Gun violence in the world

[M14 Shooter]

So, of course there are limits to what arms can be in general circulation.
The radical insistence on no reasonable limit only leads to over reaction and repression for those (of us) who are not afraid of firearms, like having the choice (because we are pro-choice in everything human) and aren't compensating for other short-comings.

Strawman. There is no "radical insistence on no reasonable limit" on gun possession. There is plenty of radical insistence on irrational limits on gun possession, though.

He will only lie to you - no need to continue.

 

[there4eyeM]

Missiles and nukes.

 

[LOki]

Missiles and nukes.

Tyrants and slave owners.

 

[Brain357]

230! Wow, that must be impossible. Of course...

Well, because it is.

There were 9,795,658 crimes committed in 2013. This is a fact easily verified:
United States Crime Rates1960 - 2013
Given there are 365 days in a year, that means there are 26,837 per day are prevented or about 1,118 an hour....1,118 an hour every hour of every day of the year.

Huh? You're taking the number of crimes and dividing by 365 and claiming that they are prevented. Nothing supports that.

230 certainly is not impossible or even all that high considering that there are almost 5 times that number of crimes actually successfully committed AND reported.

Brought to you by the same folks who said Iraq would cost less than a billion and Reagan-nomics.

2 million is likely an over estimate but if it is even half that you are dealing with a SIGNIFICANT numbers of defensive uses.

It's nowhere near 2,000,000 or even half that.

Even you can do the math and see that it is not all that unreasonable at all.

Given that 2,000,000 fantasy, it translates into 230 preventions due to guns per hour....every single hour of every single day.

Pick a day in the future...lets say July 7...if you can show me 50 news stories on 7/7/15 detailing such preventions that occurred on 7/6/15...I'll buy the statistic.

Surely if there are 230 every hour of every day, 25% of them +/- get reported by the local newspapers/radio/tv...don't they?

Accept the challenge?

Given that that number comes from actual research, done over 40 years by both private and public researchers in economics and criminology it isn't fantasy....fantasy is when you anti gun extremists pull a number out of the air and say...that is the number.....

Here is the actual research and this isn't even all of it........

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
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 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


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

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

So the vast majority of studies are under 2 million. The much more accurate NCVS survey is 108k.

The CDC did not estimate DGUs. Please link to the department of justice study. La times and field are very high please link those also.

The NCVS survey didn't ask about DGUs. How do you figure it's the most accurate... besides your obvious bias against the notion of valid DGUs.

He figures that is the number because it is the only study....I repeat, the only study with the number that low.....and of course to get the number that low they have to use a study that isn't a gun study...and doesn't actually ask about guns in the study......

That is some research technique isn't it....?

It is not the only study. You choose to ignore any studies with realistic numbers.

A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice has found that defensive gun uses (DGU) occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that suggested by Kleck: an average of 67,740 times per year.[11]

 

[Brain357]

Well, because it is.
Huh? You're taking the number of crimes and dividing by 365 and claiming that they are prevented. Nothing supports that.

Brought to you by the same folks who said Iraq would cost less than a billion and Reagan-nomics.

It's nowhere near 2,000,000 or even half that.

Given that 2,000,000 fantasy, it translates into 230 preventions due to guns per hour....every single hour of every single day.

Pick a day in the future...lets say July 7...if you can show me 50 news stories on 7/7/15 detailing such preventions that occurred on 7/6/15...I'll buy the statistic.

Surely if there are 230 every hour of every day, 25% of them +/- get reported by the local newspapers/radio/tv...don't they?

Accept the challenge?

Given that that number comes from actual research, done over 40 years by both private and public researchers in economics and criminology it isn't fantasy....fantasy is when you anti gun extremists pull a number out of the air and say...that is the number.....

Here is the actual research and this isn't even all of it........

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
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 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


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

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

So the vast majority of studies are under 2 million. The much more accurate NCVS survey is 108k.

The CDC did not estimate DGUs. Please link to the department of justice study. La times and field are very high please link those also.

The NCVS survey didn't ask about DGUs. How do you figure it's the most accurate... besides your obvious bias against the notion of valid DGUs.

It asks about crimes and what happened during the crime. You need a crime for a dgu. Gun studies go right into guns which leads to many false positives. Many people claim a DGU when it was really intimidating someone. The ncvs also surveys 95k households. No gun study is anywhere close to that. Larger sample equals more accurate results.

The real world is biased against millions of DGUs. Only about 50 make the news each year. People who claim to have one are very rare. Most people don't know anyone who has had one. Only about 230 justifiable homicides each year. Nothing from the real world supports millions of DGUs each year.

You haven't found wisdom yet....the NCVS is not a gun study and does not ask the people questioned if they used a gun for self defense....like doing a study on soft drinks and never asking the people if they drink soft drinks......just hoping someone will mention soft drinks in an off hand way......not smart brain.....try again....


And as the girl with the shotgun shows....she didn't shoot anyone and they ran away.....why are you guys so fucking stupid....

They ask about crimes and what happened during the attempted crime. It would capture any DGUs. You need a crime for a dgu, well unless you are kleck.

 

[Brain357]

Well, because it is.
Huh? You're taking the number of crimes and dividing by 365 and claiming that they are prevented. Nothing supports that.

Brought to you by the same folks who said Iraq would cost less than a billion and Reagan-nomics.

It's nowhere near 2,000,000 or even half that.

Given that 2,000,000 fantasy, it translates into 230 preventions due to guns per hour....every single hour of every single day.

Pick a day in the future...lets say July 7...if you can show me 50 news stories on 7/7/15 detailing such preventions that occurred on 7/6/15...I'll buy the statistic.

Surely if there are 230 every hour of every day, 25% of them +/- get reported by the local newspapers/radio/tv...don't they?

Accept the challenge?

Given that that number comes from actual research, done over 40 years by both private and public researchers in economics and criminology it isn't fantasy....fantasy is when you anti gun extremists pull a number out of the air and say...that is the number.....

Here is the actual research and this isn't even all of it........

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
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 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


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

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

So the vast majority of studies are under 2 million. The much more accurate NCVS survey is 108k.

The CDC did not estimate DGUs. Please link to the department of justice study. La times and field are very high please link those also.

The NCVS survey didn't ask about DGUs. How do you figure it's the most accurate... besides your obvious bias against the notion of valid DGUs.

It asks about crimes and what happened during the crime.

But not DGUs. Correct? I mean, NOT AT ALL. Right? So what's your point?

You need a crime for a dgu.

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. Your point?

Gun studies go right into guns which leads to many false positives.

Because you say so? I say otherwise. I say it gets to the subject in question.

Many people claim a DGU when it was really intimidating someone.

You don't have to kill or even shoot someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

The ncvs also surveys 95k households. No gun study is anywhere close to that. Larger sample equals more accurate results.

Larger studies of things that are not DGUs, do not yield more accurate data about DGUs. I don't care how big the sample is.

The real world is biased against millions of DGUs.

The consensus of studied on DGUs strongly asserts otherwise.

Only about 50 make the news each year.

Lack of anecdotal evidence does not mean lack of verifiable evidence.

People who claim to have one are very rare.

So?

Most people don't know anyone who has had one.

Maybe because people don't run around to news agencies and everyone else to announce that they have a gun? Maybe?

Only about 230 justifiable homicides each year.

You don't have to kill someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

Nothing from the real world supports millions of DGUs each year.

This is just obtuse denial of reality.

You have excuses, lots of them. What other than bad surveys support millions of DGUs? The surveys are so inaccurate they range from 700k-3.6 million. What a joke.

 

[LOki]

Given that that number comes from actual research, done over 40 years by both private and public researchers in economics and criminology it isn't fantasy....fantasy is when you anti gun extremists pull a number out of the air and say...that is the number.....

Here is the actual research and this isn't even all of it........

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
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 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


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

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

So the vast majority of studies are under 2 million. The much more accurate NCVS survey is 108k.

The CDC did not estimate DGUs. Please link to the department of justice study. La times and field are very high please link those also.

The NCVS survey didn't ask about DGUs. How do you figure it's the most accurate... besides your obvious bias against the notion of valid DGUs.

It asks about crimes and what happened during the crime. You need a crime for a dgu. Gun studies go right into guns which leads to many false positives. Many people claim a DGU when it was really intimidating someone. The ncvs also surveys 95k households. No gun study is anywhere close to that. Larger sample equals more accurate results.

The real world is biased against millions of DGUs. Only about 50 make the news each year. People who claim to have one are very rare. Most people don't know anyone who has had one. Only about 230 justifiable homicides each year. Nothing from the real world supports millions of DGUs each year.

You haven't found wisdom yet....the NCVS is not a gun study and does not ask the people questioned if they used a gun for self defense....like doing a study on soft drinks and never asking the people if they drink soft drinks......just hoping someone will mention soft drinks in an off hand way......not smart brain.....try again....


And as the girl with the shotgun shows....she didn't shoot anyone and they ran away.....why are you guys so fucking stupid....

They ask about crimes and what happened during the attempted crime.

But not DGUs.

It would capture any DGUs.

Except for the ones not volunteered.

You need a crime for a dgu,...

The conclusion follows necessarily from the premise. Your point?

...well unless you are kleck.

Baseless accusation from a petulant little girl who is just not getting her pony.

 

[LOki]

Given that that number comes from actual research, done over 40 years by both private and public researchers in economics and criminology it isn't fantasy....fantasy is when you anti gun extremists pull a number out of the air and say...that is the number.....

Here is the actual research and this isn't even all of it........

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
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 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


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

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

So the vast majority of studies are under 2 million. The much more accurate NCVS survey is 108k.

The CDC did not estimate DGUs. Please link to the department of justice study. La times and field are very high please link those also.

The NCVS survey didn't ask about DGUs. How do you figure it's the most accurate... besides your obvious bias against the notion of valid DGUs.

It asks about crimes and what happened during the crime.

But not DGUs. Correct? I mean, NOT AT ALL. Right? So what's your point?

You need a crime for a dgu.

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. Your point?

Gun studies go right into guns which leads to many false positives.

Because you say so? I say otherwise. I say it gets to the subject in question.

Many people claim a DGU when it was really intimidating someone.

You don't have to kill or even shoot someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

The ncvs also surveys 95k households. No gun study is anywhere close to that. Larger sample equals more accurate results.

Larger studies of things that are not DGUs, do not yield more accurate data about DGUs. I don't care how big the sample is.

The real world is biased against millions of DGUs.

The consensus of studied on DGUs strongly asserts otherwise.

Only about 50 make the news each year.

Lack of anecdotal evidence does not mean lack of verifiable evidence.

People who claim to have one are very rare.

So?

Most people don't know anyone who has had one.

Maybe because people don't run around to news agencies and everyone else to announce that they have a gun? Maybe?

Only about 230 justifiable homicides each year.

You don't have to kill someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

Nothing from the real world supports millions of DGUs each year.

This is just obtuse denial of reality.

You have excuses, lots of them.

I offered no excuses. Not one. What's your point?

What other than bad surveys support millions of DGUs?

I offered no bad surveys. Not one. What's your point?

The surveys are so inaccurate they range from 700k-3.6 million. What a joke.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

 

[Brain357]

So the vast majority of studies are under 2 million. The much more accurate NCVS survey is 108k.

The CDC did not estimate DGUs. Please link to the department of justice study. La times and field are very high please link those also.

The NCVS survey didn't ask about DGUs. How do you figure it's the most accurate... besides your obvious bias against the notion of valid DGUs.

It asks about crimes and what happened during the crime.

But not DGUs. Correct? I mean, NOT AT ALL. Right? So what's your point?

You need a crime for a dgu.

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. Your point?

Gun studies go right into guns which leads to many false positives.

Because you say so? I say otherwise. I say it gets to the subject in question.

Many people claim a DGU when it was really intimidating someone.

You don't have to kill or even shoot someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

The ncvs also surveys 95k households. No gun study is anywhere close to that. Larger sample equals more accurate results.

Larger studies of things that are not DGUs, do not yield more accurate data about DGUs. I don't care how big the sample is.

The real world is biased against millions of DGUs.

The consensus of studied on DGUs strongly asserts otherwise.

Only about 50 make the news each year.

Lack of anecdotal evidence does not mean lack of verifiable evidence.

People who claim to have one are very rare.

So?

Most people don't know anyone who has had one.

Maybe because people don't run around to news agencies and everyone else to announce that they have a gun? Maybe?

Only about 230 justifiable homicides each year.

You don't have to kill someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

Nothing from the real world supports millions of DGUs each year.

This is just obtuse denial of reality.

You have excuses, lots of them.

I offered no excuses. Not one. What's your point?

What other than bad surveys support millions of DGUs?

I offered no bad surveys. Not one. What's your point?

The surveys are so inaccurate they range from 700k-3.6 million. What a joke.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

If they were accurate they would arrive at similar numbers. The fact they range from 700k-3.6 million proves they are not accurate.

 

[Brain357]

So the vast majority of studies are under 2 million. The much more accurate NCVS survey is 108k.

The CDC did not estimate DGUs. Please link to the department of justice study. La times and field are very high please link those also.

The NCVS survey didn't ask about DGUs. How do you figure it's the most accurate... besides your obvious bias against the notion of valid DGUs.

It asks about crimes and what happened during the crime.

But not DGUs. Correct? I mean, NOT AT ALL. Right? So what's your point?

You need a crime for a dgu.

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. Your point?

Gun studies go right into guns which leads to many false positives.

Because you say so? I say otherwise. I say it gets to the subject in question.

Many people claim a DGU when it was really intimidating someone.

You don't have to kill or even shoot someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

The ncvs also surveys 95k households. No gun study is anywhere close to that. Larger sample equals more accurate results.

Larger studies of things that are not DGUs, do not yield more accurate data about DGUs. I don't care how big the sample is.

The real world is biased against millions of DGUs.

The consensus of studied on DGUs strongly asserts otherwise.

Only about 50 make the news each year.

Lack of anecdotal evidence does not mean lack of verifiable evidence.

People who claim to have one are very rare.

So?

Most people don't know anyone who has had one.

Maybe because people don't run around to news agencies and everyone else to announce that they have a gun? Maybe?

Only about 230 justifiable homicides each year.

You don't have to kill someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

Nothing from the real world supports millions of DGUs each year.

This is just obtuse denial of reality.

You have excuses, lots of them.

I offered no excuses. Not one. What's your point?

What other than bad surveys support millions of DGUs?

I offered no bad surveys. Not one. What's your point?

The surveys are so inaccurate they range from 700k-3.6 million. What a joke.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

So you seem to have no evidence there are millions of defenses. All the evidence points to much fewer.

 

[LOki]

The NCVS survey didn't ask about DGUs. How do you figure it's the most accurate... besides your obvious bias against the notion of valid DGUs.

It asks about crimes and what happened during the crime.

But not DGUs. Correct? I mean, NOT AT ALL. Right? So what's your point?

You need a crime for a dgu.

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. Your point?

Gun studies go right into guns which leads to many false positives.

Because you say so? I say otherwise. I say it gets to the subject in question.

Many people claim a DGU when it was really intimidating someone.

You don't have to kill or even shoot someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

The ncvs also surveys 95k households. No gun study is anywhere close to that. Larger sample equals more accurate results.

Larger studies of things that are not DGUs, do not yield more accurate data about DGUs. I don't care how big the sample is.

The real world is biased against millions of DGUs.

The consensus of studied on DGUs strongly asserts otherwise.

Only about 50 make the news each year.

Lack of anecdotal evidence does not mean lack of verifiable evidence.

People who claim to have one are very rare.

So?

Most people don't know anyone who has had one.

Maybe because people don't run around to news agencies and everyone else to announce that they have a gun? Maybe?

Only about 230 justifiable homicides each year.

You don't have to kill someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

Nothing from the real world supports millions of DGUs each year.

This is just obtuse denial of reality.

You have excuses, lots of them.

I offered no excuses. Not one. What's your point?

What other than bad surveys support millions of DGUs?

I offered no bad surveys. Not one. What's your point?

The surveys are so inaccurate they range from 700k-3.6 million. What a joke.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

If they were accurate they would arrive at similar numbers.

Nope. You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

The fact they range from 700k-3.6 million proves they are not accurate.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

 

[LOki]

The NCVS survey didn't ask about DGUs. How do you figure it's the most accurate... besides your obvious bias against the notion of valid DGUs.

It asks about crimes and what happened during the crime.

But not DGUs. Correct? I mean, NOT AT ALL. Right? So what's your point?

You need a crime for a dgu.

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. Your point?

Gun studies go right into guns which leads to many false positives.

Because you say so? I say otherwise. I say it gets to the subject in question.

Many people claim a DGU when it was really intimidating someone.

You don't have to kill or even shoot someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

The ncvs also surveys 95k households. No gun study is anywhere close to that. Larger sample equals more accurate results.

Larger studies of things that are not DGUs, do not yield more accurate data about DGUs. I don't care how big the sample is.

The real world is biased against millions of DGUs.

The consensus of studied on DGUs strongly asserts otherwise.

Only about 50 make the news each year.

Lack of anecdotal evidence does not mean lack of verifiable evidence.

People who claim to have one are very rare.

So?

Most people don't know anyone who has had one.

Maybe because people don't run around to news agencies and everyone else to announce that they have a gun? Maybe?

Only about 230 justifiable homicides each year.

You don't have to kill someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

Nothing from the real world supports millions of DGUs each year.

This is just obtuse denial of reality.

You have excuses, lots of them.

I offered no excuses. Not one. What's your point?

What other than bad surveys support millions of DGUs?

I offered no bad surveys. Not one. What's your point?

The surveys are so inaccurate they range from 700k-3.6 million. What a joke.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

So you seem to have no evidence there are millions of defenses.

There appears to be plenty of evidence for millions of DGUs annually.

All the evidence points to much fewer.

No. It doesn't. Really. It's your insistence that evidence is not evidence--that unless someone is killed, there's no DGU--that brings your estimates so low, Mr. Kellerman

 

[Brain357]

It asks about crimes and what happened during the crime.

But not DGUs. Correct? I mean, NOT AT ALL. Right? So what's your point?

You need a crime for a dgu.

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. Your point?

Gun studies go right into guns which leads to many false positives.

Because you say so? I say otherwise. I say it gets to the subject in question.

Many people claim a DGU when it was really intimidating someone.

You don't have to kill or even shoot someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

The ncvs also surveys 95k households. No gun study is anywhere close to that. Larger sample equals more accurate results.

Larger studies of things that are not DGUs, do not yield more accurate data about DGUs. I don't care how big the sample is.

The real world is biased against millions of DGUs.

The consensus of studied on DGUs strongly asserts otherwise.

Only about 50 make the news each year.

Lack of anecdotal evidence does not mean lack of verifiable evidence.

People who claim to have one are very rare.

So?

Most people don't know anyone who has had one.

Maybe because people don't run around to news agencies and everyone else to announce that they have a gun? Maybe?

Only about 230 justifiable homicides each year.

You don't have to kill someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

Nothing from the real world supports millions of DGUs each year.

This is just obtuse denial of reality.

You have excuses, lots of them.

I offered no excuses. Not one. What's your point?

What other than bad surveys support millions of DGUs?

I offered no bad surveys. Not one. What's your point?

The surveys are so inaccurate they range from 700k-3.6 million. What a joke.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

If they were accurate they would arrive at similar numbers.

Nope. You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

The fact they range from 700k-3.6 million proves they are not accurate.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

Yes I do. You clearly have no real arguments. Are you even an adult?

 

[Brain357]

It asks about crimes and what happened during the crime.

But not DGUs. Correct? I mean, NOT AT ALL. Right? So what's your point?

You need a crime for a dgu.

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. Your point?

Gun studies go right into guns which leads to many false positives.

Because you say so? I say otherwise. I say it gets to the subject in question.

Many people claim a DGU when it was really intimidating someone.

You don't have to kill or even shoot someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

The ncvs also surveys 95k households. No gun study is anywhere close to that. Larger sample equals more accurate results.

Larger studies of things that are not DGUs, do not yield more accurate data about DGUs. I don't care how big the sample is.

The real world is biased against millions of DGUs.

The consensus of studied on DGUs strongly asserts otherwise.

Only about 50 make the news each year.

Lack of anecdotal evidence does not mean lack of verifiable evidence.

People who claim to have one are very rare.

So?

Most people don't know anyone who has had one.

Maybe because people don't run around to news agencies and everyone else to announce that they have a gun? Maybe?

Only about 230 justifiable homicides each year.

You don't have to kill someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

Nothing from the real world supports millions of DGUs each year.

This is just obtuse denial of reality.

You have excuses, lots of them.

I offered no excuses. Not one. What's your point?

What other than bad surveys support millions of DGUs?

I offered no bad surveys. Not one. What's your point?

The surveys are so inaccurate they range from 700k-3.6 million. What a joke.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

So you seem to have no evidence there are millions of defenses.

There appears to be plenty of evidence for millions of DGUs annually.

All the evidence points to much fewer.

No. It doesn't. Really. It's your insistence that evidence is not evidence--that unless someone is killed, there's no DGU--that brings your estimates so low, Mr. Kellerman

If that were the case the estimate would be about 230. Instead the estimate is 108k. You fail.

 

[LOki]

But not DGUs. Correct? I mean, NOT AT ALL. Right? So what's your point?

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. Your point?

Because you say so? I say otherwise. I say it gets to the subject in question.

You don't have to kill or even shoot someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

Larger studies of things that are not DGUs, do not yield more accurate data about DGUs. I don't care how big the sample is.

The consensus of studied on DGUs strongly asserts otherwise.

Lack of anecdotal evidence does not mean lack of verifiable evidence.

So?

Maybe because people don't run around to news agencies and everyone else to announce that they have a gun? Maybe?

You don't have to kill someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

This is just obtuse denial of reality.

You have excuses, lots of them.

I offered no excuses. Not one. What's your point?

What other than bad surveys support millions of DGUs?

I offered no bad surveys. Not one. What's your point?

The surveys are so inaccurate they range from 700k-3.6 million. What a joke.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

If they were accurate they would arrive at similar numbers.

Nope. You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

The fact they range from 700k-3.6 million proves they are not accurate.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

Yes I do.

No. You CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY don't know what the term "accurate" means.

And I mean it's REALLY OBVIOUS. You should look it up, Pumpkin.

You clearly have no real arguments.

I have plenty of awesome arguments, but they are meaningless to the superstitious.

Are you even an adult?

I certainly am. Thanks for asking.

 

[LOki]

But not DGUs. Correct? I mean, NOT AT ALL. Right? So what's your point?

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. Your point?

Because you say so? I say otherwise. I say it gets to the subject in question.

You don't have to kill or even shoot someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

Larger studies of things that are not DGUs, do not yield more accurate data about DGUs. I don't care how big the sample is.

The consensus of studied on DGUs strongly asserts otherwise.

Lack of anecdotal evidence does not mean lack of verifiable evidence.

So?

Maybe because people don't run around to news agencies and everyone else to announce that they have a gun? Maybe?

You don't have to kill someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

This is just obtuse denial of reality.

You have excuses, lots of them.

I offered no excuses. Not one. What's your point?

What other than bad surveys support millions of DGUs?

I offered no bad surveys. Not one. What's your point?

The surveys are so inaccurate they range from 700k-3.6 million. What a joke.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

So you seem to have no evidence there are millions of defenses.

There appears to be plenty of evidence for millions of DGUs annually.

All the evidence points to much fewer.

No. It doesn't. Really. It's your insistence that evidence is not evidence--that unless someone is killed, there's no DGU--that brings your estimates so low, Mr. Kellerman

If that were the case the estimate would be about 230. Instead the estimate is 108k. You fail.

Oh no, Mr. Kellerman, I don't fail... YOU fail. Big time.

 

[Brain357]

You have excuses, lots of them.

I offered no excuses. Not one. What's your point?

What other than bad surveys support millions of DGUs?

I offered no bad surveys. Not one. What's your point?

The surveys are so inaccurate they range from 700k-3.6 million. What a joke.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

So you seem to have no evidence there are millions of defenses.

There appears to be plenty of evidence for millions of DGUs annually.

All the evidence points to much fewer.

No. It doesn't. Really. It's your insistence that evidence is not evidence--that unless someone is killed, there's no DGU--that brings your estimates so low, Mr. Kellerman

If that were the case the estimate would be about 230. Instead the estimate is 108k. You fail.

Oh no, Mr. Kellerman, I don't fail... YOU fail. Big time.

You act like such a child. Are you going to back up anything you say? There are only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year. If I believed someone needed to be killed that would be the estimate. Since the estimate is 108k obviously that includes DGUs with nobody killed. Now stop being so childish.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have excuses, lots of them.

I offered no excuses. Not one. What's your point?

What other than bad surveys support millions of DGUs?

I offered no bad surveys. Not one. What's your point?

The surveys are so inaccurate they range from 700k-3.6 million. What a joke.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

If they were accurate they would arrive at similar numbers.

Nope. You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

The fact they range from 700k-3.6 million proves they are not accurate.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

Yes I do.

No. You CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY don't know what the term "accurate" means.

And I mean it's REALLY OBVIOUS. You should look it up, Pumpkin.

You clearly have no real arguments.

I have plenty of awesome arguments, but they are meaningless to the superstitious.

Are you even an adult?

I certainly am. Thanks for asking.

Brain will only lie to you.

 

[Brain357]

You have excuses, lots of them.

I offered no excuses. Not one. What's your point?

What other than bad surveys support millions of DGUs?

I offered no bad surveys. Not one. What's your point?

The surveys are so inaccurate they range from 700k-3.6 million. What a joke.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

So you seem to have no evidence there are millions of defenses.

There appears to be plenty of evidence for millions of DGUs annually.

All the evidence points to much fewer.

No. It doesn't. Really. It's your insistence that evidence is not evidence--that unless someone is killed, there's no DGU--that brings your estimates so low, Mr. Kellerman

If that were the case the estimate would be about 230. Instead the estimate is 108k. You fail.

Oh no, Mr. Kellerman, I don't fail... YOU fail. Big time.

I offered no excuses. Not one. What's your point?

I offered no bad surveys. Not one. What's your point?

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

If they were accurate they would arrive at similar numbers.

Nope. You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

The fact they range from 700k-3.6 million proves they are not accurate.

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

Yes I do.

No. You CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY don't know what the term "accurate" means.

And I mean it's REALLY OBVIOUS. You should look it up, Pumpkin.

You clearly have no real arguments.

I have plenty of awesome arguments, but they are meaningless to the superstitious.

Are you even an adult?

I certainly am. Thanks for asking.

Brain will only lie to you.

Still too scared to debate me I see. Funny.

 

[LOki]

I offered no excuses. Not one. What's your point?

I offered no bad surveys. Not one. What's your point?

You clearly don't know what the term "accurate" means. What's your point?

So you seem to have no evidence there are millions of defenses.

There appears to be plenty of evidence for millions of DGUs annually.

All the evidence points to much fewer.

No. It doesn't. Really. It's your insistence that evidence is not evidence--that unless someone is killed, there's no DGU--that brings your estimates so low, Mr. Kellerman

If that were the case the estimate would be about 230. Instead the estimate is 108k. You fail.

Oh no, Mr. Kellerman, I don't fail... YOU fail. Big time.

You act like such a child.

Really? How so?

Are you going to back up anything you say?

I've got nothing new to present to you, that you have not already flatly and obtusely denied is valid. You accept no valid data, no valid studies, no valid logic, and no valid reasoning. What kind of back-up do you really expect from me?

There are only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year.

You do not need to kill the criminal to use your gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

If I believed someone needed to be killed that would be the estimate.

Oh. You don't need to actually discharge the firearm to use it defensively either, Mr. Kellerman.

Since the estimate is 108k obviously that includes DGUs with nobody killed.

And it only represents that portion of respondents willing to unilaterally volunteer their gun use to the government.

Now stop being so childish.

I'm not the one who is stamping their little pink bootie, Cupcake.