The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun

[Colpy]

an OECD country comparison, to you, is "elitist"... "racist"!!! :mrgreen: No, sorry... it's called comparing 'apples to apples'. Clearly, you'd like nothing more than to compare the U.S. gun culture to war-torn and/or 3rd world countries... cause that wouldn't be YOU cherry-picking AT ALL! Tell me, which countries would you like the U.S. compared to... and why... as in how would they be (more) representative than afforded by OECD country comparisons?

you can continue to insult... or you can actually step-up and provide representative data to support the claims behind your freedom luvin' gun fetish. I expect you'll continue to insult as you're already flummoxed and don't know where to turn now that your blustering "expertise" has been exposed for the nonsense it truly is. Carry on... insulting... go with your strengths, hey!

Listen, Idiot, I know youi are not all that bright, and are apt to believe whatever you are told.

I also understand that reading comprehension is beyond your ability.

But the thing you posted invalidated itself by two blatant manipulations of the data:

1. the restriction to gun murder only.

2. the parameter of "developed" countries only.

There is only one reason for them to resort to these things: they want their data to reflect a certain point of view, and they have to massage the data to bring it to that conclusion.

I give you raw data, unmanipulated. The truth, not lies.

I don't post these things for your benefit. You are beyond help, incapable of understanding the first thing about the proper use of evidence, and primarily interested in trolling, not in the truth.

So, go fvck yourself.

 

[waldo]

You are the only one of many hundreds who have complained about the mods. Tell you what, go open your own forum douchebag.

one of hundreds? Must be a problem then, hey? Thanks for coming out! Carry on chum! :mrgreen:

 

[Colpy]

For goodness sake, there is a reason they are called developed countries. They are supposed to be civilized!! You know, safe streets, like the ones you and I grew up on, unarmed school crossing guards, teenagers with more interest in the opposite sex than shooting up enemy gang members, teachers that are able to teach without being beaten up, girls going to school along side the boys without fear of kidnapping by revolutionaries.

Do we want to remain civilized and "developed" or not?? Refusing to compare civilized standards to those at war, run by terrorists, a dictatorship, an army, poor third world countries is neither racists nor elitist. Anyone would think that this is the type of society you want to live in!!

Geez, you and Waldo make a nice couple!!

Actually, refusing to include anything but "developed" countries is both racist and elitist.

And, strangely enough, when you DO include all countries, regardless of social condition, the result is clear:

The more guns in civilian hands, the less murder.

Or, as Robert Heinlein put it, an armed society is a polite society.

 

[waldo]

I give you raw data, unmanipulated. The truth, not lies.

So, go fvck yourself.

how do you know what your "Disaster Center" source (wadda name!!!) did with that data... they certainly don't offer any declaration on how they arrived at their summary presentation. Notwithstanding, once again, your data had NO direct stated relationship/correlation/association with guns... with gun violence. You know, the thing you're hanging your freedom gun luvin' hat on! Of course, why would a lil' ole fact like that get in the way of your grand blustering insult-fest.

you really lack self-control and clearly have extreme issues with anyone presenting an alternate view/opinion. Perhaps a discussion forum isn't the best avenue for you to self-tout your "expertise"! Speaking of... your latest fake outrage over the offered OECD comparison of gun murder rates, and the highest of high U.S. gun murder rate, must be viewed in the context of my earlier article you still refuse to address... you know, where medical advances in U.S. trauma surgery have significantly impacted the saving of lives (as in fewer U.S. murders attributed to guns... gun violence). See... the Iraq and Afghanistan wars actually have a value-add to U.S. society!!! :mrgreen:

For goodness sake, there is a reason they are called developed countries. They are supposed to be civilized!! You know, safe streets, like the ones you and I grew up on, unarmed school crossing guards, teenagers with more interest in the opposite sex than shooting up enemy gang members, teachers that are able to teach without being beaten up, girls going to school along side the boys without fear of kidnapping by revolutionaries.

Do we want to remain civilized and "developed" or not?? Refusing to compare civilized standards to those at war, run by terrorists, a dictatorship, an army, poor third world countries is neither racists nor elitist. Anyone would think that this is the type of society you want to live in!!

clearly an astute summation on your part! Something so obvious to most... not sure why member Colpy struggles so with the fundamental comparison of "like-to-like"!

 

[Colpy]

Want to check out gun ownership rates in the countries with the most murders??

Let's do it!!

Honduras: murder rate 90.4 per 100,000. 6.2 guns per 100 people, 88th for gun ownership

Venezuela: murder rate 53.7 per 100,000. 10.7 guns per 100 people, 59th for gun ownership.

Virgin Islands: murder rate 52.6 per 100,000, gun ownership rastes not listed.

Belize: murder rate 44.7 per 100,000, 10 guns per 100 people, 63rd for gun ownership.

El Salvador: murder rate 41.2 per 100,000. 5.8 guns per 100 people, 92nd in gun ownership

Guatamala: murder rate 39.9 per 100,000. 13.1 guns per 100 people, 49th in gun ownership.

Jamaica: murder rate 39.3 per 100,000. 8.1 guns per 100 people, 74th in gun ownership

Getting the point?

how do you know what your "Disaster Center" source (wadda name!!!) did with that data... they certainly don't offer any declaration on how they arrived at their summary presentation. Notwithstanding, once again, your data had NO direct stated relationship/correlation/association with guns... with gun violence. You know, the thing you're hanging your freedom gun luvin' hat on! Of course, why would a lil' ole fact like that get in the way of your grand blustering insult-fest.

you really lack self-control and clearly have extreme issues with anyone presenting an alternate view/opinion. Perhaps a discussion forum isn't the best avenue for you to self-tout your "expertise"! Speaking of... your latest fake outrage over the offered OECD comparison of gun murder rates, and the highest of high U.S. gun murder rate, must be viewed in the context of my earlier article you still refuse to address... you know, where medical advances in U.S. trauma surgery have significantly impacted the saving of lives (as in fewer U.S. murders attributed to guns... gun violence). See... the Iraq and Afghanistan wars actually have a value-add to U.S. society!!! :mrgreen:



clearly an astute summation on your part! Something so obvious to most... not sure why member Colpy struggles so with the fundamental comparison of "like-to-like"!

I give you raw data, unmanipulated. The truth, not lies.

I don't post these things for your benefit. You are beyond help, incapable of understanding the first thing about the proper use of evidence, and primarily interested in trolling, not in the truth.

So, go fvck yourself.

Colpy.....It took you a while but you came to the same conclusion about this troll that I did back in November :lol:

Oh, I figured as much....I was just giving him a second chance.....which he blew completely.

 

[waldo]

The more guns in civilian hands, the less murder.

is that why you offered a comparison to..... Iraq? Oh my! But hey now, you're all over the map here. One time you're speaking to "GUN VIOLENCE" and presuming to use the murder rate as a metric for it, the next time you're spouting off about murder rates and a polite society. Make up your mind!

Getting the point?

yup! You adamantly oppose comparing like developed countries... you prefer to cherry-pick.

I give you raw data, unmanipulated. The truth, not lies.

your biggest lie is the one you attempted in presenting that "Disaster Center" data as having any direct relationship/correlation/association with guns... with gun violence.

I don't post these things for your benefit. You are beyond help, incapable of understanding the first thing about the proper use of evidence, and primarily interested in trolling, not in the truth.

oh my! You're a self-proclaimed truth seeker... one who can't actually discuss without going off the deep-end to pepper your failings, obscure your nonsense, with overt insult.

So, go fvck yourself.

go with your strengths... cause you've got no real argument no matter how hard you bluster and throw insults.

 

[Colpy]

is that why you offered a comparison to..... Iraq? Oh my! But hey now, you're all over the map here. One time you're speaking to "GUN VIOLENCE" and presuming to use the murder rate as a metric for it, the next time you're spouting off about murder rates and a polite society. Make up your mind!

.

Iraq appears in the data base because it is one of the most gun owning countries on earth. So, it must be included, despite the fact it does not fit my preferred conclusion.

That is called NOT cherry picking, and NOT manipulating the data........you get the bad with the good.

Not that I expect you to grasp the concept.

yup! You adamantly oppose comparing like developed countries... you prefer to cherry-pick.

.

Please see above

Troll

 

[Cannuck]

Well I must say, Colpy is much sillier today than usual.

 

[petros]

You need to come down.

 

[mentalfloss]

Please see above, idiot.

Troll

 

[waldo]

Idiot.

Iraq appears in the data base because it is one of the most gun owning countries on earth. So, it must be included, despite the fact it does not fit my preferred conclusion.

That is called NOT cherry picking, and NOT manipulating the data........you get the bad with the good.

Not that I expect you to grasp the concept.

Please see above, idiot.

Troll

I was pointing out your specific reference to Iraq... the epitome of your blustering nonsense! Again, your preferred comparison is to covet 3rd-world, war-torn, shyte-house countries to allow your preferred comparison cherry-pick, AT LARGE. Only you could imagine "some degree" of legitimacy in including countries at war! :mrgreen: That you would again repeat your statement that an OECD country comparison is "elitist", is "racist"... that speaks volumes on where your head is at!

 

[Colpy]

I was pointing out your specific reference to Iraq... the epitome of your blustering nonsense! Again, your preferred comparison is to covet 3rd-world, war-torn, shyte-house countries to allow your preferred comparison cherry-pick, AT LARGE. Only you could imagine "some degree" of legitimacy in including countries at war! :mrgreen: That you would again repeat your statement that an OECD country comparison is "elitist", is "racist"... that speaks volumes on where your head is at!

See if you can grasp this simple concept:

Including all of the data is the direct opposite of cherry picking.

 

[waldo]

See if you can grasp this simple concept:

Including all of the data is the direct opposite of cherry picking.

not if by your presumption to purposely include all countries, the results are skewed or become, effectively, meaningless... that sir, that is cherry-picking to force a result that you presume to align with your gun luvin' agenda. Again, only a GrandMaster Cherry-Picker, like you, would suggest an OECD country comparison is "elitist"... is "racist"!

 

[Colpy]

See if you can grasp this simple concept:

Including all of the data is the direct opposite of cherry picking.

not if by your presumption to purposely include all countries, the results are skewed or become, effectively, meaningless... that sir, that is cherry-picking to force a result that you presume to align with your gun luvin' agenda. Again, only a GrandMaster Cherry-Picker, like you, would suggest an OECD country comparison is "elitist"... is "racist"!

LOL....try to focus.

so, let's be clear......in your mind:

including all the data is cherry picking.

But establishing parameters that eliminate data that does not agree with your preferred conclusion is not cherry picking.

Correct?

 

[waldo]

member Colpy!... it's not a difficult concept! Again, you prefer to cherry-pick away from a legitimate OECD country comparison. I specifically asked you to relate what countries you feel would give a more representative comparison to the U.S.... more representative than your labeled "elitist, racist" OECD country comparison. Still waiting.... still waiting... still waiting...

Colpy... is U.S. crime/gun violence down?

per the U.S. CDC... the number of people who required a hospital stay after being shot climbed by 47 per cent between 2001 and 2011, from 20,844 to 30,759.

and yet the homicide rate is down. What could it be, what could it be? Oh, that's right... one of things it could be is the influencing point member Colpy continues to dismiss, to ignore; ie. medical advances in emergency/trauma processing of those with gun-shot wounds.

per the CBC: Murder rate drops as more survive gunshots, stabbings --- A Canadian today is half as likely to be a homicide victim as in 1975

More than half of all people shot in the head now survive, though many have lasting impairments.

The spread of specialized trauma centres in North American cities has perhaps been the single most important factor in reducing deaths from gun and knife injuries.

“Here we’re used to that,” said Lampron. “Everybody’s in a team, we’re waiting for trauma cases to come, and that makes such a difference. Anything that is specialized in medicine will have a better outcome.

"The team is really available, the OR is on standby and we’re ready to move there, the CT scan is on standby for us, the lab is on standby for us, so everything is kind of designed around it.”

Lampron said patients are also reaching ER faster. Paramedics are better trained, but have learned that speed in getting to the ER is the most important factor in survival of an injured person.“They usually ‘scoop and go’ rather than ‘stay and play,’” she said.

War brings change

Lampron is an army reservist who served in Kandahar’s military hospital as a civilian trauma surgeon under contract to the military.

Her experience of war medicine is not uncommon among emergency physicians, and new techniques tested in combat have been behind many improvements in the treatment of injured civilians.

I would say the last wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, probably brought what we call the ‘massive transfusion protocol.'
"So instead of giving lots of crystalloids, like a kind of watery fluid, we’re moving onto blood much sooner.”

Another innovation from the battlefields of the last decade was the use of tranexamic acid to slow bleeding, now common in civilian trauma centres.

Violence statistics not declining

Many people who might have become homicide statistics a generation ago are now mere victims of assault.

And that will inevitably have the effect of making society appear less violent, if violence is measured by homicide rates.

​

 

[Cliffy]

I think everyone should open carry and it should be mandatory for everyone to own a hand gun. Let evolution take its course. Too many idiots around anyway.

 

[waldo]

Correct?

I answered you once already! You can cherry-pick to realize a preferred outcome in different ways. Again, if the inclusion of data skews the results and/or makes them meaningless to align with an agenda (YOUR AGENDA), that sir... that is a purposeful manipulation. Your attempts to include war-torn, 3rd world, shyte-house countries for comparison is not you being "ALL INCLUSIVE"... that is you cherry-picking to avoid a true representative comparison like the OECD country comparison you prefer to label as "elitist", as "racist"!!! :mrgreen:

 

[skookumchuck]

I was pointing out your specific reference to Iraq... the epitome of your blustering nonsense! Again, your preferred comparison is to covet 3rd-world, war-torn, shyte-house countries to allow your preferred comparison cherry-pick, AT LARGE. Only you could imagine "some degree" of legitimacy in including countries at war! :mrgreen: That you would again repeat your statement that an OECD country comparison is "elitist", is "racist"... that speaks volumes on where your head is at!

When Colpy referred to Sweden, Norway, etc, what were you thinking? 3rd world, war torn? I cannot believe how you assume you are making sense.

 

[Colpy]

I answered you once already! You can cherry-pick to realize a preferred outcome in different ways. Again, if the inclusion of data skews the results and/or makes them meaningless to align with an agenda (YOUR AGENDA), that sir... that is a purposeful manipulation. Your attempts to include war-torn, 3rd world, shyte-house countries for comparison is not you being "ALL INCLUSIVE"... that is you cherry-picking to avoid a true representative comparison like the OECD country comparison you prefer to label as "elitist", as "racist"!!! :mrgreen:

The only problem with your idea as expressed is I am not manipulating the data.

I am giving you the entire world..........there is no data left out, no parameters created........just countries, rate of gun ownership, and murder rates.....all of them.

Therefore I can not be "cherry picking"

Your set of stats eliminates two vital ingredients in the mix.....murders without firearms, and countries that are not high on the human development index.

So, one needs to ask: why?

There can be only one conclusion; the parameters have been narrowed to reach a desired conclusion.

That is cherry-picking.

 

[waldo]

When Colpy referred to Sweden, Norway, etc, what were you thinking? 3rd world, war torn? I cannot believe how you assume you are making sense.

nice try... apparently you're another guy who doesn't know what countries are a part of the OECD... or another guy who can't be bothered to actually check! Hey braniac, Sweden and Norway are a part of the comparison I put forward. I've repeatedly asked member Colpy to specifically state what particular countries (outside of that OECD comparison he dared to label "elitist, racist") he wanted to have the U.S. compared to and why he feels they would be any more representative than OECD countries... I believe this latest ASK will be the fourth request of member Colpy... and will probably become the 4th request member Colpy refuses to respond to.

The only problem with your idea as expressed is I am not manipulating the data.

of course you are! You refuse to accept the OECD country comparison data... you choose, instead, to cherry-pick data you prefer. In any case, It's all a hypothetical ruse you're simply blustering with as you refuse to state what countries you would prefer to have compared to the U.S.; i.e., what countries you presume to be more representative than those presented as a part of the OECD comparison you stupidly referred to as "elitist"... as "racist"! Name the countries... what's your problem?