StarGateWars Forums

yes, you didn't catch my joke about people shooting each other because they're cheating or having a debate (like we are doing, but i wouldn't shoot you). Instead of focusing on my point that guns are usually used for self defense in domestic issues.

decided to jump on my silly elaboration on that point

now lets here why you think the two sources i posted are so flawed?

Ill illustrate to you now how all your "facts" are out of context and would not count as proof in a formal analysis of the issue

1. Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.
   Does this take into account police officers, or only civilians. guidelines for unholstering differ among states and juristictions; it is part of an LEO's duty to seek out crime..... they draw weapons even when they are not directly under assault... If leo's are used in the "fact" it is blatantly misleading NO context= irrelevant
   
2. Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that
   they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.
   Same issue as first
3. Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.
   Same issue as first "fact" and "saving a life" is high contextual.
4. The rate of defensive gun use is six times that of criminal gun use.
   Again this is probably using LEO statistics
   
5. After the implementation of Canada's 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun
   possession for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing
   the American rate.
   Correlation /= Causation, fact is irrelvant with no context or proof of causal relationship
   
6. “...most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are
   about running into the police.”
   Highly contextual, Was this inferred from criminal testimony or were criminals asked directly, what was the sample size of criminals asked, how were they polled, Were they violent criminals, j-walkers.... No context = irrelevant
   
7. You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with agun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:
   
   • Resisting with a gun 6%
   • Did nothing at all 25%
   • Resisted with a knife 40%
   • Non-violent resistance 45%
   Were police statistics used... most civillian assaults involving a firearm result in the death of the victim regardless if they are armed our not. Because the victime will have no time to respond giving the speed at which you a firearm assault occurs. But don't take my word for yourself int the extremly credible American Journal of Public Health,
   
8. When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are
   completed, compared to 32% when the woman was unarmed.
   What are the chances of a women being raped, is this statistic higher or lower than that of "negligent discharge?" this directly contridicts American Journal of Public Health, and My source on firearms and violence a critical review (which is from 2004, not 1979 lol)
   
9. Arthur Kellerman, a researcher whose work is often cited by gun control groups
   said “If you've got to resist, your chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your
   weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand?
   Yeah.”
   [color=#00FF00]Irelevant, no context
   
10. 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they
    knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided
    committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.172
    Again irrelavent, no context.. what crimes... what felons .. where?
    
11. Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because
    they fear being shot.
    see above
    
12. 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot
    burglaries” which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the
    owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot
    burglary” rate of only 13%.
    Irrelavent these two things are not shown to be conected Corelation /= causation,
    
13. 66% of police chiefs believe that citizens carrying concealed firearms reduce rates
    of violent crime.
    
    Irrelevant, doesn;t matter what the "beleive", maybe the other 36% percent are right, (64% of americans beleive ghosts are real )
14. In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.
    The city's murder rate rose 134 percent through 1996 while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

AGAIN JACK; correlation /= causation

Compare your crime rate with those of my country, england, france, italy, spain..... Don't cherry pick differences you beleive illustrate you point; you have to consider all the applicable data. You will see your guns do nothing and they are all comprable with one another.

Then tell me, Thriller, what source did you base this statement on?

Thriller wrote:YOu know what the most common crime a civi weapon is used in, for defence or deterance?.... If you guessed domestic violence, your right. Mostly it involves shooting your cheating husband/wife to getting it from the drawer to settle a heated argument...

Thriller wrote:1. Does this take into account police officers, or only civilians. guidelines for unholstering differ among states and juristictions; it is part of an LEO's duty to seek out crime..... they draw weapons even when they are not directly under assault... If leo's are used in the "fact" it is blatantly misleading NO context= irrelevant
2. Same issue as first
3. Same issue as first "fact" and "saving a life" is high contextual.

The statistic is based on civilian use.

Thriller wrote:4. Again this is probably using LEO statistics

Nope, same as above.

Thriller wrote:5. Correlation /= Causation, fact is irrelvant with no context or proof of causal relationship

You're right, it doesn't. But that also does not change the fact that it hints at it. So if you disagree, then why don't you show us what you believe the cause to be. But the criminals were felons.

Thriller wrote:6. Highly contextual, Was this inferred from criminal testimony or were criminals asked directly, what was the sample size of criminals asked, how were they polled, Were they violent criminals, j-walkers.... No context = irrelevant

Why don't you check the source?

Thriller wrote:7. Were police statistics used... most civillian assaults involving a firearm result in the death of the victim regardless if they are armed our not. Because the victime will have no time to respond giving the speed at which you a firearm assault occurs. But don't take my word for yourself int the extremly credible American Journal of Public Health,

It was violent assault victims, not shooting victims.

Thriller wrote:8. What are the chances of a women being raped, is this statistic higher or lower than that of "negligent discharge?" this directly contridicts American Journal of Public Health, and My source on firearms and violence a critical review (which is from 2004, not 1979 lol)

You tell me.

Thriller wrote:9. Irelevant, no context

The context is that this is the man that conducted the study that claims guns are primarily used in domestic violence.

Thriller wrote:10. Again irrelavent, no context.. what crimes... what felons .. where?

I provided sources. Check them.

Thriller wrote:11. see above

Ibid

Thriller wrote:12. Irrelavent these two things are not shown to be conected Corelation /= causation,

Prove that these are not connected.

Thriller wrote:AGAIN JACK; correlation /= causation

Prove they're not connected.

Thriller wrote:Compare your crime rate with those of my country, england, france, italy, spain..... Don't cherry pick differences you beleive illustrate you point; you have to consider all the applicable data. You will your guns do nothing and they are all comprable with one another.

What about Canada, Mexico and Switzerland? Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates for any country, and yet they also have one of the highest gun ownership rates.

England has lower murder and rape than the U.S. I believe, but outrageously more crime in the other categories. Particularly robbery and home invasions/burglary. Again, I point you to point number 12 in my post.

Canada's murder rate, while lower, is still fairly close that of the U.S. However, the rape and burglary rates are significantly higher.

Mexico is a joke when it comes to law enforcement.

IDK about the others. Nor do I really care, this isn't really about France, Spain or Italy. It's about the U.S.

No context = no proof jack... it's no up to me to provide context you're making the argument that carnying a gun around makes you safer,

i provided source material where i posted the conclusion( or summary). You just picked "facts" out of random readings and posted them (there is a difference).

I also don't have to prove correlation wrong where no causal relationship exists or is demonstrated to exist. Because correlation does not equal causation.

Here is a review of your crappy source from Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995 and their telephone study into self defense involving a firearms

Self-report surveys of rare events easily lead to huge overestimates [Page 1444] of the true incidence of such events, particularly if the event in question has some potential social desirability. Researchers who claim that such survey incidence data are accurate must show how they have eliminated the enormous problem of false positives. Kleck and Gertz do not accept, let alone meet, this burden of proof. Their survey methodology does not ensure a Specificity rate of well over 99%. Attempts to determine the external validity of their estimates only buttress the presumption of massive overestimation. The conclusion seems inescapable: the Kleck and Gertz survey results do not provide reasonable estimates about the total amount of self-defense gun use in the United States.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

From Northwestern University School of Law & David Hemenway

They took a small sample size and projected it onto the entire country. Using some kind of stupid made up equation to come to that 2.5 million number

People could have lied on the phone...
They could have took samples from the same region...
It's retarded guestimation....
And here i was thinking you might have got that number from a reputable study.

Also
Guns reduce burglary but increase murder rates? that was the most convoluted analysis yet.

the fact you believe my countries rape burglary rate our "significantly" higher illustrates you don't know what your talking about. Even more so the fact your delusional enough to admit your high murder rate but brush it off as not that big a deal and go on like my country is the one with the "real" problems.

"types of assaults receive different classifications and laws in Canada and the US making comparisons more difficult than homicides. At the time the U.S. crime of aggravated assault could be compared to the sum of three Canadian crimes (aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and attempted murder). This comparison had a predicted bias that would inflate the Canadian numbers by only 0.1%. The study also concluded that directly comparing the 2 countries' reported total crime rate (i.e. total selected crimes) was "inappropriate" since the totals include the problem data sets as well as the usable sets.[6] For reasons like these homicides have been favored in international studies looking for predictors of crime rates (predictors like economic inequality). "

Source; 2001 statistics Canada.

Carrying guns around doesn't make you safer jack or deter crime... your grasping at straws. With all the stuff i have posted it must have at least cast some doubt in your mind jack.

Lol Yall texans sure love dem guns eh?