The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun

[Colpy]

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.

Exactly. If I included only countries, the glaring fact that guns do not cause murder would be even clearer.

But I don't cherry pick....I included Iraq and Uruguay because they are part of the data base...........despite the fact they run counter to my preferred conclusion.

So, if you take the top 20 gun owning countries, 18 (90%) have murder rates lower than the world average. 15 (75%) have a murder rate of 2.0 or less per 100,000......which is less than one third the world average.

Which makes it all quite clear.

Guns do not cause murder.

In fact, the stats support a contention that private ownership of weapons prevent murder.

You can't argue with the numbers.

 

[waldo]

Guns do not cause murder.

In fact, the stats support a contention that private ownership of weapons prevent murder.

You can't argue with the numbers.

and again... in spite of my latest 'double-down' post reinforcing that Gun Violence is not reduced... and the reinforcement of the point related to medical advances keeping more persons alive... you choose to simply avoid/ignore this discussion theme. Of course you do as it's most inconvenient to your agenda! Instead, you bluster and pick-nits over "some hypothetical" murder rate comparison you actually won't address.

as was made very pointedly by a police-officer in one of the prior links... have people suddenly just become "lousy shots" or is there something else going on here? You know, something else like medical advances and emergency/trauma care keeping people alive that in previous years/decades would have been added to the murder numbers/rate.

 

[Colpy]

of course you are! You refuse to accept the OECD country comparison data...

Of course I refuse to accept it!

For three reasons:

1. It is data for the United Nations, which currently is trying to bring about world wide gun control, and so has a fervently desired conclusion.

2. The data is by definition cherry picked, as it excludes a large number of the nations of the world.

3. The data uses the oldest anti-gun con in the book.......the use of "gun related" murders. Simply put, if you want to prove that less guns means less murder, then you have to include data on non-gun murders to show that the murders would not have happened had there been no gun. Any murderer could use a knife, a bat, poison, a frying pan, etc........if no gun were available. To show a life was saved by the non-availibility of a firearm, those rates must be included or the data is useless. The data is once again, cherry picked to suit the desired conclusion.

and again... in spite of my latest 'double-down' post reinforcing that Gun Violence is not reduced... and the reinforcement of the point related to medical advances keeping more persons alive... you choose to simply avoid/ignore this discussion theme. Of course you do as it's most inconvenient to your agenda! Instead, you bluster and pick-nits over "some hypothetical" murder rate comparison you actually won't address.

as was made very pointedly by a police-officer in one of the prior links... have people suddenly just become "lousy shots" or is there something else going on here? You know, something else like medical advances and emergency/trauma care keeping people alive that in previous years/decades would have been added to the murder numbers/rate.

And again "gun violence" references are a con. If I do not have a gun, I can use any number of other weapons. To restrict freedom, you must show that removing guns prevents deaths....full stop.

 

[waldo]

Of course I refuse to accept it!

For three reasons:

1. It is data for the United Nations, which currently is trying to bring about world wide gun control, and so has a fervently desired conclusion.

no - ColpyFail #1... it's OECD sourced data. But hey, great to see you in Conspiracy Mode!

2. The data is by definition cherry picked, as it excludes a large number of the nations of the world.

no - ColpyFail #2... it's presented as sourced. It's OECD country data, nothing more, nothing less.

3. The data uses the oldest anti-gun con in the book.......the use of "gun related" murders. Simply put, if you want to prove that less guns means less murder, then you have to include data on non-gun murders to show that the murders would not have happened had there been no gun. Any murderer could use a knife, a bat, poison, a frying pan, etc........if no gun were available. To show a life was saved by the non-availibility of a firearm, those rates must be inthe data is useless. The data is once again, cherry picked to suit the desired conclusion.

no - big time ColpyFail #3... I sure don't see you presenting any such data! :mrgreen: Now you want to turn turtle over imaginary data you yourself haven't presented/sourced!!! Oh my! Up to now, the discussion... your focus... has been on guns, on gun murders, on gun violence. Do you just make this shyte of yours up on the fly or do you have a playbook you keep losing and finding?

And again "gun violence" references are a con. If I do not have a gun, I can use any number of other weapons. To restrict freedom, you must show that removing guns prevents deaths....full stop.

the discussion you've fronted is one with you speaking to the number of guns, to gun murders, to gun violence... if you suddenly want to talk up other imaginary crime, the only CON here is your ColpyCON!

 

[Colpy]

no - ColpyFail #1... it's OECD sourced data. But hey, great to see you in Conspiracy Mode!

From your original post:

2013 UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime): Gun related murder rates in the developed (OECD) world --- 2000-to-2012

no - ColpyFail #2... it's presented as sourced. It's OECD country data, nothing more, nothing less.



!

That's correct....cherry picked data that eliminates the majority of the world.....nothing more, nothing less

no - big time ColpyFail #3... I sure don't see you presenting any such data!
!

Reading Comprehension problems still, I see.....

Murder rates include all murder by all weapons.

 

[taxslave]

The guy is clearly not dumb and in fact makes more of an effort than his detractors to look for evidence to back up any claims.

One idjot making a claim and another idjot quoting him does not a fact make.

 

[Colpy]

the discussion you've fronted is one with you speaking to the number of guns, to gun murders, to gun violence... if you suddenly want to talk up other imaginary crime, the only CON here is your ColpyCON!

Once again, for the data to be relevant if it must show that there is a relationship between the level of gun ownership and overall murder rates.

Unless you think people stabbed or bludgeoned in the absence of a gun are somehow less dead than someone shot......

 

[taxslave]

Looks like waldo has given up on his globull warming BS and picked another subject of which he knows not to be on the wrong side of.

 

[waldo]

From your original post:

2013 UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime): Gun related murder rates in the developed (OECD) world --- 2000-to-2012

that's correct... again, OECD sourced data. Are you prepared to extend your Conspiracy beyond the UN to also include the OECD? :mrgreen: Geezaz! You go from labeling the OECD comparison as "elitist... racist" to a conspiracy flavoured statement that the data is being "manipulated" by the UN... to, to, to... now a claim that the OECD is also in on your conspiracy? Of course, you can source that data directly from the OECD which, by your intellectual prowess, would suggest the OECD, outright, is "elitist... racist"! Oh my! Perhaps you should take a break and collect yourself...

That's correct....cherry picked data that eliminates the majority of the world.....nothing more, nothing less

again, now for the 5th time, what particular countries do you feel offer a better representative comparison to the U.S.?... countries other than those represented within the OECD comparison. I'll keep asking, you can keep highlighting the shallowness of your "argument" by refusing to state the countries you would prefer the U.S. is compared to. What's the deelio here, hey? Are you so far into bluster mode that you can't actually think straight to convey the non-OECD countries you feel are missing in a U.S. comparison (and why you feel they're more representative)? Is there a problem... for you?

 

[Colpy]

Looks like waldo has given up on his globull warming BS and picked another subject of which he knows not to be on the wrong side of.

He made a serious tactical mistake.

I am no scientist, and my distrust of GW alarmists is based largely on the failure of their past models, the hypocricy of their lifestyles, and their unscientific attacks on those that dissent.

So Waldo could carry on forever, and outside of those points, I had little argument.

I've been arguing gun control for 40 years, I know the subject inside out, and Waldo, quite frankly, doesn't have what it takes to argue the point with me.

 

[waldo]

Looks like waldo has given up on his globull warming BS and picked another subject of which he knows not to be on the wrong side of.

nice drive-by taxi... par for your course!

 

[Colpy]

that's correct... again, OECD sourced data. Are you prepared to extend your Conspiracy beyond the UN to also include the OECD?

Reading Comprehension!

2013 UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime):

The source is not the OECD it is the UN.

lol

It is the UN doing the cherry-picking, in support of their attempt to promote the small arms treaty

 

[waldo]

He made a serious tactical mistake.

I am no scientist, and my distrust of GW alarmists is based largely on the failure of their past models, the hypocricy of their lifestyles, and their unscientific attacks on those that dissent.

So Waldo could carry on forever, and outside of those points, I had little argument.

of course you've shown you also know nothing about GW/AGW/CC... in just a few short posts you've mistakenly put forward. As here, you managed to showcase your ignorance while at the same time being the GrandInsulter. Same ole, same ole.

I've been arguing gun control for 40 years, I know the subject inside out, and Waldo, quite frankly, doesn't have what it takes to argue the point with me.

oh my! You clearly know bupkis! Just in this thread alone. on a short sampling, you first tried to disingenuously speak to gun violence as simple murder rate. From there you blustered your way into presenting data that you were so impressed with you went on an all-out insult spew with your puffed-up presumed confidence in that data..... unfortunately for you that data had no actual direct relationship/correlation/association to guns, to gun murders, to gun violence. From there you chose to ignore multiple posts and references that directly challenged your suggestion that gun violence was down... from there you chose to ignore multiple posts that presented a common theme of medical advances and improved emergency/trauma care contributing to a reduced murder rate. From there you blundered into labeling a legitimate OECD comparison as "elitist, racist"... from there you presumed to link to two separate wiki pages without providing anything that provided a complete correlation between them... why would that stop you from blustering your way forward? From there we had you launch into full conspiracy mode! And you... YOU... claim to "know the subject inside out"!!! Oh my! :mrgreen:

 

[Colpy]

oh my! You clearly know bupkis! Just in this thread alone. on a short sampling, you first tried to disingenuously speak to gun violence as simple murder rate. From there you blustered your way into presenting data that you were so impressed with you went on an all-out insult spew with your puffed-up presumed confidence in that data..... unfortunately for you that data had no actual direct relationship/correlation/association to guns, to gun murders, to gun violence. From there you chose to ignore multiple posts and references that directly challenged your suggestion that gun violence was down... from there you chose to ignore multiple posts that presented a common theme of medical advances and improved emergency/trauma care contributing to a reduced murder rate. From there you blundered into labeling a legitimate OECD comparison as "elitist, racist"... from there you presumed to link to two separate wiki pages without providing anything that provided a complete correlation between them... why would that stop you from blustering your way forward? From there we had you launch into full conspiracy mode! And you... YOU... claim to "know the subject inside out"!!! Oh my! :mrgreen:

Thanks for proving my point.

You don't have a clue....not an inkling.

You failed to understand the simpliest concepts.

Ask, and I will explain to you like you are five.

again, now for the 5th time, what particular countries do you feel offer a better representative comparison to the U.S.?...

lol. Really.

I keep telling you.

All of them.

You know, the complete package.

No cherry picking.

That is the entire point.

 

[waldo]

Thanks for proving my point.

You don't have a clue....not an inkling.

You failed to understand the simpliest concepts.

Ask, and I will explain to you like you are five.

if your point was to expose how little you actually know about the subject... yes, you're welcome... I did prove your point! Your bluster and insulting isn't a proxy for actual knowledge! :mrgreen: Nor is your self-serving choice to purposely ignore... repeatedly ignore... points most inconvenient to your agenda!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Nor is your self-serving choice to purposely ignore... repeatedly ignore... points most inconvenient to your agenda!

Boy howdy, good thing you don't do that, enit?

 

[waldo]

No cherry picking.

That is the entire point.

care to elaborate on your "elitist... racist" labeling of the OECD data comparison. Why is an OECD comparison a "cherry-pick" to you? And again, you refuse to actually state what non-OECD countries you believe provide a more representative comparison to the U.S.... and why you believe that. Your "include them all" is simply a grand cop-out that allows you to continue to bluster without actually speaking to the point you presume to bluster about! You're nothing but a POSER!

Boy howdy, good thing you don't do that, enit?

if you've got something to say, say it! If there's something you feel I've ignored, say it/say so... or STFU!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

care to elaborate on your "elitist... racist" labeling of the OECD data comparison. Why is an OECD comparison a "cherry-pick" to you? And again, you refuse to actually state what non-OECD countries you believe provide a more representative comparison to the U.S.... and why you believe that. Your "include them all" is simply a grand cop-out that allows you to continue to bluster without actually speaking to the point you presume to bluster about! You're nothing but a POSER!



if you've got something to say, say it! If there's something you feel I've ignored, say it/say so... or STFU!

Or what?

Silly twat.

 

[waldo]

Or what?

Silly twat.

you can continue to purposely stir the shyte for no other reason than to mess with this thread... or you can actually speak to what you believe/claim I've purposely ignored. Your choice!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

you can continue to purposely stir the shyte for no other reason than to mess with this thread... or you can actually speak to what you believe/claim I've purposely ignored. Your choice!

Or I can point out your silly hypocrisy. Way more fun.