work for the gun companies or the nra.

brain...I know you lost again...the ncvs has again been shown to be a crap study and you still cling to it......I get it...you lost and you can't deal with it..........you should grow up.....

 

[Brain357]

Happen all the time and no charges in this case. How can that be?
No charges in Buckeye boy s accidental shooting

Because the gun didn't kill the other boy.....and not everyone hates guns and gun owners the way you do brain.......

They still happen all the time.

And you work for the gun companies or the nra.

brain...I know you lost again...the ncvs has again been shown to be a crap study and you still cling to it......I get it...you lost and you can't deal with it..........you should grow up.....

No actually. People sexually assaulted often don't report it. That is a fact. No such problem with dgus. And again your own list of studies prove how inaccurate gun studies are. 16 studies and 16 different totals ranging from 500k to 3.6 million. Not accurate.

 

[2aguy]

Happen all the time and no charges in this case. How can that be?
No charges in Buckeye boy s accidental shooting

Because the gun didn't kill the other boy.....and not everyone hates guns and gun owners the way you do brain.......

They still happen all the time.

And you work for the gun companies or the nra.

brain...I know you lost again...the ncvs has again been shown to be a crap study and you still cling to it......I get it...you lost and you can't deal with it..........you should grow up.....

No actually. People sexually assaulted often don't report it. That is a fact. No such problem with dgus. And again your own list of studies prove how inaccurate gun studies are. 16 studies and 16 different totals ranging from 500k to 3.6 million. Not accurate.

Brain.....the CDC study refutes your point........read the post...you obviously missed it........

 

[Brain357]

Happen all the time and no charges in this case. How can that be?
No charges in Buckeye boy s accidental shooting

Because the gun didn't kill the other boy.....and not everyone hates guns and gun owners the way you do brain.......

They still happen all the time.

And you work for the gun companies or the nra.

brain...I know you lost again...the ncvs has again been shown to be a crap study and you still cling to it......I get it...you lost and you can't deal with it..........you should grow up.....

No actually. People sexually assaulted often don't report it. That is a fact. No such problem with dgus. And again your own list of studies prove how inaccurate gun studies are. 16 studies and 16 different totals ranging from 500k to 3.6 million. Not accurate.

Brain.....the CDC study refutes your point........read the post...you obviously missed it........

It seems the CDC study suffers from some of the same problems as your guns studies:
New Republic reporter Claire Groden points out that while the NCVS focuses on criminal acts, the CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey asks about instances of forced sex which respondents may or may not regard as crimes.

The CDC s Rape Numbers Are Misleading

 

[syonidv]

*lol*

You guys have been going at it for 120 posts now, and neither of you has budged an inch.

I think it's safe to say that you're not going to agree on the significance of the NCVS and the studies on DGU. What makes the situation absurd is that (as far as I can tell) you're both pro-greater-gun-safety and anti-stricter-gun-control. You don't actually have any policy disagreements.

One of you is going to have to be the first to say "agree to disagree" and then just walk away from the keyboard.

Have a milkshake. Fly a kite. Play with your kids. Make love to your wife.

Agree to disagree.

My not so humble $0.02.

 

[Brain357]

*lol*

You guys have been going at it for 120 posts now, and neither of you has budged an inch.

I think it's safe to say that you're not going to agree on the significance of the NCVS and the studies on DGU. What makes the situation absurd is that (as far as I can tell) you're both pro-greater-gun-safety and anti-stricter-gun-control. You don't actually have any policy disagreements.

One of you is going to have to be the first to say "agree to disagree" and then just walk away from the keyboard.

Have a milkshake. Fly a kite. Play with your kids. Make love to your wife.

Agree to disagree.

My not so humble $0.02.

Yes our disagreements are less that one might think. But I do think we should have magazine capacity limits, background checks on all sales, and gun registration. He disagrees. Most of our disagreements are with the facts. I am interested in the facts and he will run with any pro gun argument he has ever heard. Some are true and others are wildly crazy like the idea there are 2 million defenses each year. He believes there are more crimes defended than committed. There are only 230 criminals shot and killed in defense each year making the 2 million claim more ridiculous. So when he makes a ridiculous claim I correct him.

 

[syonidv]

*lol*

You guys have been going at it for 120 posts now, and neither of you has budged an inch.

I think it's safe to say that you're not going to agree on the significance of the NCVS and the studies on DGU. What makes the situation absurd is that (as far as I can tell) you're both pro-greater-gun-safety and anti-stricter-gun-control. You don't actually have any policy disagreements.

One of you is going to have to be the first to say "agree to disagree" and then just walk away from the keyboard.

Have a milkshake. Fly a kite. Play with your kids. Make love to your wife.

Agree to disagree.

My not so humble $0.02.

Yes our disagreements are less that one might think. But I do think we should have magazine capacity limits, background checks on all sales, and gun registration. He disagrees. Most of our disagreements are with the facts. I am interested in the facts and he will run with any pro gun argument he has ever heard. Some are true and others are wildly crazy like the idea there are 2 million defenses each year. He believes there are more crimes defended than committed. There are only 230 criminals shot and killed in defense each year making the 2 million claim more ridiculous. So when he makes a ridiculous claim I correct him.

I hate to break it to you, but I'm 99.9% certain that anyone reading this isn't going to change their minds on the subject, and you gentlemen will be correcting each other until hell freezes over.

Let's also note that magazine capacity limits, background checks, and gun registration realistically have nothing to do with the number of accidental shootings per year or with the number of self-defense uses per year, hence it would be wise to spend your time debating events (e.g. mass shootings) where these measures would conceivably have some impact.

Anyway, if you're finding this whole debate as fun as a barrel of monkeys, don't let me stop you. If you're not having fun, I'm suggesting that the wiser man is the first one to say "readers can consult the thread and draw their own conclusions; thank you for the debate; das ve danya".

 

[Brain357]

*lol*

You guys have been going at it for 120 posts now, and neither of you has budged an inch.

I think it's safe to say that you're not going to agree on the significance of the NCVS and the studies on DGU. What makes the situation absurd is that (as far as I can tell) you're both pro-greater-gun-safety and anti-stricter-gun-control. You don't actually have any policy disagreements.

One of you is going to have to be the first to say "agree to disagree" and then just walk away from the keyboard.

Have a milkshake. Fly a kite. Play with your kids. Make love to your wife.

Agree to disagree.

My not so humble $0.02.

Yes our disagreements are less that one might think. But I do think we should have magazine capacity limits, background checks on all sales, and gun registration. He disagrees. Most of our disagreements are with the facts. I am interested in the facts and he will run with any pro gun argument he has ever heard. Some are true and others are wildly crazy like the idea there are 2 million defenses each year. He believes there are more crimes defended than committed. There are only 230 criminals shot and killed in defense each year making the 2 million claim more ridiculous. So when he makes a ridiculous claim I correct him.

I hate to break it to you, but I'm 99.9% certain that anyone reading this isn't going to change their minds on the subject, and you gentlemen will be correcting each other until hell freezes over.

Let's also note that magazine capacity limits, background checks, and gun registration realistically have nothing to do with the number of accidental shootings per year or with the number of self-defense uses per year, hence it would be wise to spend your time debating events (e.g. mass shootings) where these measures would conceivably have some impact.

Anyway, if you're finding this whole debate as fun as a barrel of monkeys, don't let me stop you. If you're not having fun, I'm suggesting that the wiser man is the first one to say "readers can consult the thread and draw their own conclusions; thank you for the debate; das ve danya".

Well I'm not debating any of those things at the moment. Just giving you an idea of our differences. The number of defenses really have nothing to do with the number of accidents either. Things tend to get off track. One would think everyone would want to lower the number of accidents, especially with children. But the rabid pro gunners take great offense at just bringing up a problem.

 

[2aguy]

*lol*

You guys have been going at it for 120 posts now, and neither of you has budged an inch.

I think it's safe to say that you're not going to agree on the significance of the NCVS and the studies on DGU. What makes the situation absurd is that (as far as I can tell) you're both pro-greater-gun-safety and anti-stricter-gun-control. You don't actually have any policy disagreements.

One of you is going to have to be the first to say "agree to disagree" and then just walk away from the keyboard.

Have a milkshake. Fly a kite. Play with your kids. Make love to your wife.

Agree to disagree.

My not so humble $0.02.

Actually, brain is a gun grabber...he hides it...but he doesn't support gun rights.......you can tell in what he posts and how he posts it......

 

[2aguy]

*lol*

You guys have been going at it for 120 posts now, and neither of you has budged an inch.

I think it's safe to say that you're not going to agree on the significance of the NCVS and the studies on DGU. What makes the situation absurd is that (as far as I can tell) you're both pro-greater-gun-safety and anti-stricter-gun-control. You don't actually have any policy disagreements.

One of you is going to have to be the first to say "agree to disagree" and then just walk away from the keyboard.

Have a milkshake. Fly a kite. Play with your kids. Make love to your wife.

Agree to disagree.

My not so humble $0.02.

Yes our disagreements are less that one might think. But I do think we should have magazine capacity limits, background checks on all sales, and gun registration. He disagrees. Most of our disagreements are with the facts. I am interested in the facts and he will run with any pro gun argument he has ever heard. Some are true and others are wildly crazy like the idea there are 2 million defenses each year. He believes there are more crimes defended than committed. There are only 230 criminals shot and killed in defense each year making the 2 million claim more ridiculous. So when he makes a ridiculous claim I correct him.

I hate to break it to you, but I'm 99.9% certain that anyone reading this isn't going to change their minds on the subject, and you gentlemen will be correcting each other until hell freezes over.

Let's also note that magazine capacity limits, background checks, and gun registration realistically have nothing to do with the number of accidental shootings per year or with the number of self-defense uses per year, hence it would be wise to spend your time debating events (e.g. mass shootings) where these measures would conceivably have some impact.

Anyway, if you're finding this whole debate as fun as a barrel of monkeys, don't let me stop you. If you're not having fun, I'm suggesting that the wiser man is the first one to say "readers can consult the thread and draw their own conclusions; thank you for the debate; das ve danya".

Well I'm not debating any of those things at the moment. Just giving you an idea of our differences. The number of defenses really have nothing to do with the number of accidents either. Things tend to get off track. One would think everyone would want to lower the number of accidents, especially with children. But the rabid pro gunners take great offense at just bringing up a problem.

No brain, we don't...we have always said..teach gun safety in schools.....you anti gunners reject that....then you accuse us of not wanting to protect children......so in all fair consideration...fuck you......tired of your accusations......with all due respect....