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

[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.

 

[Iceweasel]

You goddamn liberals are so obtuse. The report doesn't end anything, but you think it does because it's music to your ears. There are plenty of lawful gun owners that prevent problems, The NRA's American Rifleman magazine has a few events each month. How many shootings have the FBI prevented anyway?

 

[Derideo_Te]

If you actually read the report you will realize that you are coming across as a kneejerk deflector.

The FBI report deals with a very serious problem that is is only getting worse, not better.

If you ignore these findings you are going to end up being marginalized in the future.

Better to be informed about the problem that to pretend that it isn't happening.

Your lack of specific refutations seems to indicate that my observations were not inaccurate after all.

Barring any indicators to the contrary, I'll settle for that.

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.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

 

[Kondor3]

Your lack of specific refutations seems to indicate that my observations were not inaccurate after all.

Barring any indicators to the contrary, I'll settle for that.

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.

 

[JoeB131]

[

you are a lying POS. I was a DOJ official for 24 years and very few agents would agree with your crap.

Dude, you'd never pass the psych exam for 24 years.

do you constantly lie because you are a pathological prevaricator or do you it because you are a dishonest moron who has no argument?

No, given how openly you display your crazy here, I'm really finding it hard to believe you could hide it from trained DOJ operatives.

 

[JoeB131]

[
that is because the fraudulent study included homes where the owners DID NOT OWN A GUN but the INTRUDER brought a weapon and shot an occupant. 432 out of 436 incidents

1) Source? Because even your fellow gun nuts have never claimed that.
2) 39 out of the 43 cases of death were suicides. "Hey, Bob, I don't own a gun. Would you mind bringing yours over?"
"Sure, what for?"

3) But here's the real proof Kellerman was right on the money. The NRA immediately lobbied for the CDC to NEVER STUDY GUN VIOLENCE AGAIN.

Now, if you think a study if flawed, then you ask for a new study to either validate or invalidate the results.

You stop all studies if you know they got the right result, and you don't want word getting out.

 

[whitehall]

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.

 

[2aguy]

An nra survey says 34 percent of defenses ends with a dead criminal. That's 238k dead criminals a year with the 700k number. Obviously that is a ridiculous number. The idea so many are shot and killed and not reported is also quite ridiculous

.Brain 357...this is what has you confused...it isn't an analysis of all gun fights...just those documented on "The Armed Citizen" column....

Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables

Overview
For the period 1997 – 2001, reports from “The Armed Citizen” column of the NRA Journals were collected.

 

[turtledude]

[
that is because the fraudulent study included homes where the owners DID NOT OWN A GUN but the INTRUDER brought a weapon and shot an occupant. 432 out of 436 incidents

1) Source? Because even your fellow gun nuts have never claimed that.
2) 39 out of the 43 cases of death were suicides. "Hey, Bob, I don't own a gun. Would you mind bringing yours over?"
"Sure, what for?"

3) But here's the real proof Kellerman was right on the money. The NRA immediately lobbied for the CDC to NEVER STUDY GUN VIOLENCE AGAIN.

Now, if you think a study if flawed, then you ask for a new study to either validate or invalidate the results.

You stop all studies if you know they got the right result, and you don't want word getting out.

suicide is not something that I worry about.
the CDC was being used as an anti gun tool but Democrat turds

Your studies are stupid. and they have been debunked

BTW I am just as safe if I chase a criminal off wit my gun as if I shoot him

 

[2aguy]

Now, if you think a study if flawed, then you ask for a new study to either validate or invalidate the results.

You stop all studies if you know they got the right result, and you don't want word getting out.

It didn't stop studie...I showed 15 or 16 with results and obama's CDC studied gun violence at the cost of 10 million dollars in 2013 and came back with 500,000 to 3 million times a gun was used to save a life or stop a violent crime...from obama's own study...

 

[turtledude]

[

you are a lying POS. I was a DOJ official for 24 years and very few agents would agree with your crap.

Dude, you'd never pass the psych exam for 24 years.

do you constantly lie because you are a pathological prevaricator or do you it because you are a dishonest moron who has no argument?

No, given how openly you display your crazy here, I'm really finding it hard to believe you could hide it from trained DOJ operatives.

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?

 

[2aguy]

This is the 1993 kellerman study...right...?

Here is a list of studies conducted and the number of times a gun was used to save lives and stop violent crime...and at least three happened after 93...

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717

Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIa 1978...2,141,512

DMIb...1978...1,098,409

Hart...1981...1.797,461

Ohio...1982...771,043

Mauser...1990...1,487,342

Gallup...1991...777,153

Gallup...1993...1,621,377

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,682

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
(Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text,PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
.(Lawrence Southwick, Jr.,Guns and Justifiable Homicide: Deterrence and Defense-concludes there are at least 400,000 "fewer violent crimes due to civilian self-defense use of guns" and at least "800,000 violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians.")

Obama's CDC...

from slate.com an article on CDC obama's era...500-3 million defensive gun uses

Handguns suicides mass shootings deaths and self-defense Findings from a research report on gun violence.

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.”

​

 

[turtledude]

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

 

[OODA_Loop]

Guns ?

Lost all mine in a boating accident about 20 miles off shore.

 

[turtledude]

I
Well, Gee, Anathema, I will refund my entire salary to you. However, you might be disappointed, because I serve for free as a volunteer....

certainly a case of the public getting what they pay for

 

[Brain357]

No I'm not confused. It is a survey like the ones you keep talking about. This survey shows that 34 percent of defenses end with a dead criminal. It is no different than the surveys you are constantly quoting. So if there are 700k defenses like you claim, then there should be 238k dead criminals each year. Since we know there are about 30k people dying each year from guns including suicide, it's obvious the 700k is made up. Unless you don't believe an NRA survey?

An nra survey says 34 percent of defenses ends with a dead criminal. That's 238k dead criminals a year with the 700k number. Obviously that is a ridiculous number. The idea so many are shot and killed and not reported is also quite ridiculous

.Brain 357...this is what has you confused...it isn't an analysis of all gun fights...just those documented on "The Armed Citizen" column....

Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables

Overview
For the period 1997 – 2001, reports from “The Armed Citizen” column of the NRA Journals were collected.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

IT'S AN OBAMA CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!