Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are not paying attention. I said I have nothing NEW to submit to you. Other have already presented plenty of work that substantiates ~2M DGUs/year. You just refuse to accept it's real. Like a proper thrall.More denial of reality from you, Cupcake.More denial of reality from you, Cupcake.More nothing. I'm still waitng.
I'm not waiting for you to disavow your superstitions.
Nope you have still given no reason to believe the ridiculous. I'll keep waiting.
I'm not waiting for you to disavow your superstitions.
You talk a lot and can't give anything from reality to support your belief. That is funny.
The reality is that guns are used defensively by orders of magnitude more often that they are used offensively. The statistics are rather consistent on this fact. Professional criminologists share the consensus. Detractors like yourself put OBVIOUSLY disingenuous limits upon what constitutes a DGU, and they simply REFUSE to accept that even peaceful decent folks have valid reasons to not be entirely candid with government agencies. And finally, they deny the OBVIOUS utility that guns have for self defense.
Just more denial of verifiable reality from you.But not DGU's. We understand that. Do you?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.
No. It would only capture DGUs unilaterally volunteered.It would capture any DGUs.
You know what though, in the NCVS study, not one respondent mentioned catfish. Hence, THERE ARE NO CATFISH!
The conclusion follows necessarily from the premise. What is your point?You need a crime for a dgu,...
What ever do you mean, Pumpkin?...well unless you are kleck.
You have no valid point, so you cast baseless aspersions in your hissy fit?
Wow...you are good. thanks. Brain has been pushing the NCVS for so long because it is the only study with numbers that low and your take down of him and the study is great.
You are impressed by that babbling? Why am I not surprised. Neither of you can give any real facts that support your claims.
If you didn't have systematically flawed data to support your contentions, you'd have no data. If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.
So, no one had pants on. They didn't volunteer that they had pants on, so ... NO PANTS!But not DGU's. We understand that. Do you?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.
No. It would only capture DGUs unilaterally volunteered.It would capture any DGUs.
You know what though, in the NCVS study, not one respondent mentioned catfish. Hence, THERE ARE NO CATFISH!
The conclusion follows necessarily from the premise. What is your point?You need a crime for a dgu,...
What ever do you mean, Pumpkin?...well unless you are kleck.
You have no valid point, so you cast baseless aspersions in your hissy fit?
Any positive responses to a crime are asked this:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”
So yes it would include any DGUs.
Also, if someone prevented a criminal from victimizing them, were they then a victim? If they thought not, then those folks who used a gun defensively were NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to report the DGU.
And... they didn't report that they were wearing pants. Therefore, there are very few DGUs, and no one wears pants.
Sorry but anyne who used a gun in defense would report it when asked:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”
It's pretty clear and obvious. The ncvs includes attempted crimes. All your arguments fail.
So, no one had pants on. They didn't volunteer that they had pants on, so ... NO PANTS!But not DGU's. We understand that. Do you?They ask about crimes and what happened during the attempted crime.
No. It would only capture DGUs unilaterally volunteered.It would capture any DGUs.
You know what though, in the NCVS study, not one respondent mentioned catfish. Hence, THERE ARE NO CATFISH!
The conclusion follows necessarily from the premise. What is your point?You need a crime for a dgu,...
What ever do you mean, Pumpkin?...well unless you are kleck.
You have no valid point, so you cast baseless aspersions in your hissy fit?
Any positive responses to a crime are asked this:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”
So yes it would include any DGUs.
Also, if someone prevented a criminal from victimizing them, were they then a victim? If they thought not, then those folks who used a gun defensively were NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to report the DGU.
And... they didn't report that they were wearing pants. Therefore, there are very few DGUs, and no one wears pants.
Sorry but anyne who used a gun in defense would report it when asked:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”
It's pretty clear and obvious. The ncvs includes attempted crimes. All your arguments fail.
No, as was reported by someone that actually had to deal with these people they talk to you in person, as agents of the federal government. You are wrong...just to think that you get more accurate results about a topic when you don't actually directly ask about that topic....they never ask, "did you use a gun in a self defense situation?" And you expect the answers to be more accurate rather than less accurate.....
I want to find out about orange juice consumption in the U.S.
If I never ask the person questioned if they drank orange juice, but rather asked them "did you drive a car." Where did you drive the car and if they respond to the store, then I ask "What did you buy at the store" and by some miracle they say "orange Juice" you consider that more accurate than directly asking....."Did you buy orange juice in the past year" "how many times a week did you buy orange juice each week"
Never ask brain to do research for you......
And on top of that...the NCVS can't even get accurate numbers on topics it is designed to study, in particular sexual assault and domestic abuse.......
If someone prevented a criminal from victimizing them, were they then a victim? If they thought not, then those folks who used a gun defensively were NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to report the DGU.So, no one had pants on. They didn't volunteer that they had pants on, so ... NO PANTS!But not DGU's. We understand that. Do you?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.
No. It would only capture DGUs unilaterally volunteered.It would capture any DGUs.
You know what though, in the NCVS study, not one respondent mentioned catfish. Hence, THERE ARE NO CATFISH!
The conclusion follows necessarily from the premise. What is your point?You need a crime for a dgu,...
What ever do you mean, Pumpkin?...well unless you are kleck.
You have no valid point, so you cast baseless aspersions in your hissy fit?
Any positive responses to a crime are asked this:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”
So yes it would include any DGUs.
Also, if someone prevented a criminal from victimizing them, were they then a victim? If they thought not, then those folks who used a gun defensively were NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to report the DGU.
And... they didn't report that they were wearing pants. Therefore, there are very few DGUs, and no one wears pants.
Sorry but anyne who used a gun in defense would report it when asked:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”
No. Obviously not. The NVCS only includes attempted crimes if the respondent is not screened out of that portion of the survey. Also, the NCVS only reports the DGUs respondents were willing to volunteer to the USDOJ. Personally, I don't care how righteous my DGU might be, I'd NEVER volunteer such information to any law enforcement agency--for OBVIOUS reasons.It's pretty clear and obvious. The ncvs includes attempted crimes. All your arguments fail.
If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.Just more denial of verifiable reality from you.But not DGU's. We understand that. Do you?They ask about crimes and what happened during the attempted crime.
No. It would only capture DGUs unilaterally volunteered.It would capture any DGUs.
You know what though, in the NCVS study, not one respondent mentioned catfish. Hence, THERE ARE NO CATFISH!
The conclusion follows necessarily from the premise. What is your point?You need a crime for a dgu,...
What ever do you mean, Pumpkin?...well unless you are kleck.
You have no valid point, so you cast baseless aspersions in your hissy fit?
Wow...you are good. thanks. Brain has been pushing the NCVS for so long because it is the only study with numbers that low and your take down of him and the study is great.
You are impressed by that babbling? Why am I not surprised. Neither of you can give any real facts that support your claims.
If you didn't have systematically flawed data to support your contentions, you'd have no data. If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.
You seem to have nothing to even deny. You just keep saying nothing over and over. That is obviously all you have. Your claim is ridiculous and so is your non defense of it. Just admit you have nothing already.
That was meant for me, right? Or do you just post the EXACT SAME THING ALL THE TIME?
No CF, I don't think you're a dirt bag, though you are the archetype for the idiot-gram (I suspect you think you're clever, you're not). You're simply a run of the mill partisan hack with very little of interest to write about, and yet do so ubiquitously.
Pot, meet Kettle
You're entitled to your opinion, as insipid as it may be. Are you proud of this post, does it give you a sense of accomplishment?
Only Sheep like you take pride in posting on an anonymous message board
Pride? Today's sheep are those single issue voters of the hoi polloi who feel compelled to join the herd of the conservative echo chamber; a set whose mind is closed, an infertile one threatened by ideas which do not fit into the box of dogma they have been instructed to adopt.
That's my opinion and before you respond with Booooooosh or some other idiot-gram you should do some homework - my opinion is easy to verify simply read their echo's.
If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.Just more denial of verifiable reality from you.But not DGU's. We understand that. Do you?
No. It would only capture DGUs unilaterally volunteered.
You know what though, in the NCVS study, not one respondent mentioned catfish. Hence, THERE ARE NO CATFISH!
The conclusion follows necessarily from the premise. What is your point?
What ever do you mean, Pumpkin?
You have no valid point, so you cast baseless aspersions in your hissy fit?
Wow...you are good. thanks. Brain has been pushing the NCVS for so long because it is the only study with numbers that low and your take down of him and the study is great.
You are impressed by that babbling? Why am I not surprised. Neither of you can give any real facts that support your claims.
If you didn't have systematically flawed data to support your contentions, you'd have no data. If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.
You seem to have nothing to even deny. You just keep saying nothing over and over. That is obviously all you have. Your claim is ridiculous and so is your non defense of it. Just admit you have nothing already.
If someone prevented a criminal from victimizing them, were they then a victim? If they thought not, then those folks who used a gun defensively were NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to report the DGU.So, no one had pants on. They didn't volunteer that they had pants on, so ... NO PANTS!But not DGU's. We understand that. Do you?They ask about crimes and what happened during the attempted crime.
No. It would only capture DGUs unilaterally volunteered.It would capture any DGUs.
You know what though, in the NCVS study, not one respondent mentioned catfish. Hence, THERE ARE NO CATFISH!
The conclusion follows necessarily from the premise. What is your point?You need a crime for a dgu,...
What ever do you mean, Pumpkin?...well unless you are kleck.
You have no valid point, so you cast baseless aspersions in your hissy fit?
Any positive responses to a crime are asked this:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”
So yes it would include any DGUs.
Also, if someone prevented a criminal from victimizing them, were they then a victim? If they thought not, then those folks who used a gun defensively were NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to report the DGU.
And... they didn't report that they were wearing pants. Therefore, there are very few DGUs, and no one wears pants.
Sorry but anyne who used a gun in defense would report it when asked:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”
No. Obviously not. The NVCS only includes attempted crimes if the respondent is not screened out of that portion of the survey. Also, the NCVS only reports the DGUs respondents were willing to volunteer to the USDOJ. Personally, I don't care how righteous my DGU might be, I'd NEVER volunteer such information to any law enforcement agency--for OBVIOUS reasons.It's pretty clear and obvious. The ncvs includes attempted crimes. All your arguments fail.
If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.Just more denial of verifiable reality from you.But not DGU's. We understand that. Do you?
No. It would only capture DGUs unilaterally volunteered.
You know what though, in the NCVS study, not one respondent mentioned catfish. Hence, THERE ARE NO CATFISH!
The conclusion follows necessarily from the premise. What is your point?
What ever do you mean, Pumpkin?
You have no valid point, so you cast baseless aspersions in your hissy fit?
Wow...you are good. thanks. Brain has been pushing the NCVS for so long because it is the only study with numbers that low and your take down of him and the study is great.
You are impressed by that babbling? Why am I not surprised. Neither of you can give any real facts that support your claims.
If you didn't have systematically flawed data to support your contentions, you'd have no data. If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.
You seem to have nothing to even deny. You just keep saying nothing over and over. That is obviously all you have. Your claim is ridiculous and so is your non defense of it. Just admit you have nothing already.
You're ignoring what I'm saying. You are just ignoring how the NCVS works.If someone prevented a criminal from victimizing them, were they then a victim? If they thought not, then those folks who used a gun defensively were NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to report the DGU.So, no one had pants on. They didn't volunteer that they had pants on, so ... NO PANTS!But not DGU's. We understand that. Do you?
No. It would only capture DGUs unilaterally volunteered.
You know what though, in the NCVS study, not one respondent mentioned catfish. Hence, THERE ARE NO CATFISH!
The conclusion follows necessarily from the premise. What is your point?
What ever do you mean, Pumpkin?
You have no valid point, so you cast baseless aspersions in your hissy fit?
Any positive responses to a crime are asked this:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”
So yes it would include any DGUs.
Also, if someone prevented a criminal from victimizing them, were they then a victim? If they thought not, then those folks who used a gun defensively were NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to report the DGU.
And... they didn't report that they were wearing pants. Therefore, there are very few DGUs, and no one wears pants.
Sorry but anyne who used a gun in defense would report it when asked:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”
No. Obviously not. The NVCS only includes attempted crimes if the respondent is not screened out of that portion of the survey. Also, the NCVS only reports the DGUs respondents were willing to volunteer to the USDOJ. Personally, I don't care how righteous my DGU might be, I'd NEVER volunteer such information to any law enforcement agency--for OBVIOUS reasons.It's pretty clear and obvious. The ncvs includes attempted crimes. All your arguments fail.
The questions would collect any attempted crimes and the person would then report their dgu if it did happen.
Still waiting for anything from reality to support your claim.
Denial of reality.If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.Just more denial of verifiable reality from you.Wow...you are good. thanks. Brain has been pushing the NCVS for so long because it is the only study with numbers that low and your take down of him and the study is great.
You are impressed by that babbling? Why am I not surprised. Neither of you can give any real facts that support your claims.
If you didn't have systematically flawed data to support your contentions, you'd have no data. If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.
You seem to have nothing to even deny. You just keep saying nothing over and over. That is obviously all you have. Your claim is ridiculous and so is your non defense of it. Just admit you have nothing already.
You realize the numbers those surveys come up with aren't real right?
They were not imaginary, they were estimates.Kleck never confirms millions of DGUs, they were all imaginary.
Not in any way that would satisfy you. Not in any way that would cause you to disavow your superstitions.Even the 50 positives weren't confirmed in any way.
Right. Nothing can be "proven" by anyone, by any means. What's your point?They may have happened outside of the time range or not at all.
You're ignoring what I'm saying. You are just ignoring how the NCVS works.If someone prevented a criminal from victimizing them, were they then a victim? If they thought not, then those folks who used a gun defensively were NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to report the DGU.So, no one had pants on. They didn't volunteer that they had pants on, so ... NO PANTS!Any positive responses to a crime are asked this:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”
So yes it would include any DGUs.
Also, if someone prevented a criminal from victimizing them, were they then a victim? If they thought not, then those folks who used a gun defensively were NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to report the DGU.
And... they didn't report that they were wearing pants. Therefore, there are very few DGUs, and no one wears pants.
Sorry but anyne who used a gun in defense would report it when asked:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”
No. Obviously not. The NVCS only includes attempted crimes if the respondent is not screened out of that portion of the survey. Also, the NCVS only reports the DGUs respondents were willing to volunteer to the USDOJ. Personally, I don't care how righteous my DGU might be, I'd NEVER volunteer such information to any law enforcement agency--for OBVIOUS reasons.It's pretty clear and obvious. The ncvs includes attempted crimes. All your arguments fail.
The questions would collect any attempted crimes and the person would then report their dgu if it did happen.
Still waiting for anything from reality to support your claim.
The NVCS only includes attempted crimes if the respondent is not screened out of that portion of the survey. Also, the NCVS only reports the DGUs respondents were willing to volunteer to the USDOJ.
Denial of reality.If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.Just more denial of verifiable reality from you.You are impressed by that babbling? Why am I not surprised. Neither of you can give any real facts that support your claims.
If you didn't have systematically flawed data to support your contentions, you'd have no data. If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.
You seem to have nothing to even deny. You just keep saying nothing over and over. That is obviously all you have. Your claim is ridiculous and so is your non defense of it. Just admit you have nothing already.
You realize the numbers those surveys come up with aren't real right?
They were not imaginary, they were estimates.Kleck never confirms millions of DGUs, they were all imaginary.
Not in any way that would satisfy you. Not in any way that would cause you to disavow your superstitions.Even the 50 positives weren't confirmed in any way.
Right. Nothing can be "proven" by anyone, by any means. What's your point?They may have happened outside of the time range or not at all.
So? Really. That's not rhetorical.You're ignoring what I'm saying. You are just ignoring how the NCVS works.If someone prevented a criminal from victimizing them, were they then a victim? If they thought not, then those folks who used a gun defensively were NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to report the DGU.So, no one had pants on. They didn't volunteer that they had pants on, so ... NO PANTS!
Also, if someone prevented a criminal from victimizing them, were they then a victim? If they thought not, then those folks who used a gun defensively were NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to report the DGU.
And... they didn't report that they were wearing pants. Therefore, there are very few DGUs, and no one wears pants.
Sorry but anyne who used a gun in defense would report it when asked:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”
No. Obviously not. The NVCS only includes attempted crimes if the respondent is not screened out of that portion of the survey. Also, the NCVS only reports the DGUs respondents were willing to volunteer to the USDOJ. Personally, I don't care how righteous my DGU might be, I'd NEVER volunteer such information to any law enforcement agency--for OBVIOUS reasons.It's pretty clear and obvious. The ncvs includes attempted crimes. All your arguments fail.
The questions would collect any attempted crimes and the person would then report their dgu if it did happen.
Still waiting for anything from reality to support your claim.
The NVCS only includes attempted crimes if the respondent is not screened out of that portion of the survey. Also, the NCVS only reports the DGUs respondents were willing to volunteer to the USDOJ.
They survey 95k households.
You think so based upon what, Cupcake? Your fundamental misunderstanding of what the term "accurate" means?I think they know a little more about surveying than you do.
Is it really? Based upon what... exactly. Be specific, Cupcake.If they are willing to report an estimate of DGUs it is accurate.
What weak argument? You can't even articulate what it is? All you have brought is an obtuse denial of reality.Now stop with your weak arguments that are backed by nothing.
What "poorly done" surveys? Judged "poorly done" by what critera. Be specific, Cupcake.Denial of reality.If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.Just more denial of verifiable reality from you.
If you didn't have systematically flawed data to support your contentions, you'd have no data. If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.
You seem to have nothing to even deny. You just keep saying nothing over and over. That is obviously all you have. Your claim is ridiculous and so is your non defense of it. Just admit you have nothing already.
You realize the numbers those surveys come up with aren't real right?
They were not imaginary, they were estimates.Kleck never confirms millions of DGUs, they were all imaginary.
Not in any way that would satisfy you. Not in any way that would cause you to disavow your superstitions.Even the 50 positives weren't confirmed in any way.
Right. Nothing can be "proven" by anyone, by any means. What's your point?They may have happened outside of the time range or not at all.
The point is you base everything off poorly done surveys that are backed by nothing in reality.
You have one survey--that you declare is authoritative--that procedurally excludes entire classes of respondents who might use guns defensively, and you have surveys commissioned for the purpose of advancing the agenda of those who commissioned them.I have surveys and real stats to back up my claims.
Hardly. If you're "winning" Pumpkin, you're "winning" for me. Thanks!You lose.
So? Really. That's not rhetorical.You're ignoring what I'm saying. You are just ignoring how the NCVS works.If someone prevented a criminal from victimizing them, were they then a victim? If they thought not, then those folks who used a gun defensively were NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to report the DGU.Sorry but anyne who used a gun in defense would report it when asked:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”
No. Obviously not. The NVCS only includes attempted crimes if the respondent is not screened out of that portion of the survey. Also, the NCVS only reports the DGUs respondents were willing to volunteer to the USDOJ. Personally, I don't care how righteous my DGU might be, I'd NEVER volunteer such information to any law enforcement agency--for OBVIOUS reasons.It's pretty clear and obvious. The ncvs includes attempted crimes. All your arguments fail.
The questions would collect any attempted crimes and the person would then report their dgu if it did happen.
Still waiting for anything from reality to support your claim.
The NVCS only includes attempted crimes if the respondent is not screened out of that portion of the survey. Also, the NCVS only reports the DGUs respondents were willing to volunteer to the USDOJ.
They survey 95k households.
You think so based upon what, Cupcake? Your fundamental misunderstanding of what the term "accurate" means?I think they know a little more about surveying than you do.
You don't know jack-shit about me, Pumpkin.
For all you know, I could be professional criminologist.
For all you know, I could be a professional pollster, who conducts surveys every day.
For all you know, I could be the lead analyst at the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Then what, Pumpkin?
Is it really? Based upon what... exactly. Be specific, Cupcake.If they are willing to report an estimate of DGUs it is accurate.
What weak argument? You can't even articulate what it is? All you have brought is an obtuse denial of reality.Now stop with your weak arguments that are backed by nothing.
What "poorly done" surveys? Judged "poorly done" by what critera. Be specific, Cupcake.Denial of reality.If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.You seem to have nothing to even deny. You just keep saying nothing over and over. That is obviously all you have. Your claim is ridiculous and so is your non defense of it. Just admit you have nothing already.
You realize the numbers those surveys come up with aren't real right?
They were not imaginary, they were estimates.Kleck never confirms millions of DGUs, they were all imaginary.
Not in any way that would satisfy you. Not in any way that would cause you to disavow your superstitions.Even the 50 positives weren't confirmed in any way.
Right. Nothing can be "proven" by anyone, by any means. What's your point?They may have happened outside of the time range or not at all.
The point is you base everything off poorly done surveys that are backed by nothing in reality.
You have one survey--that you declare is authoritative--that procedurally excludes entire classes of respondents who might use guns defensively, and you have surveys commissioned for the purpose of advancing the agenda of those who commissioned them.I have surveys and real stats to back up my claims.
Hardly. If you're "winning" Pumpkin, you're "winning" for me. Thanks!You lose.
What "poorly done" surveys? Judged "poorly done" by what critera. Be specific, Cupcake.Denial of reality.If you didn't have a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd have no argument.
You realize the numbers those surveys come up with aren't real right?
They were not imaginary, they were estimates.Kleck never confirms millions of DGUs, they were all imaginary.
Not in any way that would satisfy you. Not in any way that would cause you to disavow your superstitions.Even the 50 positives weren't confirmed in any way.
Right. Nothing can be "proven" by anyone, by any means. What's your point?They may have happened outside of the time range or not at all.
The point is you base everything off poorly done surveys that are backed by nothing in reality.
You have one survey--that you declare is authoritative--that procedurally excludes entire classes of respondents who might use guns defensively, and you have surveys commissioned for the purpose of advancing the agenda of those who commissioned them.I have surveys and real stats to back up my claims.
Hardly. If you're "winning" Pumpkin, you're "winning" for me. Thanks!You lose.
Again you have nothing based in reality to support your claims.
"The key facts are:
• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people"
Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country News The Guardian
So we have the highest gun ownership in the world, but despite that NOT the highest gun murder rate. We're 28th in the world in fact.
So how is gun availability linked to gun violence? It isn't. Simple as that.
Apples and antelopes isn't a comparison of worth. Compare the US with other Western Democracies and get back to us.
By SELECTED COUNTRIES. In other words they selected those that reinforced their biased viewpoint. Thank you for making that clear.
Who better to compare our country with than other Western Democracies?
Until they have the racial diversity that we do. The land area that we do, and the population that we do they are not a reasonable comparison. That's why.
