CDZ Women should embrace both owning and carrying guns as acts of personal empowerment.

[koshergrl]

Quite clearly, they are.

People....When you hear the bullshit stat of 72,000,000 million crimes stopped by someone with a gun in the last 30 years; ask yourself simple questions; do you know someone who actively stopped a violent crime with a gun? It is quite likely that you do not. Certainly, with 72,000,000 people out there stopping violent crimes, you should have run across probably 100 or 200. Again, do you know someone? Do any of the people you know have an awareness of a guy with a gun actively stopping someone by using a gun? Again, likely not. As pointed out by another poster, that is 6575 times a day or, if you prefer 273 times an hour; every hour; even at 4AM in the morning on Christmas!!!!

9/11 Truthers make more sense than this jerk.

I have never met anyone who had an encounter with a bear out in the wild....so I guess that means there are no bears in the wild........

I do know someone who used a gun to scare off 2 robbers...... I know 2 people who were robbed at gun point, had they had guns at the time, they wouldn't have been robbed.....

Wow...3; were they in the same day? If not, you have to account for the other 6500 on those days.

As for bears in the wild--the latest false equivalence from gun nuts I suppose--they do exist and people do encounter them; likely not 6,500 in a day or 72,000,000 in 30 years; just like you repeating the fable about active gun defenses.

As for bears in the wild--the latest false equivalence from gun nuts I suppose--they do exist and people do encounter them;

No....they don't exist..... according to your own rules, I have not met anyone who has encountered a bear in the wild, so no, they don't actually exist.....

When you have to mis-characterize what was stated...you're exhibiting a very weak mind; not to mention dishonesty which has become your trademark.

Actually, that's EXACTLY what you said.

"Quite clearly, they ("they" being the Centers for Disease Control AND the Department of Justice) are.

People....When you hear the bullshit stat of 72,000,000 million crimes stopped by someone with a gun in the last 30 years; ask yourself simple questions; do you know someone who actively stopped a violent crime with a gun? It is quite likely that you do not. Certainly, with 72,000,000 people out there stopping violent crimes, you should have run across probably 100 or 200. Again, do you know someone? Do any of the people you know have an awareness of a guy with a gun actively stopping someone by using a gun? Again, likely not. As pointed out by another poster, that is 6575 times a day or, if you prefer 273 times an hour; every hour; even at 4AM in the morning on Christmas!!!!

9/11 Truthers make more sense than this jerk."

By all means, explain to us how this quote is being "mis-characterized" as saying that defensive uses of guns are "fables" (one of your other quotes), and that by the same token, anything that is said to happen in large numbers, but which we, personally, have never encountered, is ALSO a "bullshit stat", to borrow your words.

antifacorn is famous for contradicting her dumb self. She's as bad as bode. Only a lot more hysterical.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Quite clearly, they are.

People....When you hear the bullshit stat of 72,000,000 million crimes stopped by someone with a gun in the last 30 years; ask yourself simple questions; do you know someone who actively stopped a violent crime with a gun? It is quite likely that you do not. Certainly, with 72,000,000 people out there stopping violent crimes, you should have run across probably 100 or 200. Again, do you know someone? Do any of the people you know have an awareness of a guy with a gun actively stopping someone by using a gun? Again, likely not. As pointed out by another poster, that is 6575 times a day or, if you prefer 273 times an hour; every hour; even at 4AM in the morning on Christmas!!!!

9/11 Truthers make more sense than this jerk.

I have never met anyone who had an encounter with a bear out in the wild....so I guess that means there are no bears in the wild........

I do know someone who used a gun to scare off 2 robbers...... I know 2 people who were robbed at gun point, had they had guns at the time, they wouldn't have been robbed.....

Wow...3; were they in the same day? If not, you have to account for the other 6500 on those days.

As for bears in the wild--the latest false equivalence from gun nuts I suppose--they do exist and people do encounter them; likely not 6,500 in a day or 72,000,000 in 30 years; just like you repeating the fable about active gun defenses.

Come to think of it...I don't know anyone who was murdered either...so murder is just a fantasy too.... rape too.....since I don't know anyone who was raped.... and a lot of other things and people I have never experienced or met...so they are all fantasies too....right?

Fantasies such as 6,500 gun defenses per hour? Are you hearing shots outside your window? How many stories will be in the paper tomorrow about these fantasy gun defenses...maybe 3 nationwide. Thanks for the giggle.

It's good to know...I have been to Chicago lots of times, and have never encountered a criminal with a gun...so, according to you, there is no crime in Chicago..... so why are they making up all the stories about gun murders in Chicago?

It's a devious, underhanded scheme by Indiana's Department of Tourism to steal all of Illinois' vacation traffic.

 

[candycorn]

The CDC did the research.... they did research from 1996-1998..... they found 2.4 million defensive gun uses by Americans.... they hid the data. The Department of Justice also researched gun self defense...they found 1.5 million defensive gun uses.....in 1995...... so tell them they are wrong....

Quite clearly, they are.

People....When you hear the bullshit stat of 72,000,000 million crimes stopped by someone with a gun in the last 30 years; ask yourself simple questions; do you know someone who actively stopped a violent crime with a gun? It is quite likely that you do not. Certainly, with 72,000,000 people out there stopping violent crimes, you should have run across probably 100 or 200. Again, do you know someone? Do any of the people you know have an awareness of a guy with a gun actively stopping someone by using a gun? Again, likely not. As pointed out by another poster, that is 6575 times a day or, if you prefer 273 times an hour; every hour; even at 4AM in the morning on Christmas!!!!

9/11 Truthers make more sense than this jerk.

I have never met anyone who had an encounter with a bear out in the wild....so I guess that means there are no bears in the wild........

I do know someone who used a gun to scare off 2 robbers...... I know 2 people who were robbed at gun point, had they had guns at the time, they wouldn't have been robbed.....

Wow...3; were they in the same day? If not, you have to account for the other 6500 on those days.

As for bears in the wild--the latest false equivalence from gun nuts I suppose--they do exist and people do encounter them; likely not 6,500 in a day or 72,000,000 in 30 years; just like you repeating the fable about active gun defenses.

So NOW your "evidence" that the Department of Justice is "bullshit" is that 2aguy is PERSONALLY required to know every one of 72 million people over the last 30 years, or it's all invalid?

Can you possibly see how people MIGHT dismiss you as a blind partisan hack who not only isn't interested in the truth, but is actively hostile to it?

6500+ instances a day. One would logically think 10% would be reported. If you can find 0.5% reported (32) tomorrow, I’ll embrace the number.

*crickets*

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

For the 20,000 who chose a gun, they almost all had other options (standing on a train track, carbon monoxide in the car, pill overdose etc...) but they chose a gun they had access to; most likely one in the house.

Doesn't the fact that someone wants to use the most effective and hopefully painless method to achieve the goal of terminating their life mean that they're not mentally defective as some are stating?

My understanding of people who purposefully choose to end their lives do so because they believe that whatever despair, pain or problem they're facing is never going to end. So instead of attempting to find a solution that may not even exist like when someone is terrorizing you, has been for years and no one can help you or restrain your abuser, they simply opt to take themselves out of the situation, permanently.

I know I'm going to catch a lot of flack for this opinion but it has always seemed sadistic to me to make a person stay in a situation that they really don't want to be in.

 

[Cecilie1200]

True. The Police nor the insurance companies categorize a deliberate act as an accident. Neither do I.

Did the person who decided to bring a gun into their house have a means to kill themselves before they made the decision? True.
Did the person who decided to kill themselves use a gun instead of the other means in the 20,000 statistic? True.
Did the person above still have other means but chose the gun because it was quick, effective, and supposedly painless? Probably.

So the stat is relevant.

The point is that if the gun wasn't there, they wouldn't have committed suicide. You can draw that conclusion because they had the means previously and chose not to. It is true that person's situations do change over time so there is that.

Now, you mentioned rights. Let me state again, that I do not want to prevent people from buying guns, owning guns, shooting guns, etc... In some rural areas of the nation where there is 100 miles (or more) to the nearest police station and it may be staffed by one officer; it would be irresponsible not to have some form of protection. My position is that the gun doesn't make you safer statistically. If the nearest cop is 100 miles away; I'll take my chances. If I'm in most areas where folks live, I wouldn't. That being said...there is something to the psychological aspect of having "protection" even though statistics show that you're actually less safe.

The point is that if the gun wasn't there, they wouldn't have committed suicide.


You can't even say that with any degree of intelligence......countries with extreme gun control, Japan, Korea, China, where only criminals and cops can have guns have higher suicide rates than we do.....and then this...

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide



There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.

Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).

Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).

Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)

Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.

And you can't say this either...

That being said...there is something to the psychological aspect of having "protection" even though statistics show that you're actually less safe

No...statistics do not show this......if you are a criminal, an alcoholic, a drug user than having a gun is a problem...but normal, law abiding people with guns in their home are not less safe.....

Back to reality:

restricted to case subjects with no history of depression or mental illness revealed that guns were even more strongly associated with suicide in this group than in the study population overall. An analysis stratified according to the method of suicide revealed that the link between gun ownership and suicide was entirely due to much higher odds of suicide with a firearm.

I know. You don't care. Obviously. You'll keep saying "you can't say this" until the cows come home 'cause that's just the kind of worm you are...

Suicide is a choice not a crime
But we all know how people like you feel about others having choices

And the evidence that someone who is suicidal would not use another device or method is?

You might want to also check on the use of SSRI antidepressants and violent behavior as well.

For the 20,000 who chose a gun, they almost all had other options (standing on a train track, carbon monoxide in the car, pill overdose etc...) but they chose a gun they had access to; most likely one in the house.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that because they chose to use a gun rather than some other method, that somehow means that if there hadn't been a gun, they wouldn't have killed themselves at all? And that therefore the gun is somehow to blame for their suicide, rather than their desire to die being to blame?

What the hell does "they chose a gun they had access to, most likely one in the house" have to do with ANYTHING? People who suicide with a pill overdose choose a bottle of pills they have access to, most likely ones in the house. People who commit suicide with cars do not go out and buy a car specifically for that purpose; they use the car they already own. People who stand on train tracks don't drive over to the next county to find 'em; they stand on tracks near where they live. People who suicide by jumping off bridges . . . you get the damned point. PRECISELY what is supposed to be the "huge, damning AHA!" moment about the fact that people who choose to kill themselves most often choose a method they have easy access to?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And the evidence that someone who is suicidal would not use another device or method is?

You might want to also check on the use of SSRI antidepressants and violent behavior as well.

For the 20,000 who chose a gun, they almost all had other options (standing on a train track, carbon monoxide in the car, pill overdose etc...) but they chose a gun they had access to; most likely one in the house.

Thank you for your opinion, but then, it is only an opinion. Please explain then, those who had access to a gun, but chose another method.

No, that is pretty much factual. The only caveat is that the gun they had access to may have been owned by another family member.

Then you have research to back up your claim? Lets see it

View attachment 189722

cdc.gov.

Certainly, those who used firearms had access to walking in front of traffic, trains, drowning in their bathtub, head in the oven...etc.

Oh, NOW the CDC is gospel carved in stone by the finger of God, instead of the "bullshit stats" it was a couple of posts ago.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Back to reality:
I know. You don't care. Obviously. You'll keep saying "you can't say this" until the cows come home 'cause that's just the kind of worm you are...

Suicide is a choice not a crime
But we all know how people like you feel about others having choices

And the evidence that someone who is suicidal would not use another device or method is?

You might want to also check on the use of SSRI antidepressants and violent behavior as well.

For the 20,000 who chose a gun, they almost all had other options (standing on a train track, carbon monoxide in the car, pill overdose etc...) but they chose a gun they had access to; most likely one in the house.

So what?
If they didn't have a gun they would have chose another means

And none of that matters because people have the right to take their own lives if they so choose

Been over this before numerous times.

They had access to drowning themselves in the tub, walking in front of traffic, head in the oven, overdosing on OTC meds, jumping off a building, etc... before the gun purchase.

Precisely what is the point you're trying to make here, other than the general, ubiquitous "Guns iz EEEEEEVIL, and there is no eeeeevil without guns!" that is always your point?

Because I have to tell you that there is no amount of twisting and flailing that is ever going to make the gun responsible for the suicide. All you're accomplishing is to show us all how little you actually know about suicide, mental illness, guns, and probably everything else in human experience.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And the evidence that someone who is suicidal would not use another device or method is?

You might want to also check on the use of SSRI antidepressants and violent behavior as well.

For the 20,000 who chose a gun, they almost all had other options (standing on a train track, carbon monoxide in the car, pill overdose etc...) but they chose a gun they had access to; most likely one in the house.

So what?
If they didn't have a gun they would have chose another means

And none of that matters because people have the right to take their own lives if they so choose

Been over this before numerous times.

They had access to drowning themselves in the tub, walking in front of traffic, head in the oven, overdosing on OTC meds, jumping off a building, etc... before the gun purchase.

So what? You don't know when exactly the decision was made to commit suicide

In about 22,000 cases, we do. No gun in the house (as it was before the gun was purchased) and you have fewer deaths.
Tragically they will often find a way but maybe after some contemplation...perhaps they change their minds? Maybe using a method that is less effective or permanent...they survive. Either way; its tragic.

I see. So in your Leftist Bubble World, suicide is an impulsive, spur-of-the-moment thing, and it'll just pass after a day or two, kinda like stomach flu.

At what point are you planning to let us in on this brilliant, irrefutable source of insight into human psychology which fuels all these "assertions of fact"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And the evidence that someone who is suicidal would not use another device or method is?

You might want to also check on the use of SSRI antidepressants and violent behavior as well.

For the 20,000 who chose a gun, they almost all had other options (standing on a train track, carbon monoxide in the car, pill overdose etc...) but they chose a gun they had access to; most likely one in the house.

So what?
If they didn't have a gun they would have chose another means

And none of that matters because people have the right to take their own lives if they so choose

Been over this before numerous times.

They had access to drowning themselves in the tub, walking in front of traffic, head in the oven, overdosing on OTC meds, jumping off a building, etc... before the gun purchase.

And you've yet to provide any research to back your claim. What gives?

Nothing. Assertion cited and proven.

No, saying it over and over does NOT constitute "proof".

 

[Cecilie1200]

I showed that 22,000 kill themselves via gun.

Logic would tell anyone with 2 brain cells that the 22,000 would almost certainly have access to killing themselves in any manner of other ways before owning a gun or having access to one. If you disagree with the bolded part of the statement, your logic is faulty. The same can be said for the post gun ownership part of their lives as well.

I imagine...again...my reasoning that they chose the gun because of it's effectiveness, the expediency, and the ease. I also imagine--again my reasoning based on my repeated exposure to training in the field of medicine and healthcare that many of those who choose to take their own lives do so, in part, to injure those they leave behind and fewer methods would leave more of a mess or stigma than the gunshot.

"My reasoning based on my repeated exposure to . . ." = "I pulled this assumption out of my ass".

If you had any REAL exposure and training SPECIFICALLY in the field of mental illness and suicide, you would know that it mostly DOES NOT have anything to do with "injuring those they leave behind". One could be forgiven for assuming that most of your "training and experience" comes from watching movies and TV shows.

Suicide is, by and large, a self-centered act, by which I mean that its motivations center on what is going on inside the person's own head. It is NOT aimed outward at other people. It is typified by a feeling of overall hopelessness in the sufferer's own life, and a belief that their circumstances cannot be changed for the better. To the extent that someone who is suicidal thinks about those around them at all - and that isn't much - they usually convince themselves that those others will be "better off" once they are dead, rather than your odd notion of suicide as some revenge scheme.

Likewise, the method of committing suicide is not chosen "to leave more of a mess and stigma". Guns are more often chosen because of their perceived effectiveness, ie. the person committing suicide believes that they are less likely to survive or be saved at the last minute if they use a gun. Women, who are far more likely to be concerned about the condition of their body when it is found than men, are also more likely to choose something they believe will be less messy, like pills.

The Six Reasons People Attempt Suicide

See "revenge" on that list anywhere? Didn't think so. Oh, but like the CDC and the Department of Justice, I imagine Psychology Today is "bullshit" because it's not what you want to believe. Right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thanks again for stating your opinion, but not supplying the research to back up your claims makes it simple opinion.

Either you're incredibly lazy or are in denial. Feel free to review the thread.

Why, I've read your "opinions" enough. Come up with the research and we can have a discussion. Your refusal to do so is telling however.

Not as telling as your refusal to review the data I presented just inside of an hour ago. I understand you're flinging allegations and accusations and false equivalences; it's what gun nuts do. Have you called for banning sidewalks yet because of what happened yesterday in Toronto???? LOL. But really, denying the 22,000 deaths number and inescapable logic of the availability before and after the purchase of the firearm just crystalizes your intellectual dishonesty.

No sidewalk ban being called for here, the risk is just too dang low, just like the risk of being killed by a gun is when the gun is not in the home of a drug dealer (which I am not), or a criminal (which I am not) or a suicidal nut job hopped up on anti depressants, which I am not.

In that case, I have a 1.55 out of 300,000,000 chance of dying from gunshot. I have better things to do than to worry about something with such a monumentally low chance of happening. You?, you let that live in your mind absolutely rent free.

So, where is the data that shows that a someone suicidal will not choose another method if a gun is not available?

proceed

They will not choose a gun if a gun is not available. An uncharacteristically honest statement from you. Did you not receive your NRA talking points this morning?

There's a big difference between "will not choose a gun" and "will not commit suicide". Amazingly enough, I don't think making people commit suicide by another method is a laudable enough goal to eliminate the Second Amendment over.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The statistical nature of this conversation appears to be WAY over your mental capabilities.

If a gun is not present in a house with a suicidal person, what study do you have that proves that the person would SIMPLY not use other means.

You have provided none, so we must assume, it is NOT the gun that is the main factor in the suicide, BUT THE PERSON!

Thank you, thank you, I hope you enjoyed CandyCorns show, theirs another one in half an hour, enjoy the veal, tip the waitress.

Because it’s irrelevant...just like your shrill protest.

Because it blows you're pathetic argument out of the friggin water you mean.

20,000 people use a gun to end their lives yearly.

You must love that

And if not with a gun, it's likely another device, that MAKES IT SOOOOOO MUCH BETTER, Right?

Ask the lady who died because a kid committed suicide by jumping off a bridge, not only killing himself BUT HER AS WELL!.

Much better, right? He had the chance not only to kill himself, but a woman as well!

You getting a woody just thinking bout it?

So you don’t deny you love death by gun. Thanks

So you don't deny that you love death, so long as it doesn't involve a gun. Thanks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

To further show how innacurate that point is....According to the CDC, Americans use guns 2.4 million times a year to stop crimes...that means lives saved, rapes stopped, lives that are not ruined by violent criminals.......

so....

30 years X 2,400,000 = 72,000,000 million crimes stopped by Americans who own and carry guns....

The CDC did the research.... they did research from 1996-1998..... they found 2.4 million defensive gun uses by Americans.... they hid the data. The Department of Justice also researched gun self defense...they found 1.5 million defensive gun uses.....in 1995...... so tell them they are wrong....

Quite clearly, they are.

People....When you hear the bullshit stat of 72,000,000 million crimes stopped by someone with a gun in the last 30 years; ask yourself simple questions; do you know someone who actively stopped a violent crime with a gun? It is quite likely that you do not. Certainly, with 72,000,000 people out there stopping violent crimes, you should have run across probably 100 or 200. Again, do you know someone? Do any of the people you know have an awareness of a guy with a gun actively stopping someone by using a gun? Again, likely not. As pointed out by another poster, that is 6575 times a day or, if you prefer 273 times an hour; every hour; even at 4AM in the morning on Christmas!!!!

9/11 Truthers make more sense than this jerk.

No, Chuckles, it's quite likely YOU do not, because you live in a bubble with a giant "No Conservatives Allowed" sign hanging on it. I'll bet you ALSO don't personally know anyone who voted for Donald Trump, but that self-evidently doesn't mean no one DID.

I myself know a number of people who have used guns defensively. I even know a few people who have done so more than once.

Furthermore, do you ever stop to question why anything you disagree with is automatically "bullshit" and "impossible", regardless of where it comes from? I mean, here you are saying that the Department of Justice's statistics are "bullshit" simply because YOU don't think they sound right. Does that produce any sort of cognitive dissonance in your head at all?

So you honestly believe that a population the size of Europe actually actively prevented violent crimes on top of all of the crimes that we know about? Put another way, you think that there was 72 million more crimes than was reported.....

You’re mental if you do.

Over 30 years? Yes, I do. And I consider it far more "mental" to airily dismiss statistics from experts simply because I don't like how they sound. Conclusions, maybe, but not the raw stats. I wouldn't dismiss raw stats on abortion from the Guttmacher Institute on that basis; but then, I'm not a dogmatic partisan hack.

Also, just FYI, I don't recall the CDC or anyone else specifying "violent crimes". That's just you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The CDC did the research.... they did research from 1996-1998..... they found 2.4 million defensive gun uses by Americans.... they hid the data. The Department of Justice also researched gun self defense...they found 1.5 million defensive gun uses.....in 1995...... so tell them they are wrong....

Quite clearly, they are.

People....When you hear the bullshit stat of 72,000,000 million crimes stopped by someone with a gun in the last 30 years; ask yourself simple questions; do you know someone who actively stopped a violent crime with a gun? It is quite likely that you do not. Certainly, with 72,000,000 people out there stopping violent crimes, you should have run across probably 100 or 200. Again, do you know someone? Do any of the people you know have an awareness of a guy with a gun actively stopping someone by using a gun? Again, likely not. As pointed out by another poster, that is 6575 times a day or, if you prefer 273 times an hour; every hour; even at 4AM in the morning on Christmas!!!!

9/11 Truthers make more sense than this jerk.

I have never met anyone who had an encounter with a bear out in the wild....so I guess that means there are no bears in the wild........

I do know someone who used a gun to scare off 2 robbers...... I know 2 people who were robbed at gun point, had they had guns at the time, they wouldn't have been robbed.....

Wow...3; were they in the same day? If not, you have to account for the other 6500 on those days.

As for bears in the wild--the latest false equivalence from gun nuts I suppose--they do exist and people do encounter them; likely not 6,500 in a day or 72,000,000 in 30 years; just like you repeating the fable about active gun defenses.

So NOW your "evidence" that the Department of Justice is "bullshit" is that 2aguy is PERSONALLY required to know every one of 72 million people over the last 30 years, or it's all invalid?

Can you possibly see how people MIGHT dismiss you as a blind partisan hack who not only isn't interested in the truth, but is actively hostile to it?

6500+ instances a day. One would logically think 10% would be reported. If you can find 0.5% reported (32) tomorrow, I’ll embrace the number.

One would logically think that why, precisely? Simply because it sounds good to you?

I don't honestly give a crap what you "embrace". Just understand that if my choices are between the Department of Justice and the CDC on one hand, and your "feelings about what's logical" on the other, you haven't even entered the contest.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Quite clearly, they are.

People....When you hear the bullshit stat of 72,000,000 million crimes stopped by someone with a gun in the last 30 years; ask yourself simple questions; do you know someone who actively stopped a violent crime with a gun? It is quite likely that you do not. Certainly, with 72,000,000 people out there stopping violent crimes, you should have run across probably 100 or 200. Again, do you know someone? Do any of the people you know have an awareness of a guy with a gun actively stopping someone by using a gun? Again, likely not. As pointed out by another poster, that is 6575 times a day or, if you prefer 273 times an hour; every hour; even at 4AM in the morning on Christmas!!!!

9/11 Truthers make more sense than this jerk.

I have never met anyone who had an encounter with a bear out in the wild....so I guess that means there are no bears in the wild........

I do know someone who used a gun to scare off 2 robbers...... I know 2 people who were robbed at gun point, had they had guns at the time, they wouldn't have been robbed.....

Wow...3; were they in the same day? If not, you have to account for the other 6500 on those days.

As for bears in the wild--the latest false equivalence from gun nuts I suppose--they do exist and people do encounter them; likely not 6,500 in a day or 72,000,000 in 30 years; just like you repeating the fable about active gun defenses.

So NOW your "evidence" that the Department of Justice is "bullshit" is that 2aguy is PERSONALLY required to know every one of 72 million people over the last 30 years, or it's all invalid?

Can you possibly see how people MIGHT dismiss you as a blind partisan hack who not only isn't interested in the truth, but is actively hostile to it?

6500+ instances a day. One would logically think 10% would be reported. If you can find 0.5% reported (32) tomorrow, I’ll embrace the number.

*crickets*

Yes, obviously the fact that I have other things to do which take precedence over responding IMMEDIATELY to THAT PRECISE POST (including reading all of the posts preceding it) means that I can't possibly answer it, as opposed to meaning , for example, that you're a lot less important than almost anything else that could be happening in my life in the middle of a Tuesday.

There's not enough "get the hell over yourself, egomaniac" in the world for this BS. I'll answer you when I get around to it, and you'll wait and like it.

 

[candycorn]

I have never met anyone who had an encounter with a bear out in the wild....so I guess that means there are no bears in the wild........

I do know someone who used a gun to scare off 2 robbers...... I know 2 people who were robbed at gun point, had they had guns at the time, they wouldn't have been robbed.....

Wow...3; were they in the same day? If not, you have to account for the other 6500 on those days.

As for bears in the wild--the latest false equivalence from gun nuts I suppose--they do exist and people do encounter them; likely not 6,500 in a day or 72,000,000 in 30 years; just like you repeating the fable about active gun defenses.

So NOW your "evidence" that the Department of Justice is "bullshit" is that 2aguy is PERSONALLY required to know every one of 72 million people over the last 30 years, or it's all invalid?

Can you possibly see how people MIGHT dismiss you as a blind partisan hack who not only isn't interested in the truth, but is actively hostile to it?

6500+ instances a day. One would logically think 10% would be reported. If you can find 0.5% reported (32) tomorrow, I’ll embrace the number.

*crickets*

Yes, obviously the fact that I have other things to do which take precedence over responding IMMEDIATELY to THAT PRECISE POST (including reading all of the posts preceding it) means that I can't possibly answer it, as opposed to meaning , for example, that you're a lot less important than almost anything else that could be happening in my life in the middle of a Tuesday.

There's not enough "get the hell over yourself, egomaniac" in the world for this BS. I'll answer you when I get around to it, and you'll wait and like it.

Translation: You have no answer for why there are virtually no reports of the alleged 6,500+ acts of heroism daily.

 

[candycorn]

The CDC did the research.... they did research from 1996-1998..... they found 2.4 million defensive gun uses by Americans.... they hid the data. The Department of Justice also researched gun self defense...they found 1.5 million defensive gun uses.....in 1995...... so tell them they are wrong....

Quite clearly, they are.

People....When you hear the bullshit stat of 72,000,000 million crimes stopped by someone with a gun in the last 30 years; ask yourself simple questions; do you know someone who actively stopped a violent crime with a gun? It is quite likely that you do not. Certainly, with 72,000,000 people out there stopping violent crimes, you should have run across probably 100 or 200. Again, do you know someone? Do any of the people you know have an awareness of a guy with a gun actively stopping someone by using a gun? Again, likely not. As pointed out by another poster, that is 6575 times a day or, if you prefer 273 times an hour; every hour; even at 4AM in the morning on Christmas!!!!

9/11 Truthers make more sense than this jerk.

No, Chuckles, it's quite likely YOU do not, because you live in a bubble with a giant "No Conservatives Allowed" sign hanging on it. I'll bet you ALSO don't personally know anyone who voted for Donald Trump, but that self-evidently doesn't mean no one DID.

I myself know a number of people who have used guns defensively. I even know a few people who have done so more than once.

Furthermore, do you ever stop to question why anything you disagree with is automatically "bullshit" and "impossible", regardless of where it comes from? I mean, here you are saying that the Department of Justice's statistics are "bullshit" simply because YOU don't think they sound right. Does that produce any sort of cognitive dissonance in your head at all?

So you honestly believe that a population the size of Europe actually actively prevented violent crimes on top of all of the crimes that we know about? Put another way, you think that there was 72 million more crimes than was reported.....

You’re mental if you do.

Over 30 years? Yes, I do. And I consider it far more "mental" to airily dismiss statistics from experts simply because I don't like how they sound. Conclusions, maybe, but not the raw stats. I wouldn't dismiss raw stats on abortion from the Guttmacher Institute on that basis; but then, I'm not a dogmatic partisan hack.

Also, just FYI, I don't recall the CDC or anyone else specifying "violent crimes". That's just you.

The CDC did the research.... they did research from 1996-1998..... they found 2.4 million defensive gun uses by Americans.... they hid the data. The Department of Justice also researched gun self defense...they found 1.5 million defensive gun uses.....in 1995...... so tell them they are wrong....

Quite clearly, they are.

People....When you hear the bullshit stat of 72,000,000 million crimes stopped by someone with a gun in the last 30 years; ask yourself simple questions; do you know someone who actively stopped a violent crime with a gun? It is quite likely that you do not. Certainly, with 72,000,000 people out there stopping violent crimes, you should have run across probably 100 or 200. Again, do you know someone? Do any of the people you know have an awareness of a guy with a gun actively stopping someone by using a gun? Again, likely not. As pointed out by another poster, that is 6575 times a day or, if you prefer 273 times an hour; every hour; even at 4AM in the morning on Christmas!!!!

9/11 Truthers make more sense than this jerk.

No, Chuckles, it's quite likely YOU do not, because you live in a bubble with a giant "No Conservatives Allowed" sign hanging on it. I'll bet you ALSO don't personally know anyone who voted for Donald Trump, but that self-evidently doesn't mean no one DID.

I myself know a number of people who have used guns defensively. I even know a few people who have done so more than once.

Furthermore, do you ever stop to question why anything you disagree with is automatically "bullshit" and "impossible", regardless of where it comes from? I mean, here you are saying that the Department of Justice's statistics are "bullshit" simply because YOU don't think they sound right. Does that produce any sort of cognitive dissonance in your head at all?

So you honestly believe that a population the size of Europe actually actively prevented violent crimes on top of all of the crimes that we know about? Put another way, you think that there was 72 million more crimes than was reported.....

You’re mental if you do.

Over 30 years? Yes, I do. And I consider it far more "mental" to airily dismiss statistics from experts simply because I don't like how they sound. Conclusions, maybe, but not the raw stats. I wouldn't dismiss raw stats on abortion from the Guttmacher Institute on that basis; but then, I'm not a dogmatic partisan hack.

Also, just FYI, I don't recall the CDC or anyone else specifying "violent crimes". That's just you.

That is because you have mastery of the facts or anything else:

The original lie was this from a few years back:

according to bill clinton and his Department of Justice, Americans use guns 1.5 million times each uear to stop violent criminal attack...

Now it's been inflated to 2.4 million. In a few years, it will be 100 million preventative gun uses.

Still, most of us know of nobody who was a victim of violent crime, even fewer know someone who whipped out their gun to prevent one. The overwhelming majority of THAT number know nobody who knows anyone who had to defend themselves against violent crime.

Still, idiots like you would like the world to believe that there are all of these instances are taking place...hundreds of times an hour but nobody is hearing gunshots of those valiant self-defenders or seeing gunfights in the streets. LOL

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow...3; were they in the same day? If not, you have to account for the other 6500 on those days.

As for bears in the wild--the latest false equivalence from gun nuts I suppose--they do exist and people do encounter them; likely not 6,500 in a day or 72,000,000 in 30 years; just like you repeating the fable about active gun defenses.

So NOW your "evidence" that the Department of Justice is "bullshit" is that 2aguy is PERSONALLY required to know every one of 72 million people over the last 30 years, or it's all invalid?

Can you possibly see how people MIGHT dismiss you as a blind partisan hack who not only isn't interested in the truth, but is actively hostile to it?

6500+ instances a day. One would logically think 10% would be reported. If you can find 0.5% reported (32) tomorrow, I’ll embrace the number.

*crickets*

Yes, obviously the fact that I have other things to do which take precedence over responding IMMEDIATELY to THAT PRECISE POST (including reading all of the posts preceding it) means that I can't possibly answer it, as opposed to meaning , for example, that you're a lot less important than almost anything else that could be happening in my life in the middle of a Tuesday.

There's not enough "get the hell over yourself, egomaniac" in the world for this BS. I'll answer you when I get around to it, and you'll wait and like it.

Translation: You have no answer for why there are virtually no reports of the alleged 6,500+ acts of heroism daily.

Translation: I already answered you several posts ago, but you were too busy going, "Omigod, omigod, Cecilie took a WHOLE FIVE MINUTES to answer me! I wiiiinnn!" and didn't notice it.

 

[2aguy]

The CDC did the research.... they did research from 1996-1998..... they found 2.4 million defensive gun uses by Americans.... they hid the data. The Department of Justice also researched gun self defense...they found 1.5 million defensive gun uses.....in 1995...... so tell them they are wrong....

Quite clearly, they are.

People....When you hear the bullshit stat of 72,000,000 million crimes stopped by someone with a gun in the last 30 years; ask yourself simple questions; do you know someone who actively stopped a violent crime with a gun? It is quite likely that you do not. Certainly, with 72,000,000 people out there stopping violent crimes, you should have run across probably 100 or 200. Again, do you know someone? Do any of the people you know have an awareness of a guy with a gun actively stopping someone by using a gun? Again, likely not. As pointed out by another poster, that is 6575 times a day or, if you prefer 273 times an hour; every hour; even at 4AM in the morning on Christmas!!!!

9/11 Truthers make more sense than this jerk.

No, Chuckles, it's quite likely YOU do not, because you live in a bubble with a giant "No Conservatives Allowed" sign hanging on it. I'll bet you ALSO don't personally know anyone who voted for Donald Trump, but that self-evidently doesn't mean no one DID.

I myself know a number of people who have used guns defensively. I even know a few people who have done so more than once.

Furthermore, do you ever stop to question why anything you disagree with is automatically "bullshit" and "impossible", regardless of where it comes from? I mean, here you are saying that the Department of Justice's statistics are "bullshit" simply because YOU don't think they sound right. Does that produce any sort of cognitive dissonance in your head at all?

So you honestly believe that a population the size of Europe actually actively prevented violent crimes on top of all of the crimes that we know about? Put another way, you think that there was 72 million more crimes than was reported.....

You’re mental if you do.

Over 30 years? Yes, I do. And I consider it far more "mental" to airily dismiss statistics from experts simply because I don't like how they sound. Conclusions, maybe, but not the raw stats. I wouldn't dismiss raw stats on abortion from the Guttmacher Institute on that basis; but then, I'm not a dogmatic partisan hack.

Also, just FYI, I don't recall the CDC or anyone else specifying "violent crimes". That's just you.

The CDC did the research.... they did research from 1996-1998..... they found 2.4 million defensive gun uses by Americans.... they hid the data. The Department of Justice also researched gun self defense...they found 1.5 million defensive gun uses.....in 1995...... so tell them they are wrong....

Quite clearly, they are.

People....When you hear the bullshit stat of 72,000,000 million crimes stopped by someone with a gun in the last 30 years; ask yourself simple questions; do you know someone who actively stopped a violent crime with a gun? It is quite likely that you do not. Certainly, with 72,000,000 people out there stopping violent crimes, you should have run across probably 100 or 200. Again, do you know someone? Do any of the people you know have an awareness of a guy with a gun actively stopping someone by using a gun? Again, likely not. As pointed out by another poster, that is 6575 times a day or, if you prefer 273 times an hour; every hour; even at 4AM in the morning on Christmas!!!!

9/11 Truthers make more sense than this jerk.

No, Chuckles, it's quite likely YOU do not, because you live in a bubble with a giant "No Conservatives Allowed" sign hanging on it. I'll bet you ALSO don't personally know anyone who voted for Donald Trump, but that self-evidently doesn't mean no one DID.

I myself know a number of people who have used guns defensively. I even know a few people who have done so more than once.

Furthermore, do you ever stop to question why anything you disagree with is automatically "bullshit" and "impossible", regardless of where it comes from? I mean, here you are saying that the Department of Justice's statistics are "bullshit" simply because YOU don't think they sound right. Does that produce any sort of cognitive dissonance in your head at all?

So you honestly believe that a population the size of Europe actually actively prevented violent crimes on top of all of the crimes that we know about? Put another way, you think that there was 72 million more crimes than was reported.....

You’re mental if you do.

Over 30 years? Yes, I do. And I consider it far more "mental" to airily dismiss statistics from experts simply because I don't like how they sound. Conclusions, maybe, but not the raw stats. I wouldn't dismiss raw stats on abortion from the Guttmacher Institute on that basis; but then, I'm not a dogmatic partisan hack.

Also, just FYI, I don't recall the CDC or anyone else specifying "violent crimes". That's just you.

That is because you have mastery of the facts or anything else:

The original lie was this from a few years back:

according to bill clinton and his Department of Justice, Americans use guns 1.5 million times each uear to stop violent criminal attack...

Now it's been inflated to 2.4 million. In a few years, it will be 100 million preventative gun uses.

Still, most of us know of nobody who was a victim of violent crime, even fewer know someone who whipped out their gun to prevent one. The overwhelming majority of THAT number know nobody who knows anyone who had to defend themselves against violent crime.

Still, idiots like you would like the world to believe that there are all of these instances are taking place...hundreds of times an hour but nobody is hearing gunshots of those valiant self-defenders or seeing gunfights in the streets. LOL

Now it's been inflated to 2.4 million.

No....that is the number that the Centers for Disease Control found when it did 3 years of research into the topic......the vaunted CDC that all you anti gunners want to do more gun research..... they did, and now you don't like the answer they found...

And the Department of Justice also did the same research independent of the CDC and came up with 1.5 million......

And Gary Kleck....as well.....all 3 were done by anti gun researchers who believe in gun control.....Kleck, after the research changed his opinion........

SSRN Electronic Library

The timing of CDC’s addition of a DGU question to the BRFSS is of some interest. Prior to 1996, the BRFSS had never included a question about DGU. Kleck and Gertz (1995) conducted their survey in February through April 1993, presented their estimate that there were over 2 million DGUs in 1992 at the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology in November 1994, and published it in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in the Fall of 1995. CDC added a DGU question to the BRFSS the very first year they could do so after that 1995 publication, in the 1996 edition. CDC was not the only federal agency during the Clinton administration to field a survey addressing the prevalence of DGU at that particular time. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) financed a national survey devoting even more detailed attention to estimating DGU prevalence, which was fielded in November and December 1994, just months after preliminary results of the 1993 Kleck/Gertz survey became known. Neither CDC nor NIJ had ever financed research into DGU before 1996. Perhaps there was just “something in the air” that motivated the two agencies to suddenly decide in 1994 to address the topic. Another interpretation, however, is that fielding of the surveys was triggered by the Kleck/Gertz findings that DGU was common, and that these agencies hoped to obtain lower DGU prevalence estimates than those obtained by Kleck/Gertz. Low estimates would have implied fewer beneficial uses of firearms, results that would have been far more congenial to the strongly pro-control positions of the Clinton administration.

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns



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 DGU asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since. For example, the 1996 survey asked the DGU question of 5,484 people. The next-largest number questioned about DGU was 4,977 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), and sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001).

Kleck was impressed with how well the survey worded its question: "During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?" Respondents were told to leave out incidents from occupations, like policing, where using firearms is part of the job. Kleck is impressed with how the question excludes animals but includes DGUs outside the home as well as within it.

Kleck is less impressed with the fact that the question was only asked of people who admitted to owning guns in their home earlier in the survey, and that they asked no follow-up questions regarding the specific nature of the DGU incident.

From Kleck's own surveys, he found that only 79 percent of those who reported a DGU "had also reported a gun in their household at the time of the interview," so he thinks whatever numbers the CDC found need to be revised upward to account for that. (Kleck speculates that CDC showed a sudden interest in the question of DGUs starting in 1996 because Kleck's own famous/notorious survey had been published in 1995.)

At any rate, Kleck downloaded the datasets for those three years and found that the "weighted percent who reported a DGU...was 1.3% in 1996, 0.9% in 1997, 1.0% in 1998, and 1.07% in all three surveys combined."





Kleck figures if you do the adjustment upward he thinks necessary for those who had DGU incidents without personally owning a gun in the home at the time of the survey, and then the adjustment downward he thinks necessary because CDC didn't do detailed follow-ups to confirm the nature of the incident, you get 1.24 percent, a close match to his own 1.326 percent figure.

He concludes that the small difference between his estimate and the CDC's "can be attributed to declining rates of violent crime, which accounts for most DGUs. With fewer occasions for self-defense in the form of violent victimizations, one would expect fewer DGUs."

Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:

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.



This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

 

[2aguy]

The CDC did the research.... they did research from 1996-1998..... they found 2.4 million defensive gun uses by Americans.... they hid the data. The Department of Justice also researched gun self defense...they found 1.5 million defensive gun uses.....in 1995...... so tell them they are wrong....

Quite clearly, they are.

People....When you hear the bullshit stat of 72,000,000 million crimes stopped by someone with a gun in the last 30 years; ask yourself simple questions; do you know someone who actively stopped a violent crime with a gun? It is quite likely that you do not. Certainly, with 72,000,000 people out there stopping violent crimes, you should have run across probably 100 or 200. Again, do you know someone? Do any of the people you know have an awareness of a guy with a gun actively stopping someone by using a gun? Again, likely not. As pointed out by another poster, that is 6575 times a day or, if you prefer 273 times an hour; every hour; even at 4AM in the morning on Christmas!!!!

9/11 Truthers make more sense than this jerk.

I have never met anyone who had an encounter with a bear out in the wild....so I guess that means there are no bears in the wild........

I do know someone who used a gun to scare off 2 robbers...... I know 2 people who were robbed at gun point, had they had guns at the time, they wouldn't have been robbed.....

Wow...3; were they in the same day? If not, you have to account for the other 6500 on those days.

As for bears in the wild--the latest false equivalence from gun nuts I suppose--they do exist and people do encounter them; likely not 6,500 in a day or 72,000,000 in 30 years; just like you repeating the fable about active gun defenses.

So NOW your "evidence" that the Department of Justice is "bullshit" is that 2aguy is PERSONALLY required to know every one of 72 million people over the last 30 years, or it's all invalid?

Can you possibly see how people MIGHT dismiss you as a blind partisan hack who not only isn't interested in the truth, but is actively hostile to it?

6500+ instances a day. One would logically think 10% would be reported. If you can find 0.5% reported (32) tomorrow, I’ll embrace the number.

There are over 320 million people in the country........ 6,500 isn't even a blip....