The fallacy of self defence by gun

[2aguy]

Because you need to compensate. Other Western countries get on with their lives, you guys it's "*Mouth froth* 2nd amendment*mouth froth* come take my guns *mouth froth* 2nd amendment". That's every hour, day in and day out 24/7.

So the planet can only assume it's because you're compensating for tiny dicks because it's a stance a tiny dick person takes. So yours is an inney.

Yeah........it's called 15 million innocent men, women and children murdered by the governments of Europe in just 12 years......more people murdered than all of the people murdered with guns in the 246 years of our countries history.....and the majority of those gun murders were not innocent people......unlike you guys who murdered primarily innocent people.....they are criminals engaged in crime.....

You guys murdered all of those people, while under the control of the socialists.....and you just want to forget it ever happened....

Then, add in the 25 million people murdered by the communists in Russia, the 70 million people murdered by the communists in China, the 1/3 of the population of Cambodia murdered by the communists......all around the world...people murdered by their governments...

And you guys just pretend it never happened.......

You are the ones who are insane, not us.....we know it happened....we know it could happen again.....you are willing to trust that it won't happen again.....that makes you a fool.

 

[2aguy]

Because you need to compensate. Other Western countries get on with their lives, you guys it's "*Mouth froth* 2nd amendment*mouth froth* come take my guns *mouth froth* 2nd amendment". That's every hour, day in and day out 24/7.

So the planet can only assume it's because you're compensating for tiny dicks because it's a stance a tiny dick person takes. So yours is an inney.

Can you explain to us how it is that the Holocaust, and the other millions of people murdered by the European socialists have no meaning for you? It happened.....those millions were murdered.....hundreds of million more murdered by their government around the world....and yet you have no fear of it ever happening again....

Can you explain that?

 

[Stryder50]

I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy, and we all know it is. So what's with the gun nuts running off and copying pasting articles from shady sources?

Well look no further, just simply check with Harvard and the studies -

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Pardon the pun, Harvard blow holes in the gun nut's self defence argument.

So anyone arming up for the mistaken belief they need to for self defence against others, they're the worst candidate to own a gun.

It's known as having a bias in the facts collected and interpreted.
Countering study,, EXCERPTS;
CDC Admission: Guns Used Far More Often in Self-Defense Than Crime
...
Firearms are used for defensive purposes between 500,000 and 3 million times every single year in the United States.

In comparison, firearms were used to commit violent crime 300,000 times as of 2008.

So objectively and rationally, gun prohibitions are a good idea, right?

If your reflexive reaction to reading that data is that it must rely upon exaggerated estimates by pro-Second Amendment activists, guess again. The source of that data is none other than a study commissioned by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) following an instruction from President Barack Obama in January 2013 "to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

In other words, even accepting the minimum estimate of defensive gun uses in the U.S. each year from a source hardly inclined toward Second Amendment advocacy, that number still dwarfs the number of instances in which guns are used to commit violent crime. "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," the report summarized.
...
Recently, Florida State University researcher Gary Kleck uncovered CDC estimates conducted in 1996, 1997 and 1998. And as reported in Reason magazine, those estimates confirmed Kleck's own research determining that firearms are used for defensive purposes approximately 2.5 million times per year, unbeknownst by the public:

The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found. Kleck's new paper - "What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?" - finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998. Those polls, Kleck writes, "are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Those that addressed DGUs asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since... The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996-1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense.

Not that a disparity one way or the other would be determinative regarding the Second Amendment, which protects the natural, individual right to keep and bear arms regardless of statistical estimates.
...
The worldwide average murder rate across all nations stands at approximately 11 per 100,000 people. The U.S., which claims the world's highest gun possession rate and obviously protects that right via the Second Amendment, falls far below that average at approximately 4 per 100,000.

While gun control advocates elevate European nations as some sort of gun-banning, violence-free utopia, their murder rates actually stand fairly close to the U.S. at 2 or 3 per 100,000.

And notably, Switzerland claims the world's second-highest gun possession rate, yet suffers an extremely low murder rate.

Meanwhile, nations that follow domestic gun controllers' prohibitionist and even confiscatory agenda actually suffer murder rates far above the worldwide average. For instance, gun-banning Mexico suffers a murder rate of approximately 24 per 100,000. Similarly, Brazil endures a murder rate of 26 per 100,000, and Russia stands at 14 per 100,000.

Accordingly, even completely repealing the Second Amendment and prohibiting gun possession wouldn't translate to a miniscule murder rate, as global experience shows.

And as the federal government's own data spanning two decades show, doing so would prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, other people or property far more often than it would prevent crime.
...

CDC Admission: Guns Used Far More Often in Self-Defense Than Crime

Firearms are used for defensive purposes between 500,000 and 3 million times every single year in the United States. In comparison, firearms were used to commit violent crime 300,000 times as of 2008. If your reflexive reaction to reading that data is that it must rely upon exaggerated estimates...

www.cfif.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Similar evidence, articles, links to follow. Might be a few days as yard-n-garden and other chores take priority for next few days.

 

[Vagabond63]

.

He was dead by the Battle of New Orleans ... *cough-cough*
And the Choctaw Indians, and Militia, helped us beat the living tar out of experience British Regulars in that fight.

.​

Yes, a frontal assault against a strongly fortified position covered by heavy artillery, tends to end badly for an attacker, especially when badly led. Still, as I recall, the militia ran away there as well. As for the Choctaw Indians, whatever happened to them?

 

[Vagabond63]

Can you explain to us how it is that the Holocaust, and the other millions of people murdered by the European socialists have no meaning for you? It happened.....those millions were murdered.....hundreds of million more murdered by their government around the world....and yet you have no fear of it ever happening again....

Can you explain that?

Nothing to explain. Didn't one of your Generals once say "war is hell"? We learned that if you allow extreme right or left wing authoritarian regimes to develop, shit happens. Unfortunately we can't always stop them evolving, and you've come very close with Trump recently. What we learned is to not allow national rivalries to escalate by creating a more united Europe where we could settle our differences by diplomacy, at least until Putin paid for Trump and Johnson to get elected.

But that's war and there has never been any instance of civilians armed with handguns ever stopping an authoritarian regime by themselves. You are comparing chalk to cheese, as usual.

 

[Vagabond63]

It's known as having a bias in the facts collected and interpreted.
Countering study,, EXCERPTS;
CDC Admission: Guns Used Far More Often in Self-Defense Than Crime
...
Firearms are used for defensive purposes between 500,000 and 3 million times every single year in the United States.

In comparison, firearms were used to commit violent crime 300,000 times as of 2008.

So objectively and rationally, gun prohibitions are a good idea, right?

If your reflexive reaction to reading that data is that it must rely upon exaggerated estimates by pro-Second Amendment activists, guess again. The source of that data is none other than a study commissioned by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) following an instruction from President Barack Obama in January 2013 "to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

In other words, even accepting the minimum estimate of defensive gun uses in the U.S. each year from a source hardly inclined toward Second Amendment advocacy, that number still dwarfs the number of instances in which guns are used to commit violent crime. "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," the report summarized.
...
Recently, Florida State University researcher Gary Kleck uncovered CDC estimates conducted in 1996, 1997 and 1998. And as reported in Reason magazine, those estimates confirmed Kleck's own research determining that firearms are used for defensive purposes approximately 2.5 million times per year, unbeknownst by the public:

The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found. Kleck's new paper - "What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?" - finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998. Those polls, Kleck writes, "are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Those that addressed DGUs asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since... The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996-1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense.

Not that a disparity one way or the other would be determinative regarding the Second Amendment, which protects the natural, individual right to keep and bear arms regardless of statistical estimates.
...
The worldwide average murder rate across all nations stands at approximately 11 per 100,000 people. The U.S., which claims the world's highest gun possession rate and obviously protects that right via the Second Amendment, falls far below that average at approximately 4 per 100,000.

While gun control advocates elevate European nations as some sort of gun-banning, violence-free utopia, their murder rates actually stand fairly close to the U.S. at 2 or 3 per 100,000.

And notably, Switzerland claims the world's second-highest gun possession rate, yet suffers an extremely low murder rate.

Meanwhile, nations that follow domestic gun controllers' prohibitionist and even confiscatory agenda actually suffer murder rates far above the worldwide average. For instance, gun-banning Mexico suffers a murder rate of approximately 24 per 100,000. Similarly, Brazil endures a murder rate of 26 per 100,000, and Russia stands at 14 per 100,000.

Accordingly, even completely repealing the Second Amendment and prohibiting gun possession wouldn't translate to a miniscule murder rate, as global experience shows.

And as the federal government's own data spanning two decades show, doing so would prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, other people or property far more often than it would prevent crime.
...

CDC Admission: Guns Used Far More Often in Self-Defense Than Crime

Firearms are used for defensive purposes between 500,000 and 3 million times every single year in the United States. In comparison, firearms were used to commit violent crime 300,000 times as of 2008. If your reflexive reaction to reading that data is that it must rely upon exaggerated estimates...

www.cfif.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Similar evidence, articles, links to follow. Might be a few days as yard-n-garden and other chores take priority for next few days.

Have you actually read what the CDC comissioned report actually says, as opposed to the BS spin article you quote?

 

[Vagabond63]

"Cough" World War 1.....World War 2....."Cough" you know, when the United States, and Americans with lots of guns saved your sorry asses....remember that?

Ah, yes that old myth.
WW1? Thanks for providing fresh cannon fodder for German Artillery and machine guns, but that's about all, Britain and France provided the guns and equipment. The main effect of American involvement in WW1 was on the morale of the German government who had already shot their bolt in 1918 and were on their last legs in any event. American manpower enabled a more decisive allied victory, so again, thanks for that. Oh, French and Belgian farmers are still digging up dud American made shells in their fields.
WW2? Well were it not for Hitler invading the USSR, things may have turned out differently. The main US effort was in the Pacific, but thanks again for all the men and equipment we needed to hang on to about half of Western Europe, when you shafted us over Eastern Europe at Yalta.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This thread


We citizens will keep our guns and get more.

You peasants/subjects beg your loafwards for crumbs and merciful protection.

Deal?

 

[BlackSand]

Yes, a frontal assault against a strongly fortified position covered by heavy artillery, tends to end badly for an attacker, especially when badly led. Still, as I recall, the militia ran away there as well. As for the Choctaw Indians, whatever happened to them?

.

It was an untrained militia, some military, and a bunch of Native Americans fighting thousands of experienced British regulars ...
With 5000 more British Regulars offshore that turned tail and ran.

They slaughtered them and a battlefield reporter at the time described the field as a carpet of red and dead bodies.
It took us 45 minutes to whip the ever-living tar out of the British, they never actually made it to New Orleans ...
Although they did shell a church and injure a nun from the port ... And the Choctaw Indians run several casinos in the region today.

"They ran through briars, and they ran through bramble, and they ran through the places where the rabbits wouldn't go ...
They ran so fast that hounds couldn't catch them, down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico."

The only running we were doing was chasing your ass out of the State and into the Gulf of Mexico,
where your buddies on the ships were leaving your ass ...

Don't take it so hard ... The same thing happened when the Union tried.
They got chased across the river into Vicksburg, Mississippi before they got a chance to slow down and win a fight.
Stay out of Louisiana ... It's the best option, because we are some tenacious folks.

.​

 

[2aguy]

Ah, yes that old myth.
WW1? Thanks for providing fresh cannon fodder for German Artillery and machine guns, but that's about all, Britain and France provided the guns and equipment. The main effect of American involvement in WW1 was on the morale of the German government who had already shot their bolt in 1918 and were on their last legs in any event. American manpower enabled a more decisive allied victory, so again, thanks for that. Oh, French and Belgian farmers are still digging up dud American made shells in their fields.
WW2? Well were it not for Hitler invading the USSR, things may have turned out differently. The main US effort was in the Pacific, but thanks again for all the men and equipment we needed to hang on to about half of Western Europe, when you shafted us over Eastern Europe at Yalta.

Yeah.....you didn't get it done till our troops arrived.....you are welcome....Americans with guns saved your asses, twice.....and you still didn't learn your lesson....

Nope.....without America, Russia would have been defeated, and Germany would have consolidated its hold on Europe, then pounded your country into paste....

 

[2aguy]

Nothing to explain. Didn't one of your Generals once say "war is hell"? We learned that if you allow extreme right or left wing authoritarian regimes to develop, shit happens. Unfortunately we can't always stop them evolving, and you've come very close with Trump recently. What we learned is to not allow national rivalries to escalate by creating a more united Europe where we could settle our differences by diplomacy, at least until Putin paid for Trump and Johnson to get elected.

But that's war and there has never been any instance of civilians armed with handguns ever stopping an authoritarian regime by themselves. You are comparing chalk to cheese, as usual.

You guys didn't learn anything.......American troops on the ground have kept you from butchering each other again, and has...until biden, the leftists, from invading west .....

You fools......you look at Trump and you can't see that he was the exact opposite........you like biden, who is enacting fascism left and right and with democrats over here, you guys are on your own.....something you can't afford since you put all of your money into keeping your people in the basement playing X-box.....living off the dole...

 

[badbob85037]

I've always stated that needing a gun for self defence was a fallacy, and we all know it is. So what's with the gun nuts running off and copying pasting articles from shady sources?

Well look no further, just simply check with Harvard and the studies -

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Pardon the pun, Harvard blow holes in the gun nut's self defence argument.

So anyone arming up for the mistaken belief they need to for self defence against others, they're the worst candidate to own a gun.

Why don't you tell that to one of those fags in the Florida night club when all that stood in the way of him and a mad shooter was a bathroom stall door . Or one of those teachers in Texas. I see you are the type of guy who's home is invaded you will not make any aggressive move as they beat the fuck out of you knowing they will tier soon and move on to another family member Probably the type of guy that joins neighborhood watch so you can show up and watch. WHAT KIND OF IDIOT WOULDN'T PROTECT HIS FAMILY? An idiot like you. Beyond pathetic!

 

[P@triot]

You hide behind guns because of your tiny dicks.

The moment the fascist cannot make a case for why they want totalitarian control over everyone, they cry “tiny dicks”

Listen flaming homo, your creepy obsession with other men’s penises aside, I’d rather have 100 firearms than worry about what queer beta-males such as yourself are thinking about my equipment

 

[P@triot]

You hide behind guns because of your tiny dicks.

He hides behind “tiny dicks” because he’s afraid of inanimate objects and cannot explain his desire for fascist totalitarian control over everyone.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You hide behind guns because of your tiny dicks. Hence the macho crap you guys come out with.

"Der, come and, der, talk me guns, der".

I'll use my gun to kill you. You use your "big dick." Let's see who lives.

 

[yidnar]

Because you need to compensate. Other Western countries get on with their lives, you guys it's "*Mouth froth* 2nd amendment*mouth froth* come take my guns *mouth froth* 2nd amendment". That's every hour, day in and day out 24/7.

So the planet can only assume it's because you're compensating for tiny dicks because it's a stance a tiny dick person takes. So yours is an inney.

 

[themirrorthief]

What is hard to understand? You have nothing but wind blowing through your ears, so you simply repeat, or parrot, back whatever your Gestapo leaders tell you to...just like a Polly Parrot. Awwwk, Awwwk, Awwwk!

I never had sex with that woman...Ms Lewinsky awk awk awk

 

[BackAgain]

Notice the author of the OP of this inane thread cannot counter the obvious rebuttal. An armed schmuck breaks into your home. How is your ability to draw your own gun in self defense a “fallacy?”

Don’t worry. The original poster will never bother to even try to offer a coherent rejoinder.

 

[P@triot]

Don’t worry. The original poster will never bother to even try to offer a coherent rejoinder.

I fucking obliterated him with news articles from actual instances of what you just outlined. His response? To start talking about everyone’s penis

 

[BackAgain]

I fucking obliterated him with news articles from actual instances of what you just outlined. His response? To start talking about everyone’s penis

Over compensation for a teeny weeny peny?