Home invasion...thank goodness victims didn't have a gun...grandfather was beaten to death though...

[Correll]

"He had time to think about it when it happened"? What does that mean?

It takes less than a second to notice a detail like that.

How does that indicate that he should be able to recall the date within five years, 25 to 12 years later?

Trying to inflate that into evidence of a lie is what is "very questionable".

You have a vested interest in coming to the "conclusion" that his story is a lie, for that lets you dismiss his point and use it to bolster your own.

But you probably never consider your own human foibles do you? That's something you save to use when it serves your agenda.

This is a message board. He had lots of time to answer. He even questioned why I was asking as I'm sure he was worried about being. Sorry but if he says 25 years ago it should be fairly accurate, not changed after to fit his made up story.

Nothing you just said addressed anything I said.

"This a message board. He had lot of time to answer."

So what? He is not sure of the date of the attack. It doesn't matter rather he answered quickly or took his time. That information is not there anymore.

You keep insisting that he should be able to be accurate on the date and that his not being is some type of evidence that he is lying.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

And your attempt to use this minor error in order to attack his character and accuse him of lying?

Extremely self serving and intellectually dishonest.

He admitted to buying a house and getting married that year. You are pretty foolish if you think that isn't a strong point of reference. He has only defended himself once, not like it's a regular occurance. There is no reason he wouldn't be more accurate. There is nothing dishonest about expecting someone to be reasonably accurate with when it occurred. Especially with such strong reference points in time.

If you are as well versed on this subject as you present yourself to be, then you should be well aware of the limits of eye witness testimony.

Am I incorrect in my conclusion that you are familiar with the expected levels of accuracy with eye witness accounts?

Why is it you bother defending his lie? He has already abandoned it. I have a lot of common sense and can tell when something isn't right. A cell phone in 1990 is highly unlikely. And when I pointed that out the the dates went from 25 years ago to maybe 12, but not more than 25 for sure. You must be very easily fooled if you fall for this stuff.

Interesting.

You did not directly answer my question. You seem to be implying with your claim of "common sense" that you are not.

I will, when I have some time, do some research for you on that topic.

Mmm, you once again repeat your unsupported assumption that he was lying, and now your misrepresent his being done with you as "abandoning" his "lie".

There is no shame in not being well versed on the issues of eye witness accounts. If you just admitted it, we could research the issue and consider how it impacts this anecdotal evidence seriously and honestly.

I have to go for now. MOre tomorrow.

 

[Brain357]

This is a message board. He had lots of time to answer. He even questioned why I was asking as I'm sure he was worried about being. Sorry but if he says 25 years ago it should be fairly accurate, not changed after to fit his made up story.

Nothing you just said addressed anything I said.

"This a message board. He had lot of time to answer."

So what? He is not sure of the date of the attack. It doesn't matter rather he answered quickly or took his time. That information is not there anymore.

You keep insisting that he should be able to be accurate on the date and that his not being is some type of evidence that he is lying.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

And your attempt to use this minor error in order to attack his character and accuse him of lying?

Extremely self serving and intellectually dishonest.

He admitted to buying a house and getting married that year. You are pretty foolish if you think that isn't a strong point of reference. He has only defended himself once, not like it's a regular occurance. There is no reason he wouldn't be more accurate. There is nothing dishonest about expecting someone to be reasonably accurate with when it occurred. Especially with such strong reference points in time.

If you are as well versed on this subject as you present yourself to be, then you should be well aware of the limits of eye witness testimony.

Am I incorrect in my conclusion that you are familiar with the expected levels of accuracy with eye witness accounts?

Why is it you bother defending his lie? He has already abandoned it. I have a lot of common sense and can tell when something isn't right. A cell phone in 1990 is highly unlikely. And when I pointed that out the the dates went from 25 years ago to maybe 12, but not more than 25 for sure. You must be very easily fooled if you fall for this stuff.

Interesting.

You did not directly answer my question. You seem to be implying with your claim of "common sense" that you are not.

I will, when I have some time, do some research for you on that topic.

Mmm, you once again repeat your unsupported assumption that he was lying, and now your misrepresent his being done with you as "abandoning" his "lie".

There is no shame in not being well versed on the issues of eye witness accounts. If you just admitted it, we could research the issue and consider how it impacts this anecdotal evidence seriously and honestly.

I have to go for now. MOre tomorrow.

Waste time researching his lie all you want. But I'm sure he'd remember if it was when he first moved in and got married like he originally claimed. Until I pointed out how unlikely it was that they would have a cell phone. Then the story changed....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I recall he said he moved into the house in 1990, 25 years ago and sometime in the 13 years that he lived there this event happened. An exact date wasn't given and I think he admitted that he was unsure of the exact year. You're making something out of nothing and I can only assume it's because you are retarded.

Yes that's after he said it was 25 years ago and had to start covering for the lie.

1990 was 25 years ago.

Yes his first response was just 25 years ago. Which was when he bought a house and got married. Real good references to help him remember.

So?

So it should be easy to remember. Like I said you believe anything pro gun without thinking. Nothing is going to change that. He could have said he defended himself against Bigfoot and you'd believe him. Those of us who want the truth see through these things however.

I know what day I got married on though I don't remember every detail of that day.

 

[Brain357]

Yes that's after he said it was 25 years ago and had to start covering for the lie.

1990 was 25 years ago.

Yes his first response was just 25 years ago. Which was when he bought a house and got married. Real good references to help him remember.

So?

So it should be easy to remember. Like I said you believe anything pro gun without thinking. Nothing is going to change that. He could have said he defended himself against Bigfoot and you'd believe him. Those of us who want the truth see through these things however.

I know what day I got married on though I don't remember every detail of that day.

And if you defended your home that year you'd always know it was around the time you got married, not plus or minus 13 years.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

1990 was 25 years ago.

Yes his first response was just 25 years ago. Which was when he bought a house and got married. Real good references to help him remember.

So?

So it should be easy to remember. Like I said you believe anything pro gun without thinking. Nothing is going to change that. He could have said he defended himself against Bigfoot and you'd believe him. Those of us who want the truth see through these things however.

I know what day I got married on though I don't remember every detail of that day.

And if you defended your home that year you'd always know it was around the time you got married, not plus or minus 13 years.

I can't remember the year I confronted a thief that broke into my shop, but I remember the look in his eyes when I racked the shotgun.

 

[Brain357]

Yes his first response was just 25 years ago. Which was when he bought a house and got married. Real good references to help him remember.

So?

So it should be easy to remember. Like I said you believe anything pro gun without thinking. Nothing is going to change that. He could have said he defended himself against Bigfoot and you'd believe him. Those of us who want the truth see through these things however.

I know what day I got married on though I don't remember every detail of that day.

And if you defended your home that year you'd always know it was around the time you got married, not plus or minus 13 years.

I can't remember the year I confronted a thief that broke into my shop, but I remember the look in his eyes when I racked the shotgun.

You'd probably be a false positive in a survey then. Thanks.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So?

So it should be easy to remember. Like I said you believe anything pro gun without thinking. Nothing is going to change that. He could have said he defended himself against Bigfoot and you'd believe him. Those of us who want the truth see through these things however.

I know what day I got married on though I don't remember every detail of that day.

And if you defended your home that year you'd always know it was around the time you got married, not plus or minus 13 years.

I can't remember the year I confronted a thief that broke into my shop, but I remember the look in his eyes when I racked the shotgun.

You'd probably be a false positive in a survey then. Thanks.

I don't think surveys are all that reliable.

 

[Brain357]

So it should be easy to remember. Like I said you believe anything pro gun without thinking. Nothing is going to change that. He could have said he defended himself against Bigfoot and you'd believe him. Those of us who want the truth see through these things however.

I know what day I got married on though I don't remember every detail of that day.

And if you defended your home that year you'd always know it was around the time you got married, not plus or minus 13 years.

I can't remember the year I confronted a thief that broke into my shop, but I remember the look in his eyes when I racked the shotgun.

You'd probably be a false positive in a survey then. Thanks.

I don't think surveys are all that reliable.

We agree.

 

[rightwinger]

If the victims had had a gun they would have prompted a shootout with the robbbers and all been massacred

 

[2aguy]

Another stupid RW example to further the myth that people with guns NEVER have bad things happen to them.

There are hardly any stories you can find about people with guns who are actually in the act of defending themselves, other than the odd convenience store clerk.

All the stats show that people who carry are actually more at risk of having their weapon used against them.

Sorry, that just isn't true.....none of the studies show that even slightly....in more cases, the victim disarms the criminal...

 

[2aguy]

So?

So it should be easy to remember. Like I said you believe anything pro gun without thinking. Nothing is going to change that. He could have said he defended himself against Bigfoot and you'd believe him. Those of us who want the truth see through these things however.

I know what day I got married on though I don't remember every detail of that day.

And if you defended your home that year you'd always know it was around the time you got married, not plus or minus 13 years.

I can't remember the year I confronted a thief that broke into my shop, but I remember the look in his eyes when I racked the shotgun.

You'd probably be a false positive in a survey then. Thanks.

That's not a false positive....if the guy ran when confronted with an armed victim then that is a successful use of a gun....considering you can't know what the criminal would have done if the guy didn't have that shotgun.....the gun was used to stop or prevent a violent criminal attack....

 

[Brain357]

So it should be easy to remember. Like I said you believe anything pro gun without thinking. Nothing is going to change that. He could have said he defended himself against Bigfoot and you'd believe him. Those of us who want the truth see through these things however.

I know what day I got married on though I don't remember every detail of that day.

And if you defended your home that year you'd always know it was around the time you got married, not plus or minus 13 years.

I can't remember the year I confronted a thief that broke into my shop, but I remember the look in his eyes when I racked the shotgun.

You'd probably be a false positive in a survey then. Thanks.

That's not a false positive....if the guy ran when confronted with an armed victim then that is a successful use of a gun....considering you can't know what the criminal would have done if the guy didn't have that shotgun.....the gun was used to stop or prevent a violent criminal attack....

The surveys ask have you used a gun for defense in the last 5 years. Here we have two examples where they claim to have no idea when they happened. That leads to false positives.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

1990 was 25 years ago.

Yes his first response was just 25 years ago. Which was when he bought a house and got married. Real good references to help him remember.

So?

So it should be easy to remember. Like I said you believe anything pro gun without thinking. Nothing is going to change that. He could have said he defended himself against Bigfoot and you'd believe him. Those of us who want the truth see through these things however.

I know what day I got married on though I don't remember every detail of that day.

And if you defended your home that year you'd always know it was around the time you got married, not plus or minus 13 years.

Not necessarily.

 

[2aguy]

I know what day I got married on though I don't remember every detail of that day.

And if you defended your home that year you'd always know it was around the time you got married, not plus or minus 13 years.

I can't remember the year I confronted a thief that broke into my shop, but I remember the look in his eyes when I racked the shotgun.

You'd probably be a false positive in a survey then. Thanks.

That's not a false positive....if the guy ran when confronted with an armed victim then that is a successful use of a gun....considering you can't know what the criminal would have done if the guy didn't have that shotgun.....the gun was used to stop or prevent a violent criminal attack....

The surveys ask have you used a gun for defense in the last 5 years. Here we have two examples where they claim to have no idea when they happened. That leads to false positives.

Actually, you are wrong...Kleck first asks in the last year, and one of the follow up questions is the last 5 years.....and sorry, it still happened.....

 

[Brain357]

And if you defended your home that year you'd always know it was around the time you got married, not plus or minus 13 years.

I can't remember the year I confronted a thief that broke into my shop, but I remember the look in his eyes when I racked the shotgun.

You'd probably be a false positive in a survey then. Thanks.

That's not a false positive....if the guy ran when confronted with an armed victim then that is a successful use of a gun....considering you can't know what the criminal would have done if the guy didn't have that shotgun.....the gun was used to stop or prevent a violent criminal attack....

The surveys ask have you used a gun for defense in the last 5 years. Here we have two examples where they claim to have no idea when they happened. That leads to false positives.

Actually, you are wrong...Kleck first asks in the last year, and one of the follow up questions is the last 5 years.....and sorry, it still happened.....

It doesn't matter. These guys don't know if it was 1, 5 or 20 years. This is just one of the many flaws in the surveys.

 

[2aguy]

I can't remember the year I confronted a thief that broke into my shop, but I remember the look in his eyes when I racked the shotgun.

You'd probably be a false positive in a survey then. Thanks.

That's not a false positive....if the guy ran when confronted with an armed victim then that is a successful use of a gun....considering you can't know what the criminal would have done if the guy didn't have that shotgun.....the gun was used to stop or prevent a violent criminal attack....

The surveys ask have you used a gun for defense in the last 5 years. Here we have two examples where they claim to have no idea when they happened. That leads to false positives.

Actually, you are wrong...Kleck first asks in the last year, and one of the follow up questions is the last 5 years.....and sorry, it still happened.....

It doesn't matter. These guys don't know if it was 1, 5 or 20 years. This is just one of the many flaws in the surveys.

Keep trying brain...one day you might say something accurate....

 

[2aguy]

This is how Kleck did it.....

Armed Resistance to Crime The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

Each interview began with a few general "throat-clearing" questions about problems facing the R's community and crime. The interviewers then asked the following question: "Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard." Rs who answered "yes" were then asked: "Was this to protect against an animal or a person?" Rs who reported a DGU against a person were asked: "How many incidents involving defensive uses of guns against persons happened to members of your household in the past five years?" and "Did this incident [any of these incidents] happen in the past twelve months?" At this point, Rs were asked "Was it you who used a gun defensively, or did someone else in your household do this?"

All Rs reporting a DGU were asked a long, detailed series of questions establishing exactly what happened in the DGU incident. Rs who reported having experienced more than one DGU in the previous five years were asked about their most recent experience. When the original R was the one who had used a gun defensively, as was usually the case, interviewers obtained his or her firsthand account of the event. When the original R indicated that some other member of the household was the one who had the, experience, interviewers made every effort to speak directly to the involved person, either speaking to that person immediately or obtaining times and dates to call back. Up to three call-backs were made to contact the DGU-involved person. We anticipated that it would sometimes prove impossible to make contact with these persons, so interviewers were instructed to always obtain a proxy account of the DGU from the original R, on the assumption that a proxy account would be better than none at all. It was rarely necessary to rely on these proxy accounts--only six sample cases of DGUs were reported through proxies, out of a total of 222 sample cases.

 

[Vandalshandle]

While your argument is well stated, I think it is quite a stretch to assume that the data from 4,077 households can be applied to a nation with 300,000,000 people. Especially because of the diversity of the population. I suspect that few people in Iowa know anyone who had to draw down on anybody, and few people in the inner city of New Orleans who do NOT know someone who had to draw down on someone.

While your argument is well stated, I think it is quite a stretch to assume that the data from 4,077 households can be applied to a nation with 300,000,000 people. Especially because of the diversity of the population. I suspect that few people in Iowa know anyone who had to draw down on anybody, and few people in the inner city of New Orleans who do NOT know someone who had to draw down on someone.

I agree that I might have been able to find a more statistically significant study if I had taken more time to search. However, I think a sample size of 4,977 is sufficient, assuming the survey was properly conducted. Whether or not a sample size is sufficient must be determined by three factors: (1) the population size; (2) the confidence level; and (3) the margin of error. Actually, the confidence level and margin of error are more important than the population size. If the population size is 300,000,000 and there is a 95 percent confidence level and a margin of error of 5%, a sample size of only 385 is sufficient. If there is 99 percent confidence level and a margin of error of two percent, a sufficient sample size is 4,161.

Here is a link that can help you calculate a proper sample size.

Sample Size Calculator

Note: Generally sample sizes of 1,000 are sufficient for national surveys. Here are a few of many links that will confirm this:

Determining Appropriate Sample Size
FAQs NCPP - National Council on Public Polls

Now, with all due respect to each of you, I am done with this thread.

Have a good night and a great day.

I remember that from when I took Statistics in college, but frankly, I didn't believe that, then, either. For example, If you were to poll my neighborhood, which is a community of 35,000 people, statistically you could claim that Arizona is at least 85% red. Yet, my community is south of Tucson, and our Rep was Gabby Gifford.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If the victims had had a gun they would have prompted a shootout with the robbbers and all been massacred

Not true. I could have easily shot all three mexicans before they reached their car.
The threat was over so I let em slide..but dont think I didnt reconsider after I let em go.
They may have went on to hurt someone else,and that still weighs on my mind even after years.

 

[MaryL]

Who cares what I say here. This isn't about people needing guns. it's about why we are such a broken violent society that needs firearms to protect itself, how do we get past THAT? More violence isn't the solution. What is? Smaller Families, better personal interaction. I don't know what else. But more people, more laws and more guns aren't helping.