The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
interesting graphic offering a comparison of gun homicide rates in major U.S. cities to a 'smattering' of some of the most deadly countries in the world... and with all that earlier fake outrage over Mexico, there's even a Mexico-to-Phoenix comparison here!
Pretty soon he won't see any posts at all...
Anyone who puts people on ignore and keeps advertizing it over and over.........has a big problem!
interesting graphic offering a comparison of gun homicide rates in major U.S. cities to a 'smattering' of some of the most deadly countries in the world... and with all that earlier fake outrage over Mexico, there's even a Mexico-to-Phoenix comparison here!
Well, if you were capable of understanding the slightest thing, I would refer you to the Gun Control is Completely Useless thread. In the very first post, I compare three north western US states with very poor Brady ratings (practically no gun control) with their Canadian counterparts just across the border.........guess who has the higher murder rates?
But that's OK, don't worry yourself about it.......
damn! I can see why you puff-up so much and continually tout your "expertise"... it looks like you continually get a free-pass all around as your nonsense doesn't seem to ever get challenged! :mrgreen: After just a cursory look at your two links in that post, it sure looks like you're (once again) taking extreme liberties with the data and how you presume to leverage it. I'm sure you'd like to have free reign with the Brady stats, but their ratings are actually based on a declared methodology... one focused on, wait for it, wait for it... (among other things), gun laws and gun related death rates. The data you're comparing Brady data to is murder rate data, at large... without qualification to cause of murder, to any association with guns. I guess, as you say, "if you were capable of understanding the slightest thing"!!! But hey now, you tried this same thing earlier in this thread; you know, where I called you out for the same damn thing... you trying to use unqualified murder rate data as gun related data! Well, you are consistent, if nothing else!
here: let me provide the Brady reference... please come back when you find appropriate data to attempt to discuss/counter it. I trust you will be correcting your post in that other thread, right? :mrgreen:
but wait a minute! I thought you were the guy who personally supports licensing and background checks! Wassup... why are you pushing for the "unfettering of the fettered"? :mrgreen:
Last edited:
damn! I can see why you puff-up so much and continually tout your "expertise"... it looks like you continually get a free-pass all around as your nonsense doesn't seem to ever get challenged! :mrgreen: After just a cursory look at your two links in that post, it sure looks like you're (once again) taking extreme liberties with the data and how you presume to leverage it. I'm sure you'd like to have free reign with the Brady stats, but their ratings are actually based on a declared methodology... one focused on, wait for it, wait for it... (among other things), gun laws and gun related death rates. The data you're comparing Brady data to is murder rate data, at large... without qualification to cause of murder, to any association with guns. I guess, as you say, "if you were capable of understanding the slightest thing"!!! But hey now, you tried this same thing earlier in this thread; you know, where I called you out for the same damn thing... you trying to use unqualified murder rate data as gun related data! Well, you are consistent, if nothing else!
here: let me provide the Brady reference... please come back when you find appropriate data to attempt to discuss/counter it. I trust you will be correcting your post in that other thread, right? :mrgreen:
but wait a minute! I thought you were the gun who personally supports licensing and background checks! Wassup... why are pushing for the "unfettering of the fettered"? :mrgreen:
Sorry, Bud.
Didn't mean to make you think. You really aren't that good at it.....
Here, let me explain it again: if two political entities of roughly the same population and culture have vastly different gun regulations.......and one of those cultures (strict gun control) has a higher rate than the other (very loose gun control) that would indicate that gun laws have little or no effect on murder rates....all other things being equal. Unless, of course, strict gun laws actually increase murder rates.....but we don't want to strain your intellect.
Take a little rest, relax, take a few minutes, because this next is going to be a terrible shocker.........
Remember your cute little map that someone else designed and put together for you?? You do? Good.
It showed higher murder rates in US cities.........much higher, even though many of those cities (think Chicago, or Washington DC) have extremely tough gun control.
Now brace yourself.....do you know why that is?
Gangs dealing drugs fighting among themselves and with the innocent......something like.....Mexico.
Here, sit down.......you Ok, Bud? I know it has been rough. Maybe you should take a few days off to digest all this.
but all other things are not equal. Again, those Brady ratings are based on their methodology which keys to, among other things, with this specific focus, gun laws/policy versus gun related murder rates. You're presuming to use those Brady ratings and state rankings against unqualified murder data that has no association to cause, no relationship to guns. Again, you tried (and failed) in doing this earlier in this thread... you know, when you were touting your expert data analysis skills! :mrgreen:
Wow.
And twenty divided by two is ......???
Brady is an extreme pro-control group. Google Sarah Brady. The reason I used Brady to rate the states is because then even the gun control idiots can't argue the point.
I used the Death Penalty Information Center data for death rates, as they are another very progressive group......
And, as you will remember, if gun control is desireable, it will lower murder rates. If it fails at that, it is "completely useless".
Suicide is voluntary. Don't you believe in the "right to die"??
Accidental death by firearm is extremely rare.
"Gun death" statistics are a con-job.......yes, I know, you've fallen for the con completely......that is why competent people like me are necessary to gently correct your delusions.
who can bluster on, forevah!... but you failed, again! You can't legitimately use unqualified murder data and attempt to "squeeze out" gun associations within it. I mean, c'mon... you finally saw the folly in how you were doing this same thing earlier in this thread... so you went and found qualified data. Which didn't help you but at least you were speaking 'apples-to-apples'! :mrgreen:
I gave you the pertinent image from the Brady link you provided... that sir, that is the state-level grouping that you need to speak to... that you need to presume to challenge/counter. I'm not saying you can't do it; but, c',mon... you've got to use the right/appropriate data. You didn't, YOU FAILED. TRY AGAIN!
clearly, the map went over your pea-brain intellect! As much as you wailed and whined about wanting to include any/all countries, rather than just developed countries, the map offered a handy comparative reference for many of those 'less developed' countries' (more deadly countries was the labeling used), to major U.S. cities, ala population sizes. But hey now, thanks for finally acknowledging that your want to compare the U.S., as a country, to any/all other countries, was an illegitimate attempt/ploy of yours! I mean, c'mon... when you yourself use the phrasing, "Gangs dealing drugs fighting among themselves and with the innocent", clearly.. you're highlighting why that country-level comparison you wanted to make wasn't legitimate, wasn't representative.
you didn't like the OECD countries comparison in how it showcased the U.S. gun related murder rate... so you blundered into an alternative with your preference for the UN HDI. And, of course, I (also) burst your bubble over that big-time fail of yours. Now you don't like that U.S. city-level map reference comparing the city rates to "deadly countries" with like-population sizes. Go figure! The thing you refuse to accept, again, is that U.S. state and/or city rates are reflections on the U.S. gun laws/policy as a country... whether that's subject to federal laws proper, the cross-state influences that reflect upon gun movements between/within states and cities, etc..
You Waldo could give Baghdad Bob a run for his money in mindless bluster.............................
Oh nonsense.
Does gun control lessen murder rates?
Yes...or no....with reasons for your answer.
Do you believe in the "right to die"?
Yes...or no. No explanation necessary.
I hope that doesn't strain you too much.
More nonsense.
Really, I understand your capacity for intellectual endeavour is severely limited, but perhaps you could focus for a decade or two and learn to construct a coherent paragraph.
Now, now....don't be rude to my friend.
We should be kind to the handicapped.
Oh nonsense.
yes! Your attempt to use unqualified data for a focused association was nonsense! Again, that's not legitimate, no matter how hard you bluster. Again, YOU FAILED, big time. No worries... just come back with appropriate data and have another kick at that "Brady can". Again, I've provided you the image from that Brady document you linked to... it includes the appropriate grouping of states that you should be targeting. Try again; y'all come back now, ya hear?
ahhh, welcome back my lil' ColpyInsultFriend. It's never far away... it's always there, ready for you to throw-down whenever your fails reach that threshold, hey! :mrgreen:
Sigh.
Yet again.
You really are a slow learner.
"Gun death" statistics are a con-job.......yes, I know, you've fallen for the con completely......that is why competent people like me are necessary to gently correct your delusions.
BTW, Does gun control lessen murder rates?
Yes...or no....with reasons for your answer.
Do you believe in the "right to die"?
Yes...or no. No explanation necessary.
I hope that doesn't strain you too much.
you provided the link to that Brady document... I simply provided you the appropriate image within that document... you know, the one you should be targeting with appropriate data (NOT THE DATA YOU TRIED TO USE). Again, this image... from the document YOU LINKED TO:
it seems to me the ONUS IS ON YOU to answer your own question. You provided the link to the Brady document that includes the above image. You didn't use proper qualified data in your referenced post. If you've previously successfully challenged the Brady position/findings (in another thread), it should be an easy step for you to either repeat that here... or link to it. Please proceed, Governor!
yup; we've already read you repeatedly claim that gun related murder data isn't appropriate data... for gun related murder rates! We've already read you repeatedly claim that a murder can only be classified as a gun related murder if one can ensure that the murder wouldn't have occurred in any manner other than by a gun! :mrgreen: You know, that's where I referred to your bizarro-world reality!
you provided the link to that Brady document... I simply provided you the appropriate image within that document... you know, the one you should be targeting with appropriate data (NOT THE DATA YOU TRIED TO USE). Again, this image... from the document YOU LINKED TO:
it seems to me the ONUS IS ON YOU to answer your own question. You provided the link to the Brady document that includes the above image. You didn't use proper qualified data in your referenced post. If you've previously successfully challenged the Brady position/findings (in another thread), it should be an easy step for you to either repeat that here... or link to it. Please proceed, Governor!
My my my.........Brady uses a common manipulative tactic to lie to the American people. Big surprise there, huh? I've already told you gun control freaks are idiots and liars......
I used the Brady rating system. That does not mean I accept any of their premise...
Why don't you, just once, try stretching and thinking for yourself, instead of cutting and pasting other peoples' thoughts??
Just once.
That would be because....it is not.
To prove gun control lowers murder rates you have to use murder rates, and show that there is no tendency to turn to another weapon.
You can not do that.
Oh,, btw, I understand your reading comprehension problems.........but the graph has absolutely nothing to do with murder rates, gun related or not. Yet another reason it is irrelevant.
Try again.
Really, sooner or later you must be able to come up with a coherent thought.......
no - murder rate was your going in premise. When you played the Brady link, the reference, quite obviously, becomes guns... the reference to gun murders is in keeping with your underlying premise extended to Brady. You've clearly stated you don't include/accept gun deaths associated with suicide... you've clearly stated you don't accept gun deaths associated with unintentional cause. So, tell me... what does that leave? Just what the hell are you presuming to speak to then... if not gun related murders? Here's a clue braniac... the reason I put the image forward from your linked Brady document was to reinforce the state grouping (the 10 state grouping shown with the lowest gun rate deaths) doesn't correlate with your other links data. What could be the reason... what could it be, what could it be? Prodding you to use/find the appropriate data was in that context... if you presume to challenge/counter the Brady state level rating and state level gun death grouping, you have to have data that correlates with that Brady state level gun death grouping... you just can't continue to make shyte up as you, apparently, have been doing for a very long time now.
if you're specifically targeting gun related murders... you must use qualified data in that regard. You tried using unqualified data earlier in this thread when you had a specific focus on gun related murders. In this case, as I said, through subsequent revelations you've narrowed what you accept as gun related murders; again, you exclude suicide and unintentional purpose from gun deaths... leaving only what within gun deaths? That's right... gun related murders! Notwithstanding, of course, your nonsense extends even further to qualify gun related murder to only include, as you say, "no tendency to turn to another weapon." Talk about your lack of a coherent thought! As in, again, your bizzaro-world reality...
and your parroting reams of blathering gunNuttery talking points... that's you "stretching and thinking for yourself"? :mrgreen: But hey now... I'm just replying in relation to the links YOU PROVIDED!
That's okay Buddy, I understand your inability to admit to making even the smallest mistake, yet another characteristic of the intellectually impaired. I guess you can't help it.
And you looked at the graph, and made the exact mistake they wanted you to..........you assumed "gun related deaths" had something to do with some inherent threat, when in reality, the majority are intentionally self-inflicted, and no threat to anyone else.......
I mean, this stuff is aimed for people of your limited abilities, although most of them can be shown the error of their ways.
Take it easy Bud, get a good night's sleep........I have other things to do.
We will continue your education at another time.......