The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
isn't it telling that the so-called 'black militant movement' had the NRA actually calling for gun control! Oh my... apparently, that movement didn't quite fit the mold of a “well-regulated militia” that those fevered stalwarts of the U.S. 2nd Amendment so rally around! :mrgreen:

Link.

Not that I doubt it, but one needs some context to debate the issue.

As your quotes below from NRA board members show, the group is not always correct.

you're a pompous windbag! There are tens of millions of Americans who don't hold to your (parroted) interpretation of the U.S. constitution's 2nd amendment. Throwing out your continual labeling of anyone who holds a different opinion than you (of your parroting), as being unable to read, as lacking comprehension abilities... that gets quite tired and lame and really highlights just how weak your understanding and positions are. The real pertinent point in any of this is just why the hell you rally around the U.S. flag/constitution so intensely... you're Canadian buddy! Get real!

Unfortunately, I suspect you are Canadian too........thus dragging down the average IQ by several points.

I can read, and I understand what the words mean.

You do not.

Simple as that.

The US Constitution is the foundation of the first modern democracy, it is an extremely important document of history, no matter where you live. The fact that you do not understand that simply highlights the extent of your ignorance.

i

I've not defined anything; however, I've clearly shown just how much you're entrenched in the American gun culture! You're so far 'into the weeds' you don't even realize your writing reads like you're a bloody American. Have some pride for your own country man... get over/beyond that U.S. wannabe self you project so intensely!

Strange how you seem not to understand that the USA and Canada are two different countries, with two different sets of rules........but you accuse me of being confused, and not proud of my country.

Typical idiocy from you.

I shouldn't be surprised.

If I wanted to live in the USA, I would.

I don't.

I like Canada, thank you.

The USA and Canada are two different countries, with two different constitutional foundations for their laws.

Really, I would have thought you grasped that by now.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Ahhh...you're not a scientist either, and you have a disturbing tendency to accept what you are told without question.

This is not a GW debate, but after this debate I have learned enough about you not to credit anything you say or believe.

without question? Really... and you know that how? You've clearly shown your BIG-TIME fails in regards GW/AGW/CC - you absolutely have no credibility to speak to the understandings of anyone else. There's not a single one of you so-called "skeptics" here who can argue anything subject related... you clowns do nothing more than offer-up C&P quotes from denier blogs... and you have the gall to speak of "accepting what you are told without question"!


as for this thread, you've shown yourself to be nothing more than an insulting blowhard who can't discuss anything without ultimately resorting to misinformation, data manipulation, improper use of data, delusions of grandeur, conspiracy charges, etc., etc., etc.. You continually tout your so-called "expertise"... yet you're forever highlighting your lack of confidence in your own positions by having to continually declare victory... to perpetually pump yourself up! You've shown you have little understanding of basic stats, trends and data analysis. You repeatedly avoid discussions of anything that even remotely challenges your agenda-driven talking points... the biggest examples being your refusal to discuss influences that are contributing to a reduced gun murder rate... or the true extent of defensive gun use... or the increase in gun violence, etc.. You derail/distract in place of pointed challenge to the failures of the U.S. Gun Culture - your meltdown over the OECD country comparison is classic distraction on your part. When your attempt to counter with the UN HDI comparison blew up on you (as I burst your bubble) you refused to acknowledge your failure... you wanted nothing more to do with that discussion so you derailed it in other directions. And, of course, you act that absolute clown over your obsession with all that is the U.S. Gun Culture while completely giving a pass to all its failures... and you do this over some infantile allegiance to something that has little to no direct influence on Canada... again, you're forever projecting your U.S. wannabe desires. I mean, what else could it be? Why would any self-respecting Canadian discuss/argue anything to do with the topic of gun-related violence/death, as if one were an American?

I wouldn't.....if it were not done under the authority of rabid anti-gunners with an agenda.

THEY LIE and cheat and manipulate data, and those who lean "progressive" really don't care.

to you, anything you don't agree with, anything that highlights the failures of the U.S. Gun Culture... that all comes from, as you ignorantly label them, "rabid anti-gunners with an agenda"... all 'lying and cheating and manipulating data"! You have lost any ability to recognize truly independent and legitimate sources. You've lost all/any semblance of rational thought and reality when you begin to challenge the data/information/feedback from medical, military and first-responders who have taken it upon themselves to question... and yes, to challenge, the gun related violence status quo in the U.S.. You could care less about the gun-related deaths, injuries, impacts to families, impacts on society, costs, etc.. Your main concern, your only concern, appears to rest with some bullshyte premise that even attempting to research "the problem" and look for remedy/solution is a slippery slope to infringing on the hallowed "gun rights"... on "freedom" from some imaginary boogeyman state comin' fer your guns!

And, as for CDC research, it is completely outside their mandate.

Let private individuals do the research.

research into gun-related violence is absolutely within the mandate of the U.S. CDC. Of course, you refuse to recognize that gun-related violence is a health problem for Americans, for American society... you refuse to acknowledge that a key role of the U.S. CDC is to promote healthy and safe behaviors for the American public. Private individuals are also doing research; however, when you don't agree with or accept their research you choose to label them... what did you call them now... oh right, you referred to those "rabid anti-gunners with an agenda"!

Link.

Not that I doubt it, but one needs some context to debate the issue.

let's have you remember this the next time I ask you for a cite reference, hey!

Fact-Check: Did the NRA support gun control when the Black Panthers advocated that minorities arm themselves?

the following linked article is quite a read on the NRA history... and how just a couple of guys launched a coup within the NRA to completely turn it away from helping to write gun control legislation and turn it into the abomination its become today!--- The NRA once supported gun control - It may seem hard to believe, but for decades the organization helped write federal laws restricting gun use

The US Constitution is the foundation of the first modern democracy, it is an extremely important document of history, no matter where you live. The fact that you do not understand that simply highlights the extent of your ignorance.

weasel words coming from an American wannabe!

Strange how you seem not to understand that the USA and Canada are two different countries, with two different sets of rules........but you accuse me of being confused, and not proud of my country.

The USA and Canada are two different countries, with two different constitutional foundations for their laws.

Really, I would have thought you grasped that by now.

just more of your nonsense! As a Canadian, why would you give a rats-patooey over that U.S. constitution and related gun laws/restrictions of another sovereign nation? Why would you argue/discuss/rationalize anything to do with the U.S. Gun Culture as if you were an American, hey wannabe?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
without question? Really... and you know that how? You've clearly shown your BIG-TIME fails in regards GW/AGW/CC - you absolutely have no credibility to speak to the understandings of anyone else. There's not a single one of you so-called "skeptics" here who can argue anything subject related... you clowns do nothing more than offer-up C&P quotes from denier blogs... and you have the gall to speak of "accepting what you are told without question"!

Please, do not pretend you have a clue about GW either.

Anyone that follows Al Gore is an imbecile by definition. You qualify.

I don't waste any time on the BS of hypocrites.

And you can do nothing beyond cut and paste, something my grandson was excellent at when he was 6 years old.

as for this thread, you've shown yourself to be nothing more than an insulting blowhard who can't discuss anything without ultimately resorting to misinformation, data manipulation, improper use of data, delusions of grandeur, conspiracy charges, etc., etc., etc.. You continually tout your so-called "expertise"...

Good Lord!

Any mirrors in your house?

I'm actually LOL.

DEFENSIVE GUN USE in the USA in FEBRUARY 2015

Police: Springfield resident shoots burglar from East Longmeadow in self defense during home invasion | masslive.com

Suspected robber shot during robbery attempt; police search for - WMC Action News 5 - Memphis, Tennessee

67-Year-Old Cleared Following Self Defense Shooting In Upper Dar - FOX 29 News Philadelphia | WTXF-TV

No charges to be filed in deadly Illinois home invasion case

Wilmington business owner who fatally shot would-be robber won't face charges - News-Record.com: News

Homeowner shoots intruder with non-lethal ammo | Local News - WESH Home

Homeowner shoots at would-be robber eight times - Cincinnati News, FOX19-WXIX TV

Suspect allegedly shot in leg during robbery, police say - WAFF-TV: News, Weather and Sports for Huntsville, AL

Woman wounded in shootout with burglars at Forsyth County home | www.ajc.com

Police: Suspected burglar shot in apparent home invasion - KABB - San Antonio Top Stories - News, Sports, Weather, Traffic

Valdosta > Three Shot In Valdosta Apartment | Valdosta Today - South Georgia's News Source

Man Shot In Spartanburg County In Dispute Over Dog - WSPA.com

The results of a quick search.

THE RESEARCH ON DEFENSIVE GUN USE

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds. Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.



Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995


Peer Review:

The National Self Defense Survey: Peer Review

Could it be...?

Oh, I love this!! Remember now, what you said below...."research into gun-related violence is absolutely within the mandate of the U.S. CDC."

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’ | CNS News

Handguns, suicides, mass shootings deaths, and self-defense: Findings from a research report on gun violence.

Some "myth" :)


let's have you remember this the next time I ask you for a cite reference, hey!

Fact-Check: Did the NRA support gun control when the Black Panthers advocated that minorities arm themselves?

the following linked article is quite a read on the NRA history... and how just a couple of guys launched a coup within the NRA to completely turn it away from helping to write gun control legislation and turn it into the abomination its become today!--- The NRA once supported gun control - It may seem hard to believe, but for decades the organization helped write federal laws restricting gun use

Yep. So tell me something I didn't know........

In the late 70s the NRA changed.....and its membership lists exploded.

Obviously it does a better job now of defending the rights of gun owners than it did in the 1960s.

weasel words coming from an American wannabe!

:) More proof of your complete ignorance. You have no clue about history. You should really stick to subjects you know something about.
Which would leave you silent.

just more of your nonsense! As a Canadian, why would you give a rats-patooey over that U.S. constitution and related gun laws/restrictions of another sovereign nation? Why would you argue/discuss/rationalize anything to do with the U.S. Gun Culture as if you were an American, hey wannabe?

Then why the heck are you arguing on this thread?


lol
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Rethinking Gun Control


http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...nd_self_defense_findings_from_a.html#comments
Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence.





Background checks are back. Last week, Vice President Joe Biden said that five U.S. senators—enough to change the outcome—have told him they’re looking for a way to switch their votes and pass legislation requiring a criminal background check for the purchase of a firearm. Sen. Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who led the fight for the bill, is firing back at the National Rifle Association with a new TV ad. The White House, emboldened by polls that indicate damage to senators who voted against the bill, is pushing Congress to reconsider it.




The gun control debate is certainly worth reopening. But if we’re going to reopen it, let’s not just rethink the politics. Let’s take another look at the facts. Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should consider them. Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.



1. The United States has an indisputable gun violence problem. According to the report, “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”

2. Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse. “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.” Accidents are down, too: “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”



3. We have 300 million firearms, but only 100 million are handguns. According to the report, “In 2007, one estimate placed the total number of firearms in the country at 294 million: ‘106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns.’ ” This translates to nearly nine guns for every 10 people, a per capita ownership rate nearly 50 percent higher than the next most armed country. But American gun ownership is concentrated, not universal: In a December 2012 Gallup poll, “43 percent of those surveyed reported having a gun in the home.”



4. Handguns are the problem. Despite being outnumbered by long guns, “Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes,” the report notes. In 2011, “handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents.” Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they’re “easily concealable.”



5. Mass shootings aren’t the problem. “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths,” says the report. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.



6. Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide. From 2000 to 2010, “firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States,” says the report. Firearm sales are often a warning: Two studies found that “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun.”



7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”


8. Carrying guns for self-defense is an arms race. The prevalence of firearm violence near “drug markets … could be a consequence of drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense against thieves or other adversaries who are likely to be armed,” says the report. In these communities, “individuals not involved in the drug markets have similar incentives for possessing guns.” According to a Pew Foundation report, “the vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection—rather than hunting or other activities—as the major reason for why they own guns.”



9. Denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives. “Two-thirds of homicides of ex- and current spouses were committed [with] firearms,” the report observes. “In locations where individuals under restraining orders to stay away from current or ex-partners are prohibited from access to firearms, female partner homicide is reduced by 7 percent.”

10. It isn’t true that most gun acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers. The report concedes that in 1998, “1,020 of 83,272 federally licensed retailers (1.2 percent) accounted for 57.4 percent of all guns traced by the ATF.” However, “Gun sales are also relatively concentrated; approximately 15 percent of retailers request 80 percent of background checks on gun buyers conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” Researchers have found that “the share of crime gun traces attributed to these few dealers only slightly exceeded their share of handgun sales, which are almost equally concentrated among a few dealers.” Volume, not laxity, drives the number of ill-fated sales.



These conclusions don’t line up perfectly with either side’s agenda. That’s a good reason to take them seriously—and to fund additional data collection and research that have been blocked by Congress over politics. Yes, the facts will surprise you. That’s why you should embrace them.

William Saletan's latest short takes on the news, via Twitter:


My emphasis.



While I mentioned this article below, I thought it needed bringing forward, as it completely puts the subject to bed.......a "Good Guy with a Gun" is no myth.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Oh, I love this!! Remember now, what you said below...."research into gun-related violence is absolutely within the mandate of the U.S. CDC."
The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’ | CNS News
Some "myth" :)


Yowzer, member Colpy has found his "Gish Gallop"! :mrgreen:

imagine that... member Colpy now likes the CDC sponsored reports! Hypocrite! Just as you did earlier in denouncing the UN... when you thought you could actually use a UN data reference, you were all over it... hypocrite! Now you're doing exactly the same thing in regards the CDC... hypocrite! The thing is Colpy, I blew up your attempt with the UN... and I'll do the same thing here with your self-serving use of the CDC sponsored report... the CDC you previously chastised and demeaned repeatedly... hypocrite.

it was I (as quoted below) that first pointed out the issue was directly addressed within the CDC report... highlighting that estimates for defensive gun use were wide/varied... that there was no agreement (from both sides) as to actual/correct numbers. The CDC sponsored report emphasized that this subject was an area of needed research.
as relates directly to this thread, to this thread's OP, one case example in the paper highlights the need for research into so-called defensive gun use (you know, "Good Guys With Guns"); an area where "both sides" of the debate use select data liberally to attempt to score points. This paper highlights there is no true/representative (and agreed upon) number to represent the actual number of defensive gun uses... clearly, an area of needed investigation/research. Why would anyone dispute that... why would anyone not want that formally studied in a rigorous and peer-reviewed / peer-challenged context? What is the NRA afraid of... what are you, Colpy, afraid of? Finding out the truth on actual defensive gun uses... Colpy, you're afraid of the/that truth... whatever it might be? Really? You're afraid of that... even with your machine-gun... you're afraid of that? :mrgreen:
thing is, member Colpy, context keeps biting you in the azz!

here, as follows, is your selected quote from that report... in context; imagine that Colpy, context paints a different picture from the one you're portraying! Imagine that. In any case, it's good to have you now on board and accepting to the CDC as a viable and legitimate source for gun-related research. Good on ya, Colpy, good on ya! :mrgreen: You said you "love this", Colpy... are you still... luving it?

it's bad enough you're hyping ~20 year old data... again, given the influence of the NRA in stifling actual research in gun violence... you have no qualms in projecting upon that data, which is really nothing more than, as the CDC sponsored report states, "extrapolations from a small number of responses". Surely member Colpy, you want real comprehensive research into this matter, right? Certainly you don't want to have to rely upon ~20 year old data/findings based on "extrapolations" of a suspect number of limited responses. Surely that's not what you want, right Colpy? Right?

 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.


Yowzer, member Colpy has found his "Gish Gallop"! :mrgreen:

imagine that... member Colpy now likes the CDC sponsored reports! Hypocrite! Just as you did earlier in denouncing the UN... when you thought you could actually use a UN data reference, you were all over it... hypocrite! Now you're doing exactly the same thing in regards the CDC... hypocrite! The thing is Colpy, I blew up your attempt with the UN... and I'll do the same thing here with your self-serving use of the CDC sponsored report... the CDC you previously chastised and demeaned repeatedly... hypocrite.

it was I (as quoted below) that first pointed out the issue was directly addressed within the CDC report... highlighting that estimates for defensive gun use were wide/varied... that there was no agreement (from both sides) as to actual/correct numbers. The CDC sponsored report emphasized that this subject was an area of needed research.thing is, member Colpy, context keeps biting you in the azz!

here, as follows, is your selected quote from that report... in context; imagine that Colpy, context paints a different picture from the one you're portraying! Imagine that. In any case, it's good to have you now on board and accepting to the CDC as a viable and legitimate source for gun-related research. Good on ya, Colpy, good on ya! :mrgreen: You said you "love this", Colpy... are you still... luving it?

it's bad enough you're hyping ~20 year old data... again, given the influence of the NRA in stifling actual research in gun violence... you have no qualms in projecting upon that data, which is really nothing more than, as the CDC sponsored report states, "extrapolations from a small number of responses". Surely member Colpy, you want real comprehensive research into this matter, right? Certainly you don't want to have to rely upon ~20 year old data/findings based on "extrapolations" of a suspect number of limited responses. Surely that's not what you want, right Colpy? Right?

Look, we understand that you are a moron........but come on, try to retain some grasp on reality.

The research is clear. Obama set the CDC back on the trail of shooters and the Bill of Rights.....and it backfired, as they found researchers that were not willing to fudge the numbers for their political agenda.

They do make mistakes in process......you can find them, but the evidence is over whelming........self defense with firearms is a significant factor in their use in the United States.

Full stop.

The myth is not a myth at all, it is a fact of life.

I carried a gun for years, and taught others how to defend themselves with guns.........I could give you a few cases in Canada of self defense with firearms. Oddly, attacks on armoured cars carrying millions of dollars are rare......why do you think that is?

Oh, and apologies for making you actually think.....but what exactly are you arguing in favour of? What do you think would be an acceptable firearms law regimen in Canada?

Can you actually be creative, and provide a sensible answer to the question?
 
Last edited:

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Look, we understand that you are a moron........but come on, try to retain some grasp on reality.

The research is clear. Obama set the CDC back on the trail of shooters and the Bill of Rights.....and it backfired, as they found researchers that were not willing to fudge the numbers for their political agenda.

you are full of shyte! You just pulled another of your hypocritical flip-flops cause you thought you could use something from a report (sponsored by) the CDC! All of a sudden you really likee the CDC in spite of your absolute 'demonizing' of it earlier. Again, you're an absolute hypocrite in that regard... having done the same thing earlier with the UN references.

your suggestion that "Obama set the CDC back on the trail of shooters and the Bill of RIghts" is absolute crap/bullShyte. You know this and you're just attempting to cover your latest fail! The CDC has not done anything since Obama issued that executive order (2 years ago) to once again allow federal funding to the CDC (and other federal agencies) to pursue gun-related violence research. Again, the CDC has not undertaken any research in that regard. Quit making shyte up! Of course, what the CDC has done, is exactly what I wrote... it has sponsored a group to study... "what needs to be studied". The output from that group is the report I originally highlighted, quoted from and linked to. And, of course, you yourself just did the same; however, in your case, you disingenuously put up a completely out of context statement from the report. And I burst your bubble by presenting the full related statements... the complete context... showing the azzhole ploy you attempted!

there is no trustworthy recent data on the so-called "defensive use of guns". The CDC sponsored report that you so wanted to leverage says exactly that! Again, you want to use long-dated ~20-year old data that puts forward extrapolated estimates to today (20 years later) based on a small number of responses to those long-dated surveys. Of course you do! Clearly, your earlier BS about wanting 'peer reviewed' representative data is nothing more than your continued weasel-word prattle!
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Waldo Waldo Waldo.......you have lost this debate so badly

You should look up the word "hypocrite" in the ductionary. I don't think it means what you think it means.

You came on here to prove "The Myth Good Guy With a Gun" is false....but it isn't. The lowest estimate of defensive gun use is well over 100,000 per year.......Clinton's DOJ estimated over 900,000 per year, and some research suggests 2.5 million....one every 13 seconds.

But just take the lowest....100,000 per year.

253 times a day.

At the very least.

That's some "myth". :)

And they all agree that it is at least that.

Game, Set, Match

Just quit.

At this point you are just making a fool out of yourself.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,892
129
63
Saw a good saying today: To make a conservative angry tell a lie, to make a progressive angry show him the truth.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Waldo Waldo Waldo.......you have lost this debate so badly

Game, Set, Match

:mrgreen:
You continually tout your so-called "expertise"... yet you're forever highlighting your lack of confidence in your own positions by having to continually declare victory... to perpetually pump yourself up!

You should look up the word "hypocrite" in the ductionary. I don't think it means what you think it means.

sure I do Colpy... again, you've shown your hypocritical self now, at least twice, in this thread. In both instances you went to lengths to significantly chastize both the UN and the U.S. CDC... to the point of suggesting conspiracy on their parts, to the point of stating they couldn't be trusted, "their" data was manipulated and nothing from them could be trusted. And then... when you actually thought you had found data/information from the UN/CDC that you could leverage... all of a sudden, they both became viable trustworthy outlets. That sir, that is hypocrisy... that is your hypocrisy! Of course, in both of your attempts to actually use your UN and U.S. CDC references, you blew up good, you blew up real good! Again, sorry to have burst your bubble in each case!

You came on here to prove "The Myth Good Guy With a Gun" is false....but it isn't.

huh! By your own link to the CDC sponsored report... the CDC you suddenly flip-flopped on and now likee... there is no current data and what there is, is debatable in terms of its processing origin. Or more pointedly, there is no acceptance from both sides of the debate on what is a legitimate and representative number of 'defensive gun uses' in the U.S.. Hence, the CDC sponsored report brings this issue forward as one that needs research into. Your suggestion that the low-end of the 'suspect' is actually meaningful on its own actually calls into question just what is the/a understood measure to gauge any number estimate against... you didn't speak to that; imagine that! Cause, like Colpy... an estimate has to have a measuring reference to suggest its relevance, to indicate just how representative it is, right? But hey, you're quite content to cherry-pick numbers you like... numbers you believe are valid... numbers you accept! Of course you are! And you do all that while pumping your own tires and, yet again, claiming victory! :mrgreen:
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
:mrgreen:sure I do Colpy... again, you've shown your hypocritical self now, at least twice, in this thread. In both instances you went to lengths to significantly chastize both the UN and the U.S. CDC... to the point of suggesting conspiracy on their parts, to the point of stating they couldn't be trusted, "their" data was manipulated and nothing from them could be trusted. And then... when you actually thought you had found data/information from the UN/CDC that you could leverage... all of a sudden, they both became viable trustworthy outlets. That sir, that is hypocrisy... that is your hypocrisy! Of course, in both of your attempts to actually use your UN and U.S. CDC references, you blew up good, you blew up real good! Again, sorry to have burst your bubble in each case!

Your first lesson in Reading Comprehension:

hypocrite

[hip-uh-krit]
noun

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.


Think on that, and we'll do another tomorrow.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Your first lesson in Reading Comprehension:

hypocrite

[hip-uh-krit]
noun

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.


Think on that, and we'll do another tomorrow.

Merriam Webster: hypocrite --- "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"

you're welcome! Would you like the link? Carry on. :mrgreen:
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
:mrgreen:
huh! By your own link to the CDC sponsored report... the CDC you suddenly flip-flopped on and now likee... there is no current data and what there is, is debatable in terms of its processing origin. Or more pointedly, there is no acceptance from both sides of the debate on what is a legitimate and representative number of 'defensive gun uses' in the U.S.. Hence, the CDC sponsored report brings this issue forward as one that needs research into. Your suggestion that the low-end of the 'suspect' is actually meaningful on its own actually calls into question just what is the/a understood measure to gauge any number estimate against... you didn't speak to that; imagine that! Cause, like Colpy... an estimate has to have a measuring reference to suggest its relevance, to indicate just how representative it is, right? But hey, you're quite content to cherry-pick numbers you like... numbers you believe are valid... numbers you accept! Of course you are! And you do all that while pumping your own tires and, yet again, claiming victory! :mrgreen:

The CDC is a large organization, it can do things wrong and then do them right.

And the study, even as it is, has some glaring problems, and shows anti-gun bias.This, for example, is a ludicrous statement that shows a desire to reach a anti-gun conclusion:

1. The United States has an indisputable gun violence problem. According to the report, “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”
BTW, as we have shown, the murder rate in the USA is far from the highest in the industrialized world. So, they have to use "firearms-related" murder rates, which is simply irrelevant. That, of course, after already cherry-picking "industrialized countries".

I got thinking (something Waldo should attempt some day) about gun violence and industrialized countries......what about Brazil? So I looked it up......

Brazil is the seventh largest economy on earth, obviously an industrialized society......

The new global economy - CNNMoney

Brazil has a firearms related murder rate over 6 times that of the USA. SIX times......

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmmmmm.......something fishy in the works......

Likewise this statement, which is also ludicrous:

8. Carrying guns for self-defense is an arms race. The prevalence of firearm violence near “drug markets … could be a consequence of drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense against thieves or other adversaries who are likely to be armed,” says the report. In these communities, “individuals not involved in the drug markets have similar incentives for possessing guns.” According to a Pew Foundation report, “the vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection—rather than hunting or other activities—as the major reason for why they own guns.”
What? There are 11 million American citizens licensed to carry guns, and in some states no license is required. The study lumps felons carrying guns in with fully licensed civilians. BTW, licensed concealed carry holders in the USA have a murder rate among them of 0.5 per 100,000, one ninth the rate at large in the USA......and one third the rate in Canada. I wonder what the rate among armed felons is?

The aim of the study is obvious, especially if you read number 3 and 4............these guys want handguns strictly controled.

But, to their credit, they are not willing to outright lie to achieve their ends. Twist the figures so they are seen in a certain light, yes. Tell a blatant untruth? No.

Compare these results with Kellerman, who came up with a study that said a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used against a friend or family member than a criminal. Dr. Kellerman is the reason that the CDC lost their funding, as his study was completely bogus. Want details? Just ask.

Which, btw, doesn't stop the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control from using that figure in their lies and propaganda.

Really, Waldo, I can help a little with your reading comprehension problems, but critical thinking is something else.

Merriam Webster: hypocrite --- "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"

you're welcome! Would you like the link? Carry on. :mrgreen:

Now, explain how my actions are those of a hypocrite.

Have I joined the Coalition for Gun Control?

Worked towards tougher gun control??

My stated belief is that the CDC has an anti-gun bias in its studies. Kellerman is the proof.

My stated belief is the UN is absolutely anti-gun.

How is that hypocritical?



Naw.......nothing anti-gun about the UN!! lol

Note the statue is a representation of a Colt Python revolver......a purely civilian firearm.


Waldo Waldo Waldo.......you have lost this debate so badly

Just quit.

At this point you are just making a fool out of yourself.
 
Last edited:

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Brazil eh?

Do they have to file a 27b-6 ?

Regulation is roughly the same as in Canada....

Compare
Firearm Regulation - Guiding Policy


The regulation of guns in Brazil is categorised as restrictive47


Compare
Restricted Firearms and Ammunition


In Brazil, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms and imitation firearms52
Compare
Regulation of Automatic Weapons


In Brazil, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited53 54

Compare
Regulation of Semiautomatic Assault Weapons


In Brazil, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence51 53

Compare
Regulation of Handguns


In Brazil, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence54



Compare
Gun Ownership and Possession


In Brazil, only licensed gun owners55 may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
Compare
Genuine Reason Required for Firearm Possession


Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Brazil are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, personal protection, security56 57 58

Compare
Minimum Age for Firearm Possession


The minimum age for gun ownership in Brazil is 25 years, with a few exceptions59 60

Compare
Gun Licence Background Check


An applicant for a firearm licence in Brazil must pass a background check which considers criminal, mental and employment61 records

Compare
Reference Required for Firearm Licence


In Brazil, third party character references for each gun licence applicant are not required51

Compare
Domestic Violence and Firearms


Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Brazil does not stipulate51 that a gun licence should be denied or revoked

Compare
Firearm Safety Training


In Brazil, an understanding of firearm safety and the law, tested in a theoretical and/or practical training course is required61 for a firearm licence

Compare
Gun Owner Licensing Period


In Brazil gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm licence every three years55

Compare
Licensing Records


In Brazil, authorities maintain a record53 62 of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition

Compare
Limit on Number of Guns


Licensed firearm owners in Brazil are permitted to possess any number of firearms51

Compare
Limit on Quantity, Type of Ammunition


Licensed firearm owners in Brazil are permitted to possess any quantity of ammunition51

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/brazil

Gun laws help a LOT huh??

Oh, and I did the math wrong, the firearms murder rate in Brazil is only SIX times that of the USA, not seven as I first stated. :) Edited the post below.