Lefties push campus rape myth...Pro 2nd Amendment push arming women on campus...backfire....

[Brain357]

It's pretty funny....just read an article that deals with this issue....now that guns are being proposed...all of a sudden rape on college campuses isn't a problem any more........you lefties are funny....

I'm pretty sure Rush made the whole thing up Bill. He's not exactly a credible source of anything.

Brain....it's in the news....he read the story.....do you listen to his show?

I used to listen to his show but not for a long time. I didn't find any value in it. Now I mostly just listen to CNN. Have not heard that story yet on real news.

Listening to cnn...talk about no value....

It is value if you really want to hear news and not just crazy. I think you just want to hear right wing crazy, I prefer news.

 

[2aguy]

Again.....this study is dumb...why....over 320 million guns in the country....over 11.1 million people are now carrying guns for self defense........gun murder rate is going down, not up....study debunked......accidental gun death rate and gun accident rate going down, not up.....study debunked.....

8-9,000 gun murders a year in committed in small, multi block areas inside large cities.....vs 1.6 million defensive gun uses on average each year.......study debunked......

(hint....brain....even given your wrong number of only 108,000....and given your alleged accident rate with guns 17,000
17,000 gun accidents, plus 9,000 gun murders....total injury and death with guns...26,000....so even at your ridiculous number...defensive gun uses still far outnumber the problem with guns........and thus ends my use of your bad numbers....you lose even if you use your numbers.....)

 

[westwall]

Link?

To what part?

The supposed studies that show firearms owners are 3 times as likely to shot an innocent person. And the supposed study that claims carry people get shot.

And then explain why since 1994 the crime rate has DROPPED while ownership of firearms, more lenient laws were passed on carry has gone up.

Well the first is statistics and I can get you links if you need though I am pretty sure I have supplied them for you before. There are 6-700 accidental deaths by firearms each year. Meanwhile there are only about 230 criminals shot and killed each year. These are justifiable homicides, you can find on fbi website. So do the math, about 3X as many people are accidently shot and killed as criminals in defense.

Here is a link to results of a study showing you are more likely to be shot if you have a gun. Pretty common sense really. If you are going to pull a gun on an armed criminal he's going to shoot.
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

I don't think guns are a factor in the crime rate so I can't explain that.

I love this statement in the study...

"While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot"

Of course they didn't bother to actually find out WHO these people were. Maybe, just maybe their profession had a bearing on the numbers.

This is what you idiots think is science..

You seriously lack enough common sense to see why this is true? Really?

The person lacking in common sense is you. Who do you think is more likely to be in a confrontation with armed, hostile people. A jeweler, or a janitor?

 

[Brain357]

Again.....this study is dumb...why....over 320 million guns in the country....over 11.1 million people are now carrying guns for self defense........gun murder rate is going down, not up....study debunked......accidental gun death rate and gun accident rate going down, not up.....study debunked.....

8-9,000 gun murders a year in committed in small, multi block areas inside large cities.....vs 1.6 million defensive gun uses on average each year.......study debunked......

(hint....brain....even given your wrong number of only 108,000....and given your alleged accident rate with guns 17,000
17,000 gun accidents, plus 9,000 gun murders....total injury and death with guns...26,000....so even at your ridiculous number...defensive gun uses still far outnumber the problem with guns........and thus ends my use of your bad numbers....you lose even if you use your numbers.....)

Except you are comparing murders and people shot to 108,000 crimes defensed. Only about 10% of those would be violent crimes so now 10,800 violent crimes defensed vs 26,000 innocent people shot or killed.

 

[2aguy]

Again.....this study is dumb...why....over 320 million guns in the country....over 11.1 million people are now carrying guns for self defense........gun murder rate is going down, not up....study debunked......accidental gun death rate and gun accident rate going down, not up.....study debunked.....

8-9,000 gun murders a year in committed in small, multi block areas inside large cities.....vs 1.6 million defensive gun uses on average each year.......study debunked......

(hint....brain....even given your wrong number of only 108,000....and given your alleged accident rate with guns 17,000
17,000 gun accidents, plus 9,000 gun murders....total injury and death with guns...26,000....so even at your ridiculous number...defensive gun uses still far outnumber the problem with guns........and thus ends my use of your bad numbers....you lose even if you use your numbers.....)

Except you are comparing murders and people shot to 108,000 crimes defenses. Only about 10% of those would be violent crimes so now 10,800 violent crimes defensed vs 26,000 innocent people shot or killed.

Yes...fake up the numbers all you want brain....you really need help.....

 

[Brain357]

Here is the complete study which is very good:
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

 

[Brain357]

Again.....this study is dumb...why....over 320 million guns in the country....over 11.1 million people are now carrying guns for self defense........gun murder rate is going down, not up....study debunked......accidental gun death rate and gun accident rate going down, not up.....study debunked.....

8-9,000 gun murders a year in committed in small, multi block areas inside large cities.....vs 1.6 million defensive gun uses on average each year.......study debunked......

(hint....brain....even given your wrong number of only 108,000....and given your alleged accident rate with guns 17,000
17,000 gun accidents, plus 9,000 gun murders....total injury and death with guns...26,000....so even at your ridiculous number...defensive gun uses still far outnumber the problem with guns........and thus ends my use of your bad numbers....you lose even if you use your numbers.....)

Except you are comparing murders and people shot to 108,000 crimes defenses. Only about 10% of those would be violent crimes so now 10,800 violent crimes defensed vs 26,000 innocent people shot or killed.

Yes...fake up the numbers all you want brain....you really need help.....

What was wrong with my math?

 

[Brain357]

To what part?

The supposed studies that show firearms owners are 3 times as likely to shot an innocent person. And the supposed study that claims carry people get shot.

And then explain why since 1994 the crime rate has DROPPED while ownership of firearms, more lenient laws were passed on carry has gone up.

Well the first is statistics and I can get you links if you need though I am pretty sure I have supplied them for you before. There are 6-700 accidental deaths by firearms each year. Meanwhile there are only about 230 criminals shot and killed each year. These are justifiable homicides, you can find on fbi website. So do the math, about 3X as many people are accidently shot and killed as criminals in defense.

Here is a link to results of a study showing you are more likely to be shot if you have a gun. Pretty common sense really. If you are going to pull a gun on an armed criminal he's going to shoot.
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

I don't think guns are a factor in the crime rate so I can't explain that.

I love this statement in the study...

"While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot"

Of course they didn't bother to actually find out WHO these people were. Maybe, just maybe their profession had a bearing on the numbers.

This is what you idiots think is science..

You seriously lack enough common sense to see why this is true? Really?

The person lacking in common sense is you. Who do you think is more likely to be in a confrontation with armed, hostile people. A jeweler, or a janitor?

It doesn't matter for this study.

 

[2aguy]

Again.....this study is dumb...why....over 320 million guns in the country....over 11.1 million people are now carrying guns for self defense........gun murder rate is going down, not up....study debunked......accidental gun death rate and gun accident rate going down, not up.....study debunked.....

8-9,000 gun murders a year in committed in small, multi block areas inside large cities.....vs 1.6 million defensive gun uses on average each year.......study debunked......

(hint....brain....even given your wrong number of only 108,000....and given your alleged accident rate with guns 17,000
17,000 gun accidents, plus 9,000 gun murders....total injury and death with guns...26,000....so even at your ridiculous number...defensive gun uses still far outnumber the problem with guns........and thus ends my use of your bad numbers....you lose even if you use your numbers.....)

Except you are comparing murders and people shot to 108,000 crimes defenses. Only about 10% of those would be violent crimes so now 10,800 violent crimes defensed vs 26,000 innocent people shot or killed.

Yes...fake up the numbers all you want brain....you really need help.....

What was wrong with my math?

you have no basis for your conclusions...

 

[2aguy]

Here is the complete study which is very good:
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Brain...that study is crap....it is deeply flawed.....

 

[Brain357]

Again.....this study is dumb...why....over 320 million guns in the country....over 11.1 million people are now carrying guns for self defense........gun murder rate is going down, not up....study debunked......accidental gun death rate and gun accident rate going down, not up.....study debunked.....

8-9,000 gun murders a year in committed in small, multi block areas inside large cities.....vs 1.6 million defensive gun uses on average each year.......study debunked......

(hint....brain....even given your wrong number of only 108,000....and given your alleged accident rate with guns 17,000
17,000 gun accidents, plus 9,000 gun murders....total injury and death with guns...26,000....so even at your ridiculous number...defensive gun uses still far outnumber the problem with guns........and thus ends my use of your bad numbers....you lose even if you use your numbers.....)

Except you are comparing murders and people shot to 108,000 crimes defenses. Only about 10% of those would be violent crimes so now 10,800 violent crimes defensed vs 26,000 innocent people shot or killed.

Yes...fake up the numbers all you want brain....you really need help.....

What was wrong with my math?

you have no basis for your conclusions...

I just took your numbers a step further and compared violent crimes defensed to innocent people shot and killed. That seems pretty fair.

 

[Brain357]

Here is the complete study which is very good:
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Brain...that study is crap....it is deeply flawed.....

I see no flaws in it. Give a specific flaw and lets discuss.

 

[2aguy]

Here is the complete study which is very good:
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Brain...that study is crap....it is deeply flawed.....

I see no flaws in it. Give a specific flaw and lets discuss.

Well first....it is funded by the Joyce Foundation...a rabid anti gun group......

 

[Brain357]

Here is the complete study which is very good:
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Brain...that study is crap....it is deeply flawed.....

I see no flaws in it. Give a specific flaw and lets discuss.

Well first....it is funded by the Joyce Foundation...a rabid anti gun group......

That would be an understandable reason for you to be skeptical of the results, but not a flaw in itself.

 

[2aguy]

Here is a look at the flaws.....I think Westwall alluded to one of them....

Anti gun study filled with flaws and bias - National self-defense Examiner.com


We assumed that the resident population of Philadelphia risked being shot in an assault at any location and at any time of day or night. This is an acceptable assumption because guns are mobile, potentially concealable items and the bullets they fire can pass through obstacles and travel long distances. Any member of the general population has the potential to be exposed to guns and the bullets they discharge regardless of where they are or what they are doing. As such, we reasonably chose not to exclude participants as immune from hypothetically becoming cases because they were, for instance, asleep at home during the night or at work in an office building during the day.

Here, the study authors unreasonably assumes that individuals are equally likely to be shot in any location in Philadelphia (where the study was conducted) which is simply untrue. As with just about any major city, there are some neighborhoods that are much safer than average, and some that are much more dangerous than average. A person in a high crime neighborhood is much more likely to be shot than a person in a low crime neighborhood. The fact that bullets can travel relatively long distances doesn’t change this fact, as a cursory glance at neighborhood crime statistics in any large city will show. Equating the person who lives in the crime ridden neighborhood with a person who lives in an affluent gated community is unreasonable.

While it is true that, as a matter of physics, any person may be shot, that doesn’t mean that all people are equally likely to be shot “regardless of where they are or what they are doing.” A person who is out selling crack cocaine is much more likely to be shot than a person who is at home baking cookies. Similarly, a person who is participating in a drive-by shooting is much more likely to be shot than a person who is sitting at their desk in an office building. Equating the person who is home baking cookies with the drive-by shooting participant is simply unreasonable.

We pair-matched case participants to control participants on the date and time (within 30- minute intervals; i.e., 10:30 pm, 11:00 pm) of each shooting. This was done because the factors we planned to analyze, including gun possession, were often short-lived making the time of the shooting most etiologically relevant. . . We did not pair-match case participants and control participants on location.

Once again, the methodology used in this study is flawed. Comparing an (illegally) armed criminal who is dealing drugs at 11:00 PM to a law abiding person who is is asleep at home and not holding a gun at the moment does not tell us much, other than the already known fact that dealing illegal drugs is a dangerous activity.

Conclusion

This study’s methodology was deeply flawed, and the conclusions it reaches are therefore invalid. Equating criminals with law abiding citizens leads to inaccurate results when evaluating whether gun ownership leads to increased risk of being shot. Similarly, lumping together well trained gun owners with inexperienced individuals who illegally owns guns does not produce a valid result when evaluating the effectiveness of armed self defense.


*********************

The first part of this post about location.....most gun crime is committed in small, multi block areas in larger cities...the rest of the city are not affected by the gun crime in these areas, as the crime is committed by gangs......

Chicago is a city of over 2 million people. The West side location of one study had 80,000 residents....only 1,600 of them, linked by various criminal ties, committed 70% of the homicides..........

 

[Brain357]

Here is a look at the flaws.....I think Westwall alluded to one of them....

Anti gun study filled with flaws and bias - National self-defense Examiner.com

Well that is hardly one flaw but here is the first thing:
This failure to account for reverse causation is perhaps the biggest flaw in the study. Those who expect to come under violent attack, be they criminals or law abiding citizens, are much more likely to carry a gun for self defense.

Ok, I suppose they are. But clearly it did not make them safer as they were in fact shot themselves.

 

[2aguy]

Here is a look at the flaws.....I think Westwall alluded to one of them....

Anti gun study filled with flaws and bias - National self-defense Examiner.com

Well that is hardly one flaw but here is the first thing:
This failure to account for reverse causation is perhaps the biggest flaw in the study. Those who expect to come under violent attack, be they criminals or law abiding citizens, are much more likely to carry a gun for self defense.

Ok, I suppose they are. But clearly it did not make them safer as they were in fact shot themselves.

Of the cases they studied.....they didn't use a very large group in the first place and just in your NRA from the "Armed Citizen" articles......more often than not those defending with a gun recieve less injuries and the crimes are not completed....studies have been done on this as well....

 

[Brain357]

Here is a look at the flaws.....I think Westwall alluded to one of them....

Anti gun study filled with flaws and bias - National self-defense Examiner.com

Well that is hardly one flaw but here is the first thing:
This failure to account for reverse causation is perhaps the biggest flaw in the study. Those who expect to come under violent attack, be they criminals or law abiding citizens, are much more likely to carry a gun for self defense.

Ok, I suppose they are. But clearly it did not make them safer as they were in fact shot themselves.

Of the cases they studied.....they didn't use a very large group in the first place and just in your NRA from the "Armed Citizen" articles......more often than not those defending with a gun recieve less injuries and the crimes are not completed....studies have been done on this as well....

All the people in the armed citizen are armed. There is no comparison to unarmed in that study.

 

[2aguy]

Here is a look at the flaws.....I think Westwall alluded to one of them....

Anti gun study filled with flaws and bias - National self-defense Examiner.com

Well that is hardly one flaw but here is the first thing:
This failure to account for reverse causation is perhaps the biggest flaw in the study. Those who expect to come under violent attack, be they criminals or law abiding citizens, are much more likely to carry a gun for self defense.

Ok, I suppose they are. But clearly it did not make them safer as they were in fact shot themselves.

Of the cases they studied.....they didn't use a very large group in the first place and just in your NRA from the "Armed Citizen" articles......more often than not those defending with a gun recieve less injuries and the crimes are not completed....studies have been done on this as well....

All the people in the armed citizen are armed. There is no comparison to unarmed in that study.

Can you tell me from this study what the "victims" were doing at the time they were shot? Were they criminals? I mean real criminals engaged in criminal business....?

 

[2aguy]

Talk to you tommorrow Brain....