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.
I don't believe the US has 88 our of 100 people owning firearms."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.
I noticed that there is no source cited for that data.
I don't believe the US has 88 our of 100 people owning firearms."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.
I noticed that there is no source cited for that data.
"an average of 88 guns" does not mean out of every 100 citizens, 88 will own a firearm.
If guns were not available, there would be no gun violence (obvious, I know, but instructive).
BTW, oft quoted and still relevant, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics".
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.
^^When one lacks the facts they resort to the baffle 'em with bullshit.
^^When one lacks the facts they resort to the baffle 'em with bullshit.
If anyone needs an example of irony, here you go.
Says he who whined and cried about wanting an honest open debate on gun control and then ran away from it once engaged.Don't you have a gun to clean, or an animal to kill - get a life dude, or take one (that should put you in a happy state).^^When one lacks the facts they resort to the baffle 'em with bullshit.
If anyone needs an example of irony, here you go.
Says he who whined and cried about wanting an honest open debate on gun control and then ran away from it once engaged.Don't you have a gun to clean, or an animal to kill - get a life dude, or take one (that should put you in a happy state).^^When one lacks the facts they resort to the baffle 'em with bullshit.
If anyone needs an example of irony, here you go.
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.
That's ridiculous, and racist.
See: A revealing map of the world s most and least ethnically diverse countries - The Washington Post
One might argue that ethnicity and race do not correlate, but history suggests the intolerance level has been the same when new residents emigrate into a new culture. Bigots do not discriminate, paradoxically speaking.
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.
That's ridiculous, and racist.
See: A revealing map of the world s most and least ethnically diverse countries - The Washington Post
One might argue that ethnicity and race do not correlate, but history suggests the intolerance level has been the same when new residents emigrate into a new culture. Bigots do not discriminate, paradoxically speaking.
Racist? No, it's called a fact. The overwhelming majority of violence in the US is perpetrated by non whites. That is simply a fact. Compare the rate of gun crime between Seattle and Vancouver and the rate in Seattle was far higher. Remove the crime committed by the minorities and the rate was exactly the same as Vancouver's. This is a fact. There are many reasons for the disparity I am sure, but it is still a fact.
FBI, 2013Racist? No, it's called a fact. The overwhelming majority of violence in the US is perpetrated by non whites.
You had your opportunity to substantiate your criticism of my points. All you have brought is an obtuse denial of reality. It is clearly your only refuge.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.
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.
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.
Another response filled with nothing. They survey 95k households, they know more than you. Sorry.
Says he who whined and cried about wanting an honest open debate on gun control and then ran away from it once engaged.Don't you have a gun to clean, or an animal to kill - get a life dude, or take one (that should put you in a happy state).^^When one lacks the facts they resort to the baffle 'em with bullshit.
If anyone needs an example of irony, here you go.
M14 will only lie to you.
I have plenty... they've been submitted by others. You just flatly deny their validity. I accept that your superstition is intact, Cupcake... I just don't accept that your superstition is valid.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.
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.
That's ridiculous, and racist.
See: A revealing map of the world s most and least ethnically diverse countries - The Washington Post
One might argue that ethnicity and race do not correlate, but history suggests the intolerance level has been the same when new residents emigrate into a new culture. Bigots do not discriminate, paradoxically speaking.
Racist? No, it's called a fact. The overwhelming majority of violence in the US is perpetrated by non whites. That is simply a fact. Compare the rate of gun crime between Seattle and Vancouver and the rate in Seattle was far higher. Remove the crime committed by the minorities and the rate was exactly the same as Vancouver's. This is a fact. There are many reasons for the disparity I am sure, but it is still a fact.
Right. Yet nothing can be "proven" about ANYTHING by ANYBODY. Certainly not you superstitious types. You don't bother to submit any "proof" of your assertions that meet the criteria of "proof" you require from the opposing position. You're flat-earth creationists. You're anti-vaxx alarmists. You're clown-shoes.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.
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.
When one lacks the facts they resort to the baffle 'em with bullshit. There is no way to prove defensive use of firearms occur in the numbers quoted - no way. Those who keep insisting the truth of the statement (2,000,000 a year) need to post probative evidence. If they can't they are liars, or fools.
I have plenty... they've been submitted by others. You just flatly deny their validity. I accept that your superstition is intact, Cupcake... I just don't accept that your superstition is valid.What "poorly done" surveys? Judged "poorly done" by what critera. Be specific, Cupcake.Denial of reality.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.
You had your opportunity to substantiate your criticism of my points. All you have brought is an obtuse denial of reality. It is clearly your only refuge.So? Really. That's not rhetorical.You're ignoring what I'm saying. You are just ignoring how the NCVS works.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.
Another response filled with nothing. They survey 95k households, they know more than you. Sorry.
Right. Yet nothing can be "proven" about ANYTHING by ANYBODY. Certainly not you superstitious types. You don't bother to submit any "proof" of your assertions that meet the criteria of "proof" you require from the opposing position. You're flat-earth creationists. You're anti-vaxx alarmists. You're clown-shoes.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.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.
When one lacks the facts they resort to the baffle 'em with bullshit. There is no way to prove defensive use of firearms occur in the numbers quoted - no way. Those who keep insisting the truth of the statement (2,000,000 a year) need to post probative evidence. If they can't they are liars, or fools.
I have plenty... they've been submitted by others. You just flatly deny their validity. I accept that your superstition is intact, Cupcake... I just don't accept that your superstition is valid.What "poorly done" surveys? Judged "poorly done" by what critera. Be specific, Cupcake.Denial of reality.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.
Right. Yet nothing can be "proven" about ANYTHING by ANYBODY. Certainly not you superstitious types. You don't bother to submit any "proof" of your assertions that meet the criteria of "proof" you require from the opposing position. You're flat-earth creationists. You're anti-vaxx alarmists. You're clown-shoes.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.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.
When one lacks the facts they resort to the baffle 'em with bullshit. There is no way to prove defensive use of firearms occur in the numbers quoted - no way. Those who keep insisting the truth of the statement (2,000,000 a year) need to post probative evidence. If they can't they are liars, or fools.
