Gun violence in the world

[LOki]

Denial of reality.

They were not imaginary, they were estimates.

Not in any way that would satisfy you. Not in any way that would cause you to disavow your superstitions.

Right. Nothing can be "proven" by anyone, by any means. What's your point?

The point is you base everything off poorly done surveys that are backed by nothing in reality.

What "poorly done" surveys? Judged "poorly done" by what critera. Be specific, Cupcake.

I have surveys and real stats to back up my claims.

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.

You lose.

Hardly. If you're "winning" Pumpkin, you're "winning" for me. Thanks!

Again you have nothing based in reality to support your claims.

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.

If you have "plenty" it is quite easy for you to post ten, ten with links to credible sources. Otherwise you will be seen as another 2aguy.

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.

The good news is that not all of you guys are as superstitious as you.

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people."

"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator".

"I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

"The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies."

I think I'll agree with your guy--"as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country"--on this. The work of Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz is valid. Kleck and Gertz have responded to their critics, and those critics have left satisfied, or just left in a huff. Either way, the high frequency of DGUs has been affirmed and re-affirmed numerous times over.

 

[The Rabbi]

More denial of reality from you, Cupcake.

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.

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.

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.

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're not able to baffle anyone with your bullshit. It's obvious you have no evidence to prove 2,000,000 times a year a gun is used - which means brandished or discharged - for defense. If you had, you or one of the other liars would have posted it.

IF you are not a liar, post the evidence and I will offer a humble mea culpa.

You pull this shit all the timje.
But not now. What would you consider sufficient evidence to prove the point?

 

[Brain357]

The point is you base everything off poorly done surveys that are backed by nothing in reality.

What "poorly done" surveys? Judged "poorly done" by what critera. Be specific, Cupcake.

I have surveys and real stats to back up my claims.

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.

You lose.

Hardly. If you're "winning" Pumpkin, you're "winning" for me. Thanks!

Again you have nothing based in reality to support your claims.

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.

If you have "plenty" it is quite easy for you to post ten, ten with links to credible sources. Otherwise you will be seen as another 2aguy.

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.

The good news is that not all of you guys are as superstitious as you.

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people."

"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator".

"I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

"The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies."

I think I'll agree with your guy--"as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country"--on this. The work of Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz is valid. Kleck and Gertz have responded to their critics, and those critics have left satisfied, or just left in a huff. Either way, the high frequency of DGUs has been affirmed and re-affirmed numerous times over.

So you are defending debunked surveys with the guy who did the survey? As if he'd do anything other than defend it? That is funny. You have anything from the real world?

 

[LOki]

You're ignoring what I'm saying. You are just ignoring how the NCVS works.

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.

So? Really. That's not rhetorical.

I think they know a little more about surveying than you do.

You think so based upon what, Cupcake? Your fundamental misunderstanding of what the term "accurate" means?

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?

If they are willing to report an estimate of DGUs it is accurate.

Is it really? Based upon what... exactly. Be specific, Cupcake.

Now stop with your weak arguments that are backed by nothing.

What weak argument? You can't even articulate what it is? All you have brought is an obtuse denial of reality.

Another response filled with nothing. They survey 95k households, they know more than you. Sorry.

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.

Most your points are just silly and none are backed up by any fact.

Really? Explain. Be specific.

They are all just what you think which means very little.

Ipse dixit.

Especially since you don't seem very smart.

Whatever.

 

[Brain357]

The point is you base everything off poorly done surveys that are backed by nothing in reality.

What "poorly done" surveys? Judged "poorly done" by what critera. Be specific, Cupcake.

I have surveys and real stats to back up my claims.

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.

You lose.

Hardly. If you're "winning" Pumpkin, you're "winning" for me. Thanks!

Again you have nothing based in reality to support your claims.

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.

If you have "plenty" it is quite easy for you to post ten, ten with links to credible sources. Otherwise you will be seen as another 2aguy.

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.

The good news is that not all of you guys are as superstitious as you.

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people."

"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator".

"I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

"The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies."

I think I'll agree with your guy--"as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country"--on this. The work of Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz is valid. Kleck and Gertz have responded to their critics, and those critics have left satisfied, or just left in a huff. Either way, the high frequency of DGUs has been affirmed and re-affirmed numerous times over.

“The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck
and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small
numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the
universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including
theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments
because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific
limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism
methodologically.”
(J of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:2 p617-8)


Marvin Wolfgang on Kleck s DGU survey Deltoid

 

[LOki]

More denial of reality from you, Cupcake.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have brought up several facts from reality that show your claim false.

Really? What "facts"? Be specific, Cupcake.

So far you have come up with nothing to support your claims.

Others have submitted them already. You're just in obtuse (superstitious) denial that any of those submissions are valid.

 

[LOki]

Denial of reality.

They were not imaginary, they were estimates.

Not in any way that would satisfy you. Not in any way that would cause you to disavow your superstitions.

Right. Nothing can be "proven" by anyone, by any means. What's your point?

The point is you base everything off poorly done surveys that are backed by nothing in reality.

What "poorly done" surveys? Judged "poorly done" by what critera. Be specific, Cupcake.

I have surveys and real stats to back up my claims.

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.

You lose.

Hardly. If you're "winning" Pumpkin, you're "winning" for me. Thanks!

Again you have nothing based in reality to support your claims.

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.

Sounds like your arguments are so weak you aren't going to bother. You are losing badly.

I'm not going to try to disabuse you of your superstition, Cupcake.

Only a fool would consider that a "loss."

 

[LOki]

More denial of reality from you, Cupcake.

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.

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.

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.

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're not able to baffle anyone with your bullshit. It's obvious you have no evidence to prove 2,000,000 times a year a gun is used - which means brandished or discharged - for defense. If you had, you or one of the other liars would have posted it.

IF you are not a liar, post the evidence and I will offer a humble mea culpa.

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.

 

[LOki]

What "poorly done" surveys? Judged "poorly done" by what critera. Be specific, Cupcake.

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.

Hardly. If you're "winning" Pumpkin, you're "winning" for me. Thanks!

Again you have nothing based in reality to support your claims.

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.

If you have "plenty" it is quite easy for you to post ten, ten with links to credible sources. Otherwise you will be seen as another 2aguy.

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.

The good news is that not all of you guys are as superstitious as you.

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people."

"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator".

"I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

"The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies."

I think I'll agree with your guy--"as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country"--on this. The work of Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz is valid. Kleck and Gertz have responded to their critics, and those critics have left satisfied, or just left in a huff. Either way, the high frequency of DGUs has been affirmed and re-affirmed numerous times over.

So you are defending debunked surveys with the guy who did the survey? As if he'd do anything other than defend it? That is funny.

Who debunked what survey, Cupcake? Be specific.

I can tell you that Marvin Wolfgang did not perform the Kleck-Gertz study, and he certainly did not "debunk" it.

You have anything from the real world?

Well, there is your own gun-control advocate. Do you deny he is real as well?

 

[LOki]

What "poorly done" surveys? Judged "poorly done" by what critera. Be specific, Cupcake.

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.

Hardly. If you're "winning" Pumpkin, you're "winning" for me. Thanks!

Again you have nothing based in reality to support your claims.

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.

If you have "plenty" it is quite easy for you to post ten, ten with links to credible sources. Otherwise you will be seen as another 2aguy.

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.

The good news is that not all of you guys are as superstitious as you.

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people."

"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator".

"I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

"The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies."

I think I'll agree with your guy--"as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country"--on this. The work of Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz is valid. Kleck and Gertz have responded to their critics, and those critics have left satisfied, or just left in a huff. Either way, the high frequency of DGUs has been affirmed and re-affirmed numerous times over.

“The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck
and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small
numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the
universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including
theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments
because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific
limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism
methodologically.”
(J of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:2 p617-8)


Marvin Wolfgang on Kleck s DGU survey Deltoid

You literally have NO IDEA what you just posted means, do you?

Literally...just NO IDEA what-so-ever. You are just ENTIRELY incompetent to assess what any of the studies you use or criticize actually say or mean.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You talk a lot and can't give anything from reality to support your belief. That is funny.

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.

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.

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're not able to baffle anyone with your bullshit. It's obvious you have no evidence to prove 2,000,000 times a year a gun is used - which means brandished or discharged - for defense. If you had, you or one of the other liars would have posted it.

IF you are not a liar, post the evidence and I will offer a humble mea culpa.

You pull this shit all the timje.
But not now. What would you consider sufficient evidence to prove the point?

Probative evidence, Having the effect of proof, tending to prove, or actually proving.

I've yet to see any, of course I'm not surprised. 2,000,000 times a year is beyond belief.

 

[LOki]

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.

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.

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're not able to baffle anyone with your bullshit. It's obvious you have no evidence to prove 2,000,000 times a year a gun is used - which means brandished or discharged - for defense. If you had, you or one of the other liars would have posted it.

IF you are not a liar, post the evidence and I will offer a humble mea culpa.

You pull this shit all the timje.
But not now. What would you consider sufficient evidence to prove the point?

Probative evidence, Having the effect of proof, tending to prove, or actually proving.

I've yet to see any, of course I'm not surprised. 2,000,000 times a year is beyond belief.

Yet, you don't require "probative evidence" to establish or defend your own position. Tell us, Cupcake: Why do you require such "proof" from me when I defend my position, when you're so very cavalier about the requirement for such "proof" when you defend your position?

 

[Brain357]

Again you have nothing based in reality to support your claims.

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.

If you have "plenty" it is quite easy for you to post ten, ten with links to credible sources. Otherwise you will be seen as another 2aguy.

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.

The good news is that not all of you guys are as superstitious as you.

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people."

"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator".

"I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

"The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies."

I think I'll agree with your guy--"as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country"--on this. The work of Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz is valid. Kleck and Gertz have responded to their critics, and those critics have left satisfied, or just left in a huff. Either way, the high frequency of DGUs has been affirmed and re-affirmed numerous times over.

“The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck
and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small
numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the
universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including
theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments
because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific
limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism
methodologically.”
(J of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:2 p617-8)


Marvin Wolfgang on Kleck s DGU survey Deltoid

You literally have NO IDEA what you just posted means, do you?

Literally...just NO IDEA what-so-ever. You are just ENTIRELY incompetent to assess what any of the studies you use or criticize actually say or mean.

It says that the survey is not accurate because of the small sample size. That is your proof.

 

[Brain357]

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.

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're not able to baffle anyone with your bullshit. It's obvious you have no evidence to prove 2,000,000 times a year a gun is used - which means brandished or discharged - for defense. If you had, you or one of the other liars would have posted it.

IF you are not a liar, post the evidence and I will offer a humble mea culpa.

You pull this shit all the timje.
But not now. What would you consider sufficient evidence to prove the point?

Probative evidence, Having the effect of proof, tending to prove, or actually proving.

I've yet to see any, of course I'm not surprised. 2,000,000 times a year is beyond belief.

Yet, you don't require "probative evidence" to establish or defend your own position. Tell us, Cupcake: Why do you require such "proof" from me when I defend my position, when you're so very cavalier about the requirement for such "proof" when you defend your position?

You have provided only fantasy and opinions(mostly yours).

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

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're not able to baffle anyone with your bullshit. It's obvious you have no evidence to prove 2,000,000 times a year a gun is used - which means brandished or discharged - for defense. If you had, you or one of the other liars would have posted it.

IF you are not a liar, post the evidence and I will offer a humble mea culpa.

You pull this shit all the timje.
But not now. What would you consider sufficient evidence to prove the point?

Probative evidence, Having the effect of proof, tending to prove, or actually proving.

I've yet to see any, of course I'm not surprised. 2,000,000 times a year is beyond belief.

That isnt what I asked. I asked what YOU would consider proof. Would a signed affadavit by every gun owner involved with their names and telephone numbers be enough? How about a study done?
And how many defensive gun uses would you consider enough to justify continued legal possession of guns?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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're not able to baffle anyone with your bullshit. It's obvious you have no evidence to prove 2,000,000 times a year a gun is used - which means brandished or discharged - for defense. If you had, you or one of the other liars would have posted it.

IF you are not a liar, post the evidence and I will offer a humble mea culpa.

You pull this shit all the timje.
But not now. What would you consider sufficient evidence to prove the point?

Probative evidence, Having the effect of proof, tending to prove, or actually proving.

I've yet to see any, of course I'm not surprised. 2,000,000 times a year is beyond belief.

Yet, you don't require "probative evidence" to establish or defend your own position. Tell us, Cupcake: Why do you require such "proof" from me when I defend my position, when you're so very cavalier about the requirement for such "proof" when you defend your position?

His response is a circular fallacy:
Q.What would constitute proof to you?
A. Something that would persuade me that that is the case.
Q. Isnt that the definition of "proof"?

 

[LOki]

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.

If you have "plenty" it is quite easy for you to post ten, ten with links to credible sources. Otherwise you will be seen as another 2aguy.

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.

The good news is that not all of you guys are as superstitious as you.

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people."

"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator".

"I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

"The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies."

I think I'll agree with your guy--"as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country"--on this. The work of Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz is valid. Kleck and Gertz have responded to their critics, and those critics have left satisfied, or just left in a huff. Either way, the high frequency of DGUs has been affirmed and re-affirmed numerous times over.

“The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck
and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small
numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the
universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including
theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments
because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific
limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism
methodologically.”
(J of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:2 p617-8)


Marvin Wolfgang on Kleck s DGU survey Deltoid

You literally have NO IDEA what you just posted means, do you?

Literally...just NO IDEA what-so-ever. You are just ENTIRELY incompetent to assess what any of the studies you use or criticize actually say or mean.

It says that the survey is not accurate because of the small sample size.

It most certainly does NOT say that. ANYWHERE.

That is your proof.

That you think it says that the K&G study is "not accurate because of the small sample size" is proof for anyone that you are just ENTIRELY incompetent to assess what any of the studies you use--or criticize--actually say or mean.

 

[LOki]

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're not able to baffle anyone with your bullshit. It's obvious you have no evidence to prove 2,000,000 times a year a gun is used - which means brandished or discharged - for defense. If you had, you or one of the other liars would have posted it.

IF you are not a liar, post the evidence and I will offer a humble mea culpa.

You pull this shit all the timje.
But not now. What would you consider sufficient evidence to prove the point?

Probative evidence, Having the effect of proof, tending to prove, or actually proving.

I've yet to see any, of course I'm not surprised. 2,000,000 times a year is beyond belief.

Yet, you don't require "probative evidence" to establish or defend your own position. Tell us, Cupcake: Why do you require such "proof" from me when I defend my position, when you're so very cavalier about the requirement for such "proof" when you defend your position?

You have provided only fantasy and opinions(mostly yours).

Demonstrate, Cupcake. Be specific.

 

[Brain357]

If you have "plenty" it is quite easy for you to post ten, ten with links to credible sources. Otherwise you will be seen as another 2aguy.

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.

The good news is that not all of you guys are as superstitious as you.

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people."

"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator".

"I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

"The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies."

I think I'll agree with your guy--"as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country"--on this. The work of Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz is valid. Kleck and Gertz have responded to their critics, and those critics have left satisfied, or just left in a huff. Either way, the high frequency of DGUs has been affirmed and re-affirmed numerous times over.

“The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck
and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small
numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the
universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including
theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments
because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific
limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism
methodologically.”
(J of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:2 p617-8)


Marvin Wolfgang on Kleck s DGU survey Deltoid

You literally have NO IDEA what you just posted means, do you?

Literally...just NO IDEA what-so-ever. You are just ENTIRELY incompetent to assess what any of the studies you use or criticize actually say or mean.

It says that the survey is not accurate because of the small sample size.

It most certainly does NOT say that. ANYWHERE.

That is your proof.

That you think it says that the K&G study is "not accurate because of the small sample size" is proof for anyone that you are just ENTIRELY incompetent to assess what any of the studies you use--or criticize--actually say or mean.

So now you can't read? He clearly states the problems with small numbers and extrapolating are obvious. Your own proof says the sample is too small, not me.

 

[Brain357]

You're not able to baffle anyone with your bullshit. It's obvious you have no evidence to prove 2,000,000 times a year a gun is used - which means brandished or discharged - for defense. If you had, you or one of the other liars would have posted it.

IF you are not a liar, post the evidence and I will offer a humble mea culpa.

You pull this shit all the timje.
But not now. What would you consider sufficient evidence to prove the point?

Probative evidence, Having the effect of proof, tending to prove, or actually proving.

I've yet to see any, of course I'm not surprised. 2,000,000 times a year is beyond belief.

Yet, you don't require "probative evidence" to establish or defend your own position. Tell us, Cupcake: Why do you require such "proof" from me when I defend my position, when you're so very cavalier about the requirement for such "proof" when you defend your position?

You have provided only fantasy and opinions(mostly yours).

Demonstrate, Cupcake. Be specific.

You haven't given a single fact. I've stated that many times. That is pretty specific. You really aren't very bright.