Gun violence in the world

[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.

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

I can read perfectly well, Pumpkin. Moreover, I understand what I read as well.

He clearly states the problems with small numbers and extrapolating are obvious.

He didn't say that is was a problem with the K&G study specifically; and he wouldn't say that, because unlike you, he knows what he's talking about. He clearly states that extrapolating conclusions from small numbers is a criticism common to ALL survey research, including the K&G study; including your NCVS, Pumpkin. That such problems are obvious, and as such, were not really worth mentioning.

He reaffirms his lack of criticism for the methodology used by Kleck and Gertz. Do you get that, Cupcake?

Your own proof says the sample is too small, not me.

No Cupcake, the sample size is NOT too small. A sample size of 5,000, yields a confidence level of better than 99% with a margin of error less than 2%. You simply have NO FUCKING IDEA of what you're talking about.

 

[LOki]

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.

Bright enough to get you to admit that you can't cite one instance where I've submitted "fantasy" or merely "opinion."

 

[Brain357]

“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?

I can read perfectly well, Pumpkin. Moreover, I understand what I read as well.

He clearly states the problems with small numbers and extrapolating are obvious.

He didn't say that is was a problem with the K&G study specifically; and he wouldn't say that, because unlike you, he knows what he's talking about. He clearly states that extrapolating conclusions from small numbers is a criticism common to ALL survey research, including the K&G study; including your NCVS, Pumpkin. That such problems are obvious, and as such, were not really worth mentioning.

He reaffirms his lack of criticism for the methodology used by Kleck and Gertz. Do you get that, Cupcake?

Your own proof says the sample is too small, not me.

No Cupcake, the sample size is NOT too small. A sample size of 5,000, yields a confidence level of better than 99% with a margin of error less than 2%. You simply have NO FUCKING IDEA of what you're talking about.

So he is stating it is a limitation of all surveys that are so small including your gun study. So your one example of proof clearly states the study is limited. He basically says they did the study correctly but with such a limited sample it can't be accurate. The ncvs is a survey of 95k households. Doesn't have this same limitation cupcake.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Bright enough to get you to admit that you can't cite one instance where I've submitted "fantasy" or merely "opinion."

No I have cited your every post. You have posted no real world fact.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Bright enough to get you to admit that you can't cite one instance where I've submitted "fantasy" or merely "opinion."

No I have sited your every post. You have posted no real world fact.

LOL!
It's "cited" brainiac. And WTF is a "real world fact"? As opposed to?

 

[Brain357]

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.

Bright enough to get you to admit that you can't cite one instance where I've submitted "fantasy" or merely "opinion."

No I have sited your every post. You have posted no real world fact.

LOL!
It's "cited" brainiac. And WTF is a "real world fact"? As opposed to?

Like the number of justifiable homicides each year with a gun. You'd have to be a moron to believe there are millions of defenses and only 230 criminals shot and killed. We know how many criminals are killed each year in defense, and it doesn't support millions of defenses. We know how many defenses are reported in the news. That also makes the millions claim look ridiculous. Everything we know from the real world makes the claim look silly.

 

[LOki]

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?

I can read perfectly well, Pumpkin. Moreover, I understand what I read as well.

He clearly states the problems with small numbers and extrapolating are obvious.

He didn't say that is was a problem with the K&G study specifically; and he wouldn't say that, because unlike you, he knows what he's talking about. He clearly states that extrapolating conclusions from small numbers is a criticism common to ALL survey research, including the K&G study; including your NCVS, Pumpkin. That such problems are obvious, and as such, were not really worth mentioning.

He reaffirms his lack of criticism for the methodology used by Kleck and Gertz. Do you get that, Cupcake?

Your own proof says the sample is too small, not me.

No Cupcake, the sample size is NOT too small. A sample size of 5,000, yields a confidence level of better than 99% with a margin of error less than 2%. You simply have NO FUCKING IDEA of what you're talking about.

So he is stating it is a limitation of all surveys that are so small including your gun study.

Extrapolating conclusions from small numbers is a criticism common to ALL survey research.

So your one example of proof clearly states the study is limited.

"Limited" by the criticism common to ALL survey research.

He basically says they did the study correctly but with such a limited sample it can't be accurate.

No. He did not say that. You say that, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

The ncvs is a survey of 95k households. Doesn't have this same limitation cupcake.

The NCVS sample was 0.07% of all U.S. households, Cupcake. It has precisely the same limitations. It is a limitation of ALL survey research, you imbecile.

 

[LOki]

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.

Bright enough to get you to admit that you can't cite one instance where I've submitted "fantasy" or merely "opinion."

No I have cited your every post. You have posted no real world fact.

This is just more of your superstitious denial of reality, Cupcake.

 

[Brain357]

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?

I can read perfectly well, Pumpkin. Moreover, I understand what I read as well.

He clearly states the problems with small numbers and extrapolating are obvious.

He didn't say that is was a problem with the K&G study specifically; and he wouldn't say that, because unlike you, he knows what he's talking about. He clearly states that extrapolating conclusions from small numbers is a criticism common to ALL survey research, including the K&G study; including your NCVS, Pumpkin. That such problems are obvious, and as such, were not really worth mentioning.

He reaffirms his lack of criticism for the methodology used by Kleck and Gertz. Do you get that, Cupcake?

Your own proof says the sample is too small, not me.

No Cupcake, the sample size is NOT too small. A sample size of 5,000, yields a confidence level of better than 99% with a margin of error less than 2%. You simply have NO FUCKING IDEA of what you're talking about.

So he is stating it is a limitation of all surveys that are so small including your gun study.

Extrapolating conclusions from small numbers is a criticism common to ALL survey research.

So your one example of proof clearly states the study is limited.

"Limited" by the criticism common to ALL survey research.

He basically says they did the study correctly but with such a limited sample it can't be accurate.

No. He did not say that. You say that, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

The ncvs is a survey of 95k households. Doesn't have this same limitation cupcake.

The NCVS sample was 0.07% of all U.S. households, Cupcake. It has precisely the same limitations. It is a limitation of ALL survey research, you imbecile.

So clearly your gun survey is not accurate. This is why gun surveys range from 500k to 3.6 million. Like wolfgang says these small surveys just are too limited.

The ncvs is a giant compared to the tiny gun surveys.

 

[LOki]

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.

Bright enough to get you to admit that you can't cite one instance where I've submitted "fantasy" or merely "opinion."

No I have sited your every post. You have posted no real world fact.

LOL!
It's "cited" brainiac. And WTF is a "real world fact"? As opposed to?

Like the number of justifiable homicides each year with a gun. You'd have to be a moron to believe there are millions of defenses and only 230 criminals shot and killed. We know how many criminals are killed each year in defense, and it doesn't support millions of defenses. We know how many defenses are reported in the news. That also makes the millions claim look ridiculous. Everything we know from the real world makes the claim look silly.

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

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Bright enough to get you to admit that you can't cite one instance where I've submitted "fantasy" or merely "opinion."

No I have sited your every post. You have posted no real world fact.

LOL!
It's "cited" brainiac. And WTF is a "real world fact"? As opposed to?

Like the number of justifiable homicides each year with a gun. You'd have to be a moron to believe there are millions of defenses and only 230 criminals shot and killed. We know how many criminals are killed each year in defense, and it doesn't support millions of defenses. We know how many defenses are reported in the news. That also makes the millions claim look ridiculous. Everything we know from the real world makes the claim look silly.

Explain why a low number of actual shootings indicates an equally low number of non shooting incidents.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

You havern't figured out that Brain will only lie to you?

 

[Brain357]

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.

Bright enough to get you to admit that you can't cite one instance where I've submitted "fantasy" or merely "opinion."

No I have cited your every post. You have posted no real world fact.

This is just more of your superstitious denial of reality, Cupcake.

No all you have are surveys which are fantasy. Your one attempt was just an oppinion of one man. And even that doesn't support your crazy claim.

 

[Brain357]

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

Bright enough to get you to admit that you can't cite one instance where I've submitted "fantasy" or merely "opinion."

No I have sited your every post. You have posted no real world fact.

LOL!
It's "cited" brainiac. And WTF is a "real world fact"? As opposed to?

Like the number of justifiable homicides each year with a gun. You'd have to be a moron to believe there are millions of defenses and only 230 criminals shot and killed. We know how many criminals are killed each year in defense, and it doesn't support millions of defenses. We know how many defenses are reported in the news. That also makes the millions claim look ridiculous. Everything we know from the real world makes the claim look silly.

Explain why a low number of actual shootings indicates an equally low number of non shooting incidents.

Common sense. Here is a study of defenses:
https://tacticalprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/tac-5-year-w-tables.pdf

34% end in dead bad guy.

 

[LOki]

It most certainly does NOT say that. ANYWHERE.

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?

I can read perfectly well, Pumpkin. Moreover, I understand what I read as well.

He clearly states the problems with small numbers and extrapolating are obvious.

He didn't say that is was a problem with the K&G study specifically; and he wouldn't say that, because unlike you, he knows what he's talking about. He clearly states that extrapolating conclusions from small numbers is a criticism common to ALL survey research, including the K&G study; including your NCVS, Pumpkin. That such problems are obvious, and as such, were not really worth mentioning.

He reaffirms his lack of criticism for the methodology used by Kleck and Gertz. Do you get that, Cupcake?

Your own proof says the sample is too small, not me.

No Cupcake, the sample size is NOT too small. A sample size of 5,000, yields a confidence level of better than 99% with a margin of error less than 2%. You simply have NO FUCKING IDEA of what you're talking about.

So he is stating it is a limitation of all surveys that are so small including your gun study.

Extrapolating conclusions from small numbers is a criticism common to ALL survey research.

So your one example of proof clearly states the study is limited.

"Limited" by the criticism common to ALL survey research.

He basically says they did the study correctly but with such a limited sample it can't be accurate.

No. He did not say that. You say that, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

The ncvs is a survey of 95k households. Doesn't have this same limitation cupcake.

The NCVS sample was 0.07% of all U.S. households, Cupcake. It has precisely the same limitations. It is a limitation of ALL survey research, you imbecile.

So clearly your gun survey is not accurate.

What is clear, is that you have no idea what the term "accurate" means. You should stop using it, Cupcake.

This is why gun surveys range from 500k to 3.6 million.

No. It's not. And if you had the tiniest of clues about what you're talking about, you'd just stop saying so.

Like wolfgang says these small surveys just are too limited.

He did not say that. Now you're just lying.

The ncvs is a giant compared to the tiny gun surveys.

Not really. One of the things you just refuse to grasp--because you have no idea what you're talking about--is that there comes a point where bigger sample is pretty much meaningless. The NCVS method is systemically flawed in regard to estimating the number of DGUs, and it's larger sample size cannot, in any way, compensate for that. OTOH, the K-G study has no such weakness of method, and its sample size is certainly suitable.

 

[LOki]

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.

Bright enough to get you to admit that you can't cite one instance where I've submitted "fantasy" or merely "opinion."

No I have cited your every post. You have posted no real world fact.

This is just more of your superstitious denial of reality, Cupcake.

No all you have are surveys which are fantasy.

Which survey is a "fantasy"

Your one attempt was just an oppinion of one man.

One man entirely disinclined to validate the K-G study, yet there he is--intellectual integrity intact.

And even that doesn't support your crazy claim.

Yet more superstitious denial of reality from you.

 

[Brain357]

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

Bright enough to get you to admit that you can't cite one instance where I've submitted "fantasy" or merely "opinion."

No I have cited your every post. You have posted no real world fact.

This is just more of your superstitious denial of reality, Cupcake.

No all you have are surveys which are fantasy.

Which survey is a "fantasy"

Your one attempt was just an oppinion of one man.

One man entirely disinclined to validate the K-G study, yet there he is--intellectual integrity intact.

And even that doesn't support your crazy claim.

Yet more superstitious denial of reality from you.

All surveys that extrapolate numbers are fantasy. None of the millions of of DGUs kleck claims actually happened. He took 50 unconfirmed positives and extrapolated to millions. You do know his millions aren't real DGUs right?

 

[Brain357]

So now you can't read?

I can read perfectly well, Pumpkin. Moreover, I understand what I read as well.

He clearly states the problems with small numbers and extrapolating are obvious.

He didn't say that is was a problem with the K&G study specifically; and he wouldn't say that, because unlike you, he knows what he's talking about. He clearly states that extrapolating conclusions from small numbers is a criticism common to ALL survey research, including the K&G study; including your NCVS, Pumpkin. That such problems are obvious, and as such, were not really worth mentioning.

He reaffirms his lack of criticism for the methodology used by Kleck and Gertz. Do you get that, Cupcake?

Your own proof says the sample is too small, not me.

No Cupcake, the sample size is NOT too small. A sample size of 5,000, yields a confidence level of better than 99% with a margin of error less than 2%. You simply have NO FUCKING IDEA of what you're talking about.

So he is stating it is a limitation of all surveys that are so small including your gun study.

Extrapolating conclusions from small numbers is a criticism common to ALL survey research.

So your one example of proof clearly states the study is limited.

"Limited" by the criticism common to ALL survey research.

He basically says they did the study correctly but with such a limited sample it can't be accurate.

No. He did not say that. You say that, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

The ncvs is a survey of 95k households. Doesn't have this same limitation cupcake.

The NCVS sample was 0.07% of all U.S. households, Cupcake. It has precisely the same limitations. It is a limitation of ALL survey research, you imbecile.

So clearly your gun survey is not accurate.

What is clear, is that you have no idea what the term "accurate" means. You should stop using it, Cupcake.

This is why gun surveys range from 500k to 3.6 million.

No. It's not. And if you had the tiniest of clues about what you're talking about, you'd just stop saying so.

Like wolfgang says these small surveys just are too limited.

He did not say that. Now you're just lying.

The ncvs is a giant compared to the tiny gun surveys.

Not really. One of the things you just refuse to grasp--because you have no idea what you're talking about--is that there comes a point where bigger sample is pretty much meaningless. The NCVS method is systemically flawed in regard to estimating the number of DGUs, and it's larger sample size cannot, in any way, compensate for that. OTOH, the K-G study has no such weakness of method, and its sample size is certainly suitable.

You better go back and read, that is what wolfgang said. So your one proof isn't really that at all. You have nothing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bright enough to get you to admit that you can't cite one instance where I've submitted "fantasy" or merely "opinion."

No I have sited your every post. You have posted no real world fact.

LOL!
It's "cited" brainiac. And WTF is a "real world fact"? As opposed to?

Like the number of justifiable homicides each year with a gun. You'd have to be a moron to believe there are millions of defenses and only 230 criminals shot and killed. We know how many criminals are killed each year in defense, and it doesn't support millions of defenses. We know how many defenses are reported in the news. That also makes the millions claim look ridiculous. Everything we know from the real world makes the claim look silly.

Explain why a low number of actual shootings indicates an equally low number of non shooting incidents.

Common sense. Here is a study of defenses:
https://tacticalprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/tac-5-year-w-tables.pdf

34% end in dead bad guy.

That is not a "study", brainiac. He says at the beginning he collected stories from the NRA's publication "Armed Citizen" column. That isnt really indicative of anythign as the incidents are cherry picked for their readers.
Geez, you arent very smart.

 

[Brain357]

No I have sited your every post. You have posted no real world fact.

LOL!
It's "cited" brainiac. And WTF is a "real world fact"? As opposed to?

Like the number of justifiable homicides each year with a gun. You'd have to be a moron to believe there are millions of defenses and only 230 criminals shot and killed. We know how many criminals are killed each year in defense, and it doesn't support millions of defenses. We know how many defenses are reported in the news. That also makes the millions claim look ridiculous. Everything we know from the real world makes the claim look silly.

Explain why a low number of actual shootings indicates an equally low number of non shooting incidents.

Common sense. Here is a study of defenses:
https://tacticalprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/tac-5-year-w-tables.pdf

34% end in dead bad guy.

That is not a "study", brainiac. He says at the beginning he collected stories from the NRA's publication "Armed Citizen" column. That isnt really indicative of anythign as the incidents are cherry picked for their readers.
Geez, you arent very smart.

It is what actually happened in almost 500 confirmed defenses. That is real good evidence. What do you have that counters this?