Fbi Report Ends Nra Nonsense About "good Guys With Guns"

[2aguy]

But they all contradict each other which should be your first hint.

Actually, no, they contradict the National Crime Vicimization Survey which hemenway uses for his study...the 15 studies, again, put the minimum number of times a gun is used to save lives and stop crime at 760,000 times a year and they vary on how high they might go...some as high as 3 million (at least 2 different studies) and Kleck's ( 2.5 million) and the rest are around 1-1.5 million....so the only real outlier...is the study you swear by...

Even the study commissioned by obama, through the CDC, which spent 10 million dollars, found the low number to be 500,000 and the high end at 3 million, and they studied 19 different studies on the topic...again...your number of 108,000 times a year is the outlier...

 

[Brain357]

3mil minus 709k equals 2.3mil. 700k minus 108k is only 582k. So actually many are closer to the national crime survey. 700k to 3mil is not even in the same ball park.

But they all contradict each other which should be your first hint.

Actually, no, they contradict the National Crime Vicimization Survey which hemenway uses for his study...the 15 studies, again, put the minimum number of times a gun is used to save lives and stop crime at 760,000 times a year and they vary on how high they might go...some as high as 3 million (at least 2 different studies) and Kleck's ( 2.5 million) and the rest are around 1-1.5 million....so the only real outlier...is the study you swear by...

Even the study commissioned by obama, through the CDC, which spent 10 million dollars, found the low number to be 500,000 and the high end at 3 million, and they studied 19 different studies on the topic...again...your number of 108,000 times a year is the outlier...

 

[Derideo_Te]

You have to consider where the FBI stands politically. Holder runs the FBI and if Holder tells them to select 160 cases out of half a million in order to push Obama's anti 2nd Amendment agenda, that's what they will do. The "study" is aimed at the low information democrat base who don't even realize that they are propaganda targets. The guy who took down the jihad monster who was out to sever heads in Oklahoma was a part time deputy sheriff who worked in the factory. So it seems that more terrorists have been taken down by civilians this month than the FBI who couldn't find two Russian terrorists in Boston even when the KGB gave them the addresses.

This isn't the case. There is nothing wrong with the report - it is just the filthy fucks like the OP who are misrepresenting what the report says that are the problem. This report deals with 12 shootings a year across over a decade - in a very isolated set of circumstances. It tells us zip about the use of guns for defense. It is utterly stupid to attempt to extend this.

Oh the irony coming from the self inflicted ignorance of the NRA sycophants.

Derideo, you DO grasp that you have zero credibility on this thread, right?

You attempted to misrepresent a report - you got caught. Crawl off and lick your wounds now, because at this point you're just humiliating yourself.

Seriously.

Irony squared!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your irrelevancy is self inflicted.

Again, given that you will not highlight aspects of my observations that were inaccurate, as part of our exchange, I have little choice but to assume that you cannot.

You making an arbitrary blanket declaration of irrelevancy against anyone who has not actually read the report is set aside as inaccurate and presumptive.

Onus is on you to prove the relevancy of your remarks which you cannot accomplish without reading the report. Since you refuse to do so your irrelevancy remains self inflicted.

No onus is placed upon me to prove relevancy.

I served up opinion and generalizations focused upon the size and nature of the sampling base and the lack of inclusion of the entire gun-owning population.

My basis for those generalizations were descriptions of the nature and scope of the report and subsequent commentary served up in this thread.

One must shoulder the burden of proof if one disputes the findings of a report.

One does not have to burden one's self with reading a report merely in order to comment upon its sampling base and its inclusiveness, assuming that the poster faithfully assimilated and acted upon the actual nature and scope of the sampling base and its inclusiveness.

If I got the sampling base or its inclusiveness wrong, by all means, tell us how.

Otherwise, your rock-throwing related to relevancy is set aside, with prejudice and finality.

Last chance.

Show where those broad, sweeping generalizations were in error, and I'll be only too happy to concede the point... nobody's perfect.

Otherwise, your observations and objections and lame attempts at discrediting an opponent are dismissed as inaccuracy, partisanship and foolishness, as they should be.

If you had read the report you would have discovered that it was narrowly targeted and therefore your admitted "broad, sweeping generalizations" were utterly irrelevant to the context.

There was no "rock throwing" either. Simply an observation that your "broad, sweeping generalizations" were meaningless followed by a suggestion to find out why for yourself.

That you have persisted in your obstinance says volumes.

No, if I had tried to bullshit my way through the exchange by saying that I had read it, then that might have spoken volumes.

My original remarks had to do with how inappropriate it was, for Gun-Grabbers to take such a narrow-gauge report, and try to parlay that into a series of broad, sweeping generalizations to refute the assertions of Gun Rights folk, about guns and self-defense.

I stand by those original remarks, and by my prolonged defense of those remarks, and consider that I have won the challenge, insofar as you have been unable to refute the accuracy of the itemized particulars that I served-up earlier, which were the salient and constituent elements of those original remarks.

My persistence is merely indicative of my refusing to be bullied into losing sight of the original nature and intent of the remarks.

As I said earlier, this did not go well for you, and all the tap-dancing around the original nature and scope and intent of the remarks hasn't changed that.

But thank you for the time.

Your self inflicted irrelevance is not my problem.

Your comments were out of context for the OP.

That you persist in being an NRA sycophant is also your problem.

Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You have to consider where the FBI stands politically. Holder runs the FBI and if Holder tells them to select 160 cases out of half a million in order to push Obama's anti 2nd Amendment agenda, that's what they will do. The "study" is aimed at the low information democrat base who don't even realize that they are propaganda targets. The guy who took down the jihad monster who was out to sever heads in Oklahoma was a part time deputy sheriff who worked in the factory. So it seems that more terrorists have been taken down by civilians this month than the FBI who couldn't find two Russian terrorists in Boston even when the KGB gave them the addresses.

Lying about the integrity of the FBI doesn't do much for your credibility.

Attacking my credibility doesn't do much for your credibility unless you argue about the freaking post.

Your failure to comprehend that my response was about your feckless post is your problem.

Do you comprehend that words like feckless and implying that I failed to comprehend still doesn't rise to the level of an argument.

That you lied about the FBI is your problem, not mine.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You have to consider where the FBI stands politically. Holder runs the FBI and if Holder tells them to select 160 cases out of half a million in order to push Obama's anti 2nd Amendment agenda, that's what they will do. The "study" is aimed at the low information democrat base who don't even realize that they are propaganda targets. The guy who took down the jihad monster who was out to sever heads in Oklahoma was a part time deputy sheriff who worked in the factory. So it seems that more terrorists have been taken down by civilians this month than the FBI who couldn't find two Russian terrorists in Boston even when the KGB gave them the addresses.

This isn't the case. There is nothing wrong with the report - it is just the filthy fucks like the OP who are misrepresenting what the report says that are the problem. This report deals with 12 shootings a year across over a decade - in a very isolated set of circumstances. It tells us zip about the use of guns for defense. It is utterly stupid to attempt to extend this.

Oh the irony coming from the self inflicted ignorance of the NRA sycophants.

when it comes to ignorance the anti gun turds have no match

Indeed, there are only two kinds of gun control advocates

1) the stupid/ignorant

2) dishonest

If you actually believe that democrat gun control laws stop crime you are either ignorant or stupid

and if you support those seems knowing they don't you are dishonest

there are no other possibilities

so are you are moron or a liar Deri-licit

Mindless ad hom with zero substance.

 

[Kondor3]

Again, given that you will not highlight aspects of my observations that were inaccurate, as part of our exchange, I have little choice but to assume that you cannot.

You making an arbitrary blanket declaration of irrelevancy against anyone who has not actually read the report is set aside as inaccurate and presumptive.

Onus is on you to prove the relevancy of your remarks which you cannot accomplish without reading the report. Since you refuse to do so your irrelevancy remains self inflicted.

No onus is placed upon me to prove relevancy.

I served up opinion and generalizations focused upon the size and nature of the sampling base and the lack of inclusion of the entire gun-owning population.

My basis for those generalizations were descriptions of the nature and scope of the report and subsequent commentary served up in this thread.

One must shoulder the burden of proof if one disputes the findings of a report.

One does not have to burden one's self with reading a report merely in order to comment upon its sampling base and its inclusiveness, assuming that the poster faithfully assimilated and acted upon the actual nature and scope of the sampling base and its inclusiveness.

If I got the sampling base or its inclusiveness wrong, by all means, tell us how.

Otherwise, your rock-throwing related to relevancy is set aside, with prejudice and finality.

Last chance.

Show where those broad, sweeping generalizations were in error, and I'll be only too happy to concede the point... nobody's perfect.

Otherwise, your observations and objections and lame attempts at discrediting an opponent are dismissed as inaccuracy, partisanship and foolishness, as they should be.

If you had read the report you would have discovered that it was narrowly targeted and therefore your admitted "broad, sweeping generalizations" were utterly irrelevant to the context.

There was no "rock throwing" either. Simply an observation that your "broad, sweeping generalizations" were meaningless followed by a suggestion to find out why for yourself.

That you have persisted in your obstinance says volumes.

No, if I had tried to bullshit my way through the exchange by saying that I had read it, then that might have spoken volumes.

My original remarks had to do with how inappropriate it was, for Gun-Grabbers to take such a narrow-gauge report, and try to parlay that into a series of broad, sweeping generalizations to refute the assertions of Gun Rights folk, about guns and self-defense.

I stand by those original remarks, and by my prolonged defense of those remarks, and consider that I have won the challenge, insofar as you have been unable to refute the accuracy of the itemized particulars that I served-up earlier, which were the salient and constituent elements of those original remarks.

My persistence is merely indicative of my refusing to be bullied into losing sight of the original nature and intent of the remarks.

As I said earlier, this did not go well for you, and all the tap-dancing around the original nature and scope and intent of the remarks hasn't changed that.

But thank you for the time.

Your self inflicted irrelevance is not my problem.

Your comments were out of context for the OP.

That you persist in being an NRA sycophant is also your problem.

Have a nice day.

Seen.

 

[2aguy]

And the response to the anti gunner attempt to distort this FBI study to lie about guns...Apparently more than one left wing, anti gun news outlet has latched on to this FBI report...

NRA-ILA New York Times Mischaracterizes New FBI Report - The Truth About Guns

Also, as the FBI notes, its report doesn’t include crimes committed without firearms. Anti-gun groups would like the public to believe that all mass murders are committed with firearms, but many such crimes are committed by other means. For example, USA Today has reported that between 2006 and 2013, there were at least 61 mass murders, with at least 286 victims, which were committed with knives or bludgeons, or by arson, drowning, strangulation or suffocation. By comparison, for the same period, the FBI’s report includes only 34 mass murders, with 272 victims, which were committed with firearms.

Additionally, the FBI notes, “shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence–pervasive, long-tracked, criminal acts that could also affect the public–were not included in this study.” Thus, the FBI ignored at least 116 felony-related murders with four or more victims between 2000 and 2013, resulting in the murders of at least 498 people.

Moreover, the FBI didn’t include mass shootings that took place between 1949 and 1999, a decision that would affect a long-term trend line for such crimes. And, curiously, it didn’t even include the April 9, 2002, murders of five people in Toms River, New Jersey, by a police officer using a police department submachinegun and pistol, and the October 3, 2002, murders of five people in Montgomery County, Maryland, by the so-called “D.C. Snipers.”

 

[Seawytch]

Come on folks...this report validates the NRA. A good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun...they simply don't mention it was just ONE guy.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Thank goodness the Muslim headchopper was stopped by a lawful gun owner,

 

[Seawytch]

Thank goodness the Muslim headchopper was stopped by a lawful gun owner,

Yes...a trained LEO.

Toddlers still kill more people than terrorists in the U.S.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Thank goodness the Muslim headchopper was stopped by a lawful gun owner,

Yes...a trained LEO.

Toddlers still kill more people than terrorists in the U.S.

His status as an off-duty reserve officer (non-sworn) is irrelevant to lawfully possessing his personal weapon and seizing the initiative to stop the attack on private property.

When toddlers willfully execute people to promote religious ideology. Get back with me.

 

[Seawytch]

Thank goodness the Muslim headchopper was stopped by a lawful gun owner,

Yes...a trained LEO.

Toddlers still kill more people than terrorists in the U.S.

His status as an off-duty reserve officer (non-sworn) is irrelevant to lawfully possessing his personal weapon and seizing the initiative to stop the attack on private property.

When toddlers willfully execute people to promote religious ideology. Get back with me.

It's relevant to his ability to perform as a trained professional.

Toddlers don't do it willfully, but they do it in far, far greater numbers.

 

[2aguy]

It's relevant to his ability to perform as a trained professional.

And you don't think a regular person, armed with a gun would have stopped the guy? And the guy was a reserve officer...did he ever actually encounter a resisting perp...or did he ever use his weapon on the job? How often did he train with his weapon as a reserve officer vs. as a regular gun owner? Those things really should be known before people say he had an advantage over the regular, non reserve officer gun owner...

There are stories and stories of regular people with guns, some with little or no training, who use their guns to stop violent criminals, some of them attacking as individuals and others in groups...and they aren't reserve officers and they still stop the criminals...a recent attack...3 guys begin the robbery by shooting a clerk in both legs...he still managed to get his gun and killed 2 of the perps...

So please...regular citizens are doing what this reserve officer did every day here in the states...some with little to no training...and they still use their guns and stop the attacks...

There is no special advantage that this guy had...

 

[Vandalshandle]

"
So please...regular citizens are doing what this reserve officer did every day here in the states...some with little to no training...and they still use their guns and stop the attacks..." (Billc)

People using guns with little or no training is a good thing.

Got it.....

 

[2aguy]

Oh, that's right, you are an anti gunner so I will make my point slowly...and I will repeat it if I have to so please pay attention...

Regular people...who buy their gun and go to the range as often as most police officers in regular year...once...or less, manage to defend themselves successfully with their privately owned gun...every day...often without shooting...but when they do shoot, they stop the attacker and survive the encounter. More training is of course better, but guns are not complex machines...it doesn't take years of training as a Navy Seal to use them properly under stress...in a self defense situation...

Go to the Armed Citizen site, Guns Save lives or any of the other places where stories of civilians using guns to survive are collected...it is great reading...you should read those stories...it will help you with your irrational fear of guns...

 

[JoeB131]

But that's where it becomes unbelievable. You gun nuts come on here EVERY FUCKING DAY and share your snuff fantasies. So it's really hard to believe that there are supposedly 100,000 to 2 Million "Defensive Gun Uses" a year, but only 200 or so actually end up with a dead crook.

you are on record being a gun banner. You are in a conspiracy with violent criminals

I knew you couldn't answer the points.

If there are anywhere from 100,000 to 2.5 MILLION "Defensive gun Uses", they why do we have SO FEW dead crooks? (Only about 200 a year, according to the FBI.)

 

[JoeB131]

If I prove I worked for the DOJ will you say attempt to have sex with a wolverine or perform a french kiss on a hornet's nest?

I'm not going to accept any "proof" you provide.

of course not, you are a pathological liar and you project your status onto everyone else

Well, no, I don't believe anyone as obviously disturbed as you are could hold down a job in law enforcement at the Federal Level.

 

[Lakhota]

These macho NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to our future gun rights. Here's what a macho gun nutter looks like after his ignorant ass is burned by the law:

Michael Dunn was found guilty of first-degree murder in the killing of 17-year-old Jordan Davis in September, 2012 after an argument over loud music.

Michael Dunn Found Guilty Of First-Degree Murder In Killing Of Jordan Davis

He doesn't look so tough now.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It's relevant to his ability to perform as a trained professional.

Toddlers don't do it willfully, but they do it in far, far greater numbers.

It doesn't diminish the ability of non-reserve officers to defend themselves with a lawfully concealed weapon.

You have lost me on the toddler analogy.