Mass Murder by Blade, you Vast Idiots

Man I know of one gunfight, where one guy got hit across the side of his little toe. And we just bandaged him up.

Most of this stuff will never be reported. That is just like "poor dear, looks like she fumbled with her gun lock," is not reported.

So, facts. Oh that not a reputable journal....bullshit. Oh, it wasn't peer reviewed for Method....bullshit. I am dealing with a bunch of cowardly droids, however. That's the fun.
-------------------------
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime
------------------------

Gun ownership is up and violent crime is down. So, remember to fast forward from this report in 2000. Now it is over One Million times and even double that, not reported.

Why bother? They can take your gun these day because you might have pot bust, you vast idiots.

NoDrama said:

How do you prove that pulling your gun saved a life if no one died?

You can't

Can't prove that something WOULDN'T Have happened.

You can't prove a negative.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY! I'm not the one that said you could... Your delusional rock marksman comrade did. You know, the one whose browneye you have your tongue buried in... you're telling beefbisquit and I what we already know. Pick a stance and have the backbone to stick by it. Cracks me up you are sitting there acting like he's right yet you're telling us such statistics aren't available - which is exactly what we're telling him!

So with that said, pull your head out and realize you can't simply make shit up simply to support your argument. Or rather, help doer pull his head out. I've had my share of schooling 14 year olds (mental equivalent) over the last couple days. I'm done with you two.

Only someone with no common sense would say it exists.. (Doer the Rockodile Hunter)

by the time you read this, guns will have saved three lives and people crouching behind rocks will have saved seven lives.

rocks > guns.

thecannacove said:

Only someone with no common sense would say it exists..

Click to expand...

-------------------------
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

Watch it now, you sissy, someone might pull your hair.

Doer said:

-------------------------
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

Watch it now, you sissy, someone might pull your hair.

Click to expand...

Yes, I saw this the first time you posted it. This does not equate to 989,883 lives saved. But I'm sure you were smart enough to realize that..

By the way this figure was arrived at by a sampling of only 48 civilian defenses:

As shown in the previous footnote, this study did not use a nationally representative population. To correct for this, Just Facts used the following equation:

t = c × g × p / [n × r × [[s × d / f] + [(1-s) × (1- d) / (1- f)]]]
Where:
t = Total defensive gun uses in a nationally representative population
c = Defensive gun uses in this survey, civilian against offender, clear = 48
g = Minimum proportion of households with a gun = 0.34*
p = Population, ages 25-70 = 158,799,375†
n = Survey sample size = 3006
r = Proportion of survey respondents with a gun in their home = .83
s = Proportion of survey respondents who are female = .25
d = Proportion of defensive gun uses by females = .46‡
f = Proportion of population (ages 25-70) who are females = .51†

thecannacove said:

Yes, I saw this the first time you posted it. This does not equate to 989,883 lives saved. But I'm sure you were smart enough to realize that..

By the way this figure was arrived at by a sampling of only 48 civilian defenses:

As shown in the previous footnote, this study did not use a nationally representative population. To correct for this, Just Facts used the following equation:

t = c × g × p / [n × r × [[s × d / f] + [(1-s) × (1- d) / (1- f)]]]
Where:
t = Total defensive gun uses in a nationally representative population
c = Defensive gun uses in this survey, civilian against offender, clear = 48
g = Minimum proportion of households with a gun = 0.34*
p = Population, ages 25-70 = 158,799,375†
n = Survey sample size = 3006
r = Proportion of survey respondents with a gun in their home = .83
s = Proportion of survey respondents who are female = .25
d = Proportion of defensive gun uses by females = .46‡
f = Proportion of population (ages 25-70) who are females = .51†

Click to expand...

I predict you would do this when I pulled your hair the first time.

So, the page is full of various ways to look at this question, burgertime2010. Yeah, yeah, I know it's you.

How many guns saves do you say there are?

Doer said:

I predict you would do this when I pulled your hair the first time.

So, the page is full of various ways to look at this question, burgertime2010. Yeah, yeah, I know it's you.

How many guns saves do you say there are?

Click to expand...

Seriously, who the FUCK is burgertime? I don't claim to know how many fucking saves there are. I'm not all knowing, I don't aspire to be. I'm a gun owner and supporter of the 2nd. I carry everyday, either open or concealed depending on my attire. (Yes I live in an open carry state, which is surprisingly rather liberal).

So... I have absolutely no qualms with firearms or others carrying them. I do have a problem with ignorant little pricks spouting off at the mouth (or in your case, keyboard) making shit up, and along the way making gunowners and gun advocates look like immature 14 year olds.

Lastly, if you think I'm some other fucking forum member, ask the mods to look at shit like my ip address, login history, whatever the fuck you want. Evidently someone else in your past thought you were as much of a dunce as I do. I have no desire to keep up multiple forum personalities and laugh at the fact one would even think of such a ridiculous ploy.

Anyway, it's getting close to your bedtime so I'll cut this short. This will be the last time I indulge your comments, so feel free to get your digs in now like a true keyboard warrior.

Edit: ah hell, fuck it, you caught me. I made a new account, new name, started a grow journal and everything just in preparation to develop a new persona to troll you on a single thread because YOU are worth that level of trollage.. yep that's it... smh

If you will not stipuilate to any guns saves then your entire stance is below retarded, burger. We been here buddy. Just changing avi and name, you can't change the fight-boy style. Give up.

Just say, there are saves. Guns save. And since it goes from a min of 100,000 to a 1,000,000, surely you can see the value of knowing these things. Else it is you that sounds so idiotic.

If they save only 50,000 people that is still 3X the kills.

Don't you see how important this fact is? You can't even acknowledge it exists and willing to smear anyone that says it does.

Sorta punk, right?

Just a little info about the website who's data is being discussed. Draw your own conclusions.
"The web site’s two authors – James D. Agresti and Stephen F. Cardone – both hold bachelor’s degrees, the former in Engineering, the latter in Psychology. Neither has any background experience that would make him an expert on any of the fourteen major issues this web site tackles. Despite claims of being “researchers,” they seem to rely mainly on the research of others (as do journalists). Neither has published any peer-reviewed research. Agresti has designed jet engines and is now a salesman and chief engineer for a company that customizes helicopters. He is also a conservative Christian who has written a book that purports to have uncovered objective evidence for the literal accuracy of the Bible. Cardone is noted mainly for his association with Agresti and JustFacts.com. In 2008, he spoke before a Connecticut state judiciary committee to argue against legislation that would address some of the problems gay couples still face in that state, despite recent laws expanding their rights. He says that, as a Christian, he is against gay marriage on principle because he believes that marriage should be based on tradition. Their site is supported, they claim, by tax-deductible donations from individuals via credit card or PayPal. They do not provide a list of their donors."(http://www.cwu.edu/~garrisop/FactCheck_v_JustFacts.pdf)

"Justfacts is an information site with a strong conservative/libertarian bent. All information on the site is quite accurate, and they regularly exclude information that would benefit their position in the name of honesty and accuracy. They have an extensive page dedicated to understanding the impact of guns and gun control laws on gun violence. They exclude information based on their Standards of Credibility, which present considerable opportunity for subjective bias. Further, they tend to favor raw data over statistical analysis of this data, which can lead readers to natural causation fallacies. The benefit of studies and statistics on this site is that relatively few have been debated for technical reasons."
http://icma.org/en/icma/knowledge_network/topics/topic_resources/298


I love that they exclude empirical evidence that they don't think meets their "Standards of Credibility", yet the "fact" that keeps being referred to is based on Survey Data. Yes. The unimpeachable, absolute truth that comes from surveys. People totally never lie on those, and the people who perform surveys DEFINITELY never target their surveys demographically to achieve their desired results. I mean come on, you know that it's physically impossible to lie on a survey, so when one million people say they used their god given guns to stop crimes that would have certainly ended in the death of innocents, it MUST be true!!! IT'S LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO LIE OR BE WRONG WHEN FILLING OUT A SURVEY!!!! Forget what the ACTUAL statistics say!!

So reliable! A sample of 48 people! That's just amazing, Rockodile Hunter.

This just gets more entertaining every second.

How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?

Click to expand...

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.[2]


Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.[3]


Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, reaching a low of 10,117 in 1999. Gun-related homicides increased slightly after that, to a high of 11,547 in 2006, before falling again to 10,869 in 2008.[4]

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx

Click to expand...

See that? That's a credible source.

Absolutely guns save, but there's no way to know how many.

Come on I predicted it...let you tiny, baby gators feed. That is some cute little fellers. Bite them messengers.

So, wake up and address the fact. Guns save. And until you factor the truth, you cannot sort the lies.

So, can we agree to any number? You see I am not into debate in forum, but I am a trained negotiator and all mammals can negotiate.

So, we can begin to build common understanding of some number for us 300M plus USAians.

How many saves will you agree is reasonable?

Ace Yonder said:

I mean come on, you know that it's physically impossible to lie on a survey, so when one million people say they used their god given guns to stop crimes that would have certainly ended in the death of innocents, it MUST be true!!! IT'S LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO LIE OR BE WRONG WHEN FILLING OUT A SURVEY!!!! Forget what the ACTUAL statistics say!!

Click to expand...

You mean 48 people say they used a firearm to stop a crime. THEN by means of a rather obscene equation full of population demographic variables that number of 48 non-targeted survey respondents turns into slightly under a million.

Doer said:

Come on I predicted it...let you tiny, baby gators feed. That is some cute little fellers. Bite them messengers.

Click to expand...

The 'messenger' aka idiot with an agenda that has no idea how to select a proper sample size, isn't a reliable source for information.

So, wake up and address the fact. Guns save. And until you factor the truth, you cannot sort the lies.

Click to expand...

No one has said or suggested that guns don't save lives. I'm pretty sure everyone calling you retarded is a gun owner.

So, can we agree to any number? You see I am not into debate in forum, but I am a trained negotiator and all mammals can negotiate.

Click to expand...

No, we can't agree to a number because there's no information. You can't make up information and call it accurate. That's the difference between someone who cares about the truth and someone who doesn't. I don't make up 'facts' for convenience.

So, we can being in a common understanding of some number for us 300M plus of us,

How many saves will you agree is reasonable?

Click to expand...

I have no idea.

Beef, did we say guns don't save? I'm looking everywhere in this thread for where I said this or you did. But I can't seem to find it anywhere..? Maybe others are just not sure what the fuck the debate is? Lol

thecannacove said:

Beef, did we say guns don't save? I'm looking everywhere in this thread for where I said this or you did. But I can't seem to find it anywhere..? Maybe others are just not sure what the fuck the debate is? Lol

Click to expand...

I own a badass Rem 870 with a 12 inch barrel. lol

I'm hoping guns save. lol

Stats say that we're 12 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal in our lifetimes.

You have no idea, even though as I, you could look and look and sort and sort, and show a bit of interest.

But even now you are practically saying, it doesn't matter. You don't know. True. You don't want to know such an inconvenient thing. True. And that it amounts to a total negation of your entire argument, you would love to blow it off as UN-known but not relevant. HA Haaaa.

When a simple child could get this math (if it was wooden blocks,and not kills to saves,) don't you think you are ignoring the main point?

Why are you ignoring the main point?. So, you have been very patient with ole doer, so far and that just sinks in the DMI.

How many saves? We are so reasonable I thought. Sky is. Buck is. You certainly are.

Will you say SAVES are 5 times the kills per year? That has got to be very reasonable, isn't it? Even 100,000 saves is 10x the straight up murder rate. And estimates range far beyond that.

So, 5 times the SAVES to kills with guns per year in the USA, is more than fair....just for discussion..don't you think?

Doer said:

You have no idea, even though as I, you could look and look and sort and sort, and show a bit of interest.

But even now you are practically saying, it doesn't matter. You don't know. True. You don't want to know such an inconvenient thing. True. And that it amounts to a total negation of your entire argument, you would love to blow it off as UN-known but not relevant. HA Haaaa.

When a simple child could get this math (if it was wooden blocks,and not kills to saves,) don't you think you are ignoring the main point?

Why are you ignoring the main point?. So, you have been very patient with ole doer, so far and that just sinks in the DMI.

How many saves? We are so reasonable I thought. Sky is. Buck is. You certainly are.

Will you say SAVES are 5 times the kills per year? That has got to be very reasonable, isn't it? Even 100,000 saves is 10x the straight up murder rate. And estimates range far beyond that.

So, 5 times the SAVES to kills with guns per year in the USA, is more than fair....just for discussion..don't you think?

Click to expand...

Just for argument sake, with no actual basis in reality, sure.

No one is arguing that guns don't save people. Are you suggesting that anyone has said that?

Doer said:

You have no idea, even though as I, you could look and look and sort and sort, and show a bit of interest.

But even now you are practically saying, it doesn't matter. You don't know. True. You don't want to know such an inconvenient thing. True. And that it amounts to a total negation of your entire argument, you would love to blow it off as UN-known but not relevant. HA Haaaa.

When a simple child could get this math (if it was wooden blocks,and not kills to saves,) don't you think you are ignoring the main point?

Why are you ignoring the main point?. So, you have been very patient with ole doer, so far and that just sinks in the DMI.

How many saves? We are so reasonable I thought. Sky is. Buck is. You certainly are.

Will you say SAVES are 5 times the kills per year? That has got to be very reasonable, isn't it? Even 100,000 saves is 10x the straight up murder rate. And estimates range far beyond that.

So, 5 times the SAVES to kills with guns per year in the USA, is more than fair....just for discussion..don't you think?

Click to expand...

You would first have to subtract every time a gun saved someone from another gun. You don't get brownie points for fixing a problem you created in the first place. And since 67% of murders occur via firearm, it would be relatively safe to assume that at least 67% of all times a gun stops a murder that murder would have been committed with a firearm and so you have to discount at least 67% of all "gun saves" as more of "gun neutralizes". Then you have to subtract all the times that a gun was used with deadly force in response to a crime that was committed WITHOUT deadly force, because if it prevented a crime but cost a life when no life would have been lost, that is the opposite of a "gun save"

Ace Yonder said:

Then you have to subtract all the times that a gun was used with deadly force in response to a crime that was committed WITHOUT deadly force, because if it prevented a crime but cost a life when no life would have been lost, that is the opposite of a "gun save"

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, do rocks count as deadly force or not?