Another Day, Another School Shooting

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Transylvania

"Nomenclature" never discloses his country.  Vampires come from Transylvania.  Since "Nomenclature" sucks, that's my guess. 

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

You do realize if a law had been written to legally perform a shooter abortion when a person was firing on school children the whole school shooting issue would be a thing of the past in America by application of political legal precedent.

Dee

                                     Another Day, Another School Shooting

It's a part of American culture and something they accept as a societal norm. These people think it a  perfectly normal  thing to have armed guards at schools to protect their kids, proving what a sick society they live in. What's truly hilarious is that  after every new  school shooting a local preacher arrives on the scene asking people to join hands and pray for the dead and maimed again demonstrating American lunacy at play.

Americans when asked why they feel  tge need for guns cite home  protection as number one reason yet when one states "Why ,  you don't feel safe in your own home" they immediately attack,  lie  and deny and claim  they don't need guns to feel safe they then  say " America is actually  a very safe country "

American retards like May came up with a real beauty " we don't need guns to feel safe we just need them to feel safer", such a typically ridiculous American style  reponse , we can expect nothing more really.

JulesKorngold

Here are some examples of defensive gun use in America:

* In 2016, a woman in Texas was able to scare off an intruder who had broken into her home by using a gun.

* In 2017, a man in Florida was able to stop a mass shooting at a church by using a gun.

* In 2018, a woman in Oklahoma was able to defend herself against an attacker by using a gun.

These are just a few examples of the many times that guns have been used to save lives in America. Guns can be a valuable tool for self-defense, and they can help people to protect themselves from harm.

Here are some statistics on defensive gun use in America:

* The CDC estimates that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year in the United States.

* A study by the National Research Council found that defensive gun use is common, especially among women.

* A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that defensive gun use is associated with a lower risk of injury.

The debate over gun control is a complex one, and there are valid points on both sides of the issue. It is important to weigh the pros and cons carefully before making a decision about whether or not to support gun control.

Barnardot

@Nomenclature it’s really sad really but what I want to know is why don’t they say six people including 6 adults because they have lived more longer so therefore there was more life taken a way than from the kids. I’m not trying to take a way that kids being killed isn’t horrible but when kids are in a bus then it’s polite for them to stand for adults so that’s how we give priority in society.

JoeKerr

It is very obvious that America has no intention of doing anything meaningful to prevent
these terrible acts of murder.
The politicians do a lot of hand-wringing and voice the usual platitudes after such an event, but they are all 
pathetic gestures. Nothing changes. I can only imagine that the gun lobby is too powerful and that it has too many
politicians in its pocket.
Unfortunately, it's not a case of people hoping that these shootings won't happen again, it's a case of people knowing
 for certain that they will happen again!
America's lust for guns is nothing short of pornographic.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.  Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use.  We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense.  All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home.  We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

 Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17 years, which asked questions about gun threats against and self-defense gun use by these young people.  We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents.

Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.

We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration.  Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires.  Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Nomenclature

@JoeKerr

It is very obvious that America has no intention of doing anything meaningful to prevent these terrible acts of murder.

Agreed Joe. They spend most of their time deluding themselves that guns have not become a serious and imminent danger to the public.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

There have been more than 130 mass shootings across the US so far this year, including the attack at a school in Nashville, in which three children and three adults were killed.

Figures from the Gun Violence Archive - a non-profit research database - show that the number of mass shootings has gone up significantly in recent years.

In each of the last three years, there have been more than 600 mass shootings, almost two a day on average.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081

JoeKerr

@Barnardot
What the hell are you talking about?

JoeKerr

Argument Topic: They spend most of their time deluding themselves that guns have not become a serious and imminent danger to the public.

@Nomenclature
That is the very sad truth. The gun nuts have more interest in protecting their gun rights than they have in protecting their children.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: More Than 2.5 Million Defensive Gun Use

The CDC's estimate of 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year is based on a study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The study surveyed a nationally representative sample of 5,000 adults and asked them about their experiences with guns. The study found that 2.5 million adults had used a gun for self-defense in the past year.

The study's findings have been criticized by some researchers, who argue that the sample size is too small and that the survey questions were leading. However, the study's findings have been supported by other studies, including a study by the National Research Council.

The CDC's estimate of 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year is a conservative estimate. It is likely that the actual number of defensive gun uses is higher.

John_C_87

@JoeKerr

That is the very sad truth. The gun nuts have more interest in protecting their gun rights than they have in protecting their children.

How about that, do you know why? The so-call gun enthusiasts are not the criminal and are waiting for a law which allows them to protect "our" kids in school as we would protect them at home, if necessary.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

More Than 2.5 Million Defensive Gun Use

Proven to be completely false.

In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

The claim has since become gospel for gun advocates and is frequently touted by the National Rifle Association, pro-gun scholars such as John Lott and conservative politicians. The argument typically goes something like this: Guns are used defensively “over 2 million times every year—five times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes.” Or, as Gun Owners of America states, “firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.” Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum has frequently opined on the benefits of defensive gun use, explaining: “In fact, there are millions of lives that are saved in America every year, or millions of instances like that where gun owners have prevented crimes and stopped things from happening because of having guns at the scene.”

It may sound reassuring, but is utterly false. In fact, gun owners are far more likely to end up like Theodore Wafer or Eusebio Christian, accidentally shooting an innocent person or seeing their weapons harm a family member, than be heroes warding off criminals.

In 1997, David Hemenway, a professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, offered the first of many decisive rebukes of Kleck and Getz’s methodology, citing several overarching biases in their study.

First, there is the social desirability bias. Respondents will falsely claim that their gun has been used for its intended purpose—to ward off a criminal—in order to validate their initial purchase. A respondent may also exaggerate facts to appear heroic to the interviewer.

Second, there’s the problem of gun owners responding strategically. Given that there are around 3 million members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the United States, ostensibly all aware of the debate surrounding defensive gun use, Hemenway suggested that some gun advocates will lie to help bias estimates upwards by either blatantly fabricating incidents or embellishing situations that should not actually qualify as defensive gun use.

Third is the risk of false positives from “ telescoping,” where respondents may recall an actual self-defense use that is outside the question’s time frame. We know that telescoping problems produce substantial biases in defensive gun use estimates because the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the gold standard of criminal victimization surveys, explicitly catalogs and corrects for it.

Specifically, NCVS asks questions on the household level every 6 months. The first household interview has no time frame. Follow-up interviews are restricted to a six-month time frame and then NCVS corrects for duplicates. Using this strategy, NCVS finds that telescoping alone likely produces at least a 30 percent increase in false positives.

These sorts of biases, which are inherent in reporting self-defense incidents, can lead to nonsensical results. In several crime categories, for example, gun owners would have to protect themselves more than 100 percent of the time for Kleck and Getz’s estimates to make sense. For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Getz. However, from reliable victimization  surveys, we know that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the home at the time of the crime, and only 33 percent of these had occupants who weren’t sleeping. From surveys on firearm ownership, we also know that 42 percent of U.S. households owned firearms at the time of the survey. Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertz’s paper is simply mathematically impossible.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262/

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

There have been more than 130 mass shootings across the US so far this year, including the attack at a school in Nashville, in which three children and three adults were killed. Figures from the Gun Violence Archive - a non-profit research database - show that the number of mass shootings has gone up significantly in recent years. In each of the last three years, there have been more than 600 mass shootings, almost two a day on average.

In whole truth would you say these details describes a combat situation?

John_C_87

@JoeKerr

What the hell are you talking about? 
Barnardot may be asking us in other words. How do we feel about the priority order media gives and describes a child or children having been shot and killed openly, It may be easier understood as who gets top billing between adults and child in shootings and why? The idea of the 1st Amendment assumes the connection to the entire United States Constitution that is including common defenses towards the general welfare explain publicly the process we can all reach the conclusion this process is without cost in a application of "freedom of speech" ?

Does the media, do "We the people" support that there is no possible more perfect state of the union with established justice or does the media as a united state / whole support it is not in whole truth applying the most perfect state of the union in the way it reports mass shootings at schools?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Hemenway suggested that some gun advocates will lie...

Accusing the other side of lying is a sad counterargument.

John_C_87

Accusing the other side of lying is a sad counterargument.

A person who is repeating a lie is not the as a point of whole truth. There are very limited lies being told in the Gun argument the grievance is strictly over the connection being made to established justice and its total lack of common defense towards the general welfare and tranquility of the people JulsKorngold.

JoeKerr

Argument Topic: The so-call gun enthusiasts are not the criminal and are waiting for a law which allows them to protect "our" kids in school as we would protect them at home, if necessary

@John_C_87
And the usual gun enthusiast's solution to the problem is more guns. It is well known that after
each mass shooting Americans rush out and buy more guns.
Let's just call that the insanity of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

In whole truth would you say these details describes a combat situation?

I'd say it describes a pretty insane situation. Gun violence has now overtaken cars as the number one killer of children and teens in the US. There were over 600 mass shootings last year. It is truly amazing that these events are still happening and that lawmakers continue to avoid their moral responsibility to better regulate the ownership of guns.

Nomenclature

@JoeKerr

And the usual gun enthusiast's solution to the problem is more guns. It is well known that after each mass shooting Americans rush out and buy more guns

True. The insanity of the way they think astounds me. Every time there's another school shooting you hear these complete nutbags arguing that we should arm the teachers. They blame everything except the weapons which are doing the damage.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature
Gun ownership?
What does gun ownerehip have to do with a law legalizing shooting someone with a gun who enter a school and attemps to use lethal force?

Luigi7255

@JoeKerr

Exactly, it's a Kafkaesque cycle, where someone insane does a mass shooting, everyone buys guns and quite a few become paranoid with them, then another one happens, rinse and repeat.

John_C_87

@JoeKerr
And the usual gun enthusiast's solution to the problem is more guns. It is well known that after
each mass shooting Americans rush out and buy more guns.

It is not insane it is poor choice breaking a connection to legal precedent already working so well in America as the unconstitutional idea just write a law. When promoting the killing of the school shooters legal it is what had worked in the past as a perfect state of the union for women's voting, slavery, gun ownership limitation, and more recent marijuana use.

Is that the solution of Russia and the Ukraine write a law in Russia outlawing guns?

John_C_87

I'd say it describes a pretty insane situation

No! It describes combat. Schools have become alienated as a soft target in American I would not say it describes an insane situation. I would say it is purposeful and cruel.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

"we don't need guns to feel safe we just need them to feel safer"

Is it not possible to feel safe but with an additional mitigation feel safer?  Not sure why that is a bad argument.

I feel safe on a rollercoaster with a lap bar, but i feel safer of there is also a seatbelt.

I feel safe whitewater rafting and i am a decent swimmer, but i feel safer with a lifevest.

MichaelElpers

@Nomenclature

"Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17 years, which asked questions about gun threats against and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents."

WOW! Im so suprised that adolescents who cant legally buy or own a firearm have low rates of defensive uses.

Kind of illustrates that in general the criminals bypass these laws.  So it makes perfect sense that a criminal adolescent would threaten while a regular adolescent wouldnt have one at all.

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

Is it not possible to feel safe but with an additional mitigation feel safer?  Not sure why that is a bad argument.

It's a bad argument because you can't arm yourself without simultaneously arming the guy coming to attack you. Instead of violence you now have deadly violence.

MineSubCraftStarved

@Nomenclature
To look at a rather small number of isolated cases of school shootings that account for a minuscule percentage of gun homicides each year and then use that to support an argument for pro-gun legislation is rather flimsy.
The fact of the matter is that guns provide far better defense against crime than they do provide advantages to crime. The insane proportion of DGU(defensive Gun Usage) cases versus gun crimes easily demonstrate how guns do more harm than good.
Although the argument can be made that if guns were illegal, criminals wouldn't have them, and thus the need for DGU cases would also decrease. However, this is a flawed argument as the vast majority of criminal guns are gained through non-trackable methods, like through a black market or buying from a friend.

MichaelElpers

@Nomenclature

True.  But with firearms being illegal, the person coming to attack may very well be ignoring that law and have a firearm anyway. In that case im definetly outclassed.

Additionally my argument would be the second ammendment was created primarily as a protection against tyrannical government.

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

True.  But with firearms being illegal, the person coming to attack may very well be ignoring that law and have a firearm anyway.

It doesn't often happen in practice providing there are strict sentencing guidelines, because what generally occurs is the lower tier criminals end up getting more prison time for the firearm than the crime they used the firearm to commit. For example, here we have a mandatory sentencing policy of five years for possession of a firearm, whereas most burglaries and car thefts will only get you two years. The effect is that guns only tend to remain a factor in higher level crimes (which of course are rarer), where the extra five years won't make much of a difference if you get caught. The black market dealers who were previously providing the lower tier criminals with weapons find their customer base drying up, and they don't want the danger of a huge amount of prison time when they could make a lot more money selling drugs for less risk, so guns gradually become harder to obtain anyway.

JoeKerr

Argument Topic: "we don't need guns to feel safe we just need them to feel safer"

@MichaelElpers
That's a piss poor argument.
You wear a seat belt and a life vest to help you in the event of an accident.
It is just common sense to do so just like looking both ways to ensure it's safe to walk across the road.
When I walk around my city I feel safe. You say you feel safe. How can you say you feel safe when you feel the need to carry
something that you might have to use to kill someone? You either feel safe or you don't.
You wear a seat belt and a life vest because it is not safe to not wear them, so as with your gun
you think it's not safe to not carry one so you can't say that you already felt safe. I wouldn't feel safe if I thought I might be
confronted by someone who I might have to kill before they killed me.
Only in America!

Dee

@MichaelElpers


Is it not possible to feel safe but with an additional mitigation feel safer?  Not sure why that is a bad argument.

You need to look up the term " mitigation" as it very clearly destroys the point you're trying to make. It's a pretty dreadful argument.

I feel safe on a rollercoaster with a lap bar, but i feel safer of there is also a seatbelt.

I feel unsafe on a roller coaster with a lap bar which is why I feel safer if it also has a seatbelt

I feel safe whitewater rafting and i am a decent swimmer, but i feel safer with a lifevest.

I feel unsafe whitewater rafting as I cannot swin , I would feel safer with a lifevest 


Your denials are pretty telling and why you deny the obvious is beyond me , is it because of  shame at the fact that you live in a very dysfunctional violent society where children cannot go to school without armed guards employed to protect them ?

The vast majority of Americans when asked  state they carry guns to feel safe , facts do not change because you deny them.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Defensive Use of Guns

@Nomenclature:

The vast majority of studies on defensive use of guns, for protection of life and property, show that the number of defensive uses of guns are at LEAST as great as offensive gun use.  Even the Obama Adminstration admitted that is what the majority of evidence found:

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). 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 (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).

Further, defensive gun use lowered the users injury rate compared to other self-protective strategies.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim. 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 (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).

The journal Crime & Delinquency found that resisting attempted rape with “an object, knife, or gun reduced the odds” of being raped by 91%.[See here] 

From Just Facts (which is cited by PBS, CNN, and Encyclopedia Britannica):

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[214] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[215]

That number is about twice the number of gun crimes committed in the US a year according to FBI statistics.

MichaelElpers

@JoeKerr @Dee

Thats fine is you feel unsafe without those things.

Ive been on rollercoasters without seatbelts and ive swam without a lifevest.  If i felt unsafe i wouldnt have done them.
If the feeling of safety was only a binary option, safe or unsafe, safer wouldnt be a word.

Mitgations makes things safer that doesnt mean the thing you are doing isnt safe.
There is a very very small liklihood i get hit/killed while walking (safe).  Im safer if i wear a helmet and a giant bubble suit or a siren on my head.

Wear i live the chances of encountering a bear are slim to none.  With bear spray im safer.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

You almost said: It's a bad argument because we can't arm ourself without simultaneously arming the guy coming at you. Instead of violence you now have deadly violence. 

It would depend on the state of the perfection inside any union made with United States Constitutional Right. Well other then the most obvious one taking palce now? None. 

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

The statistics are absolutely clear that when you own a gun, everybody else around you is less safe. They are also clear that when you own a gun, you are less safe, since your risk of being shot is higher.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

The vast majority of studies on defensive use of guns, for protection of life and property, show that the number of defensive uses of guns are at LEAST as great as offensive gun use

No they don't. They show the complete opposite of that.

Kleck, 2001a

Kleck has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, he has been debunked in this actual thread if you'd bothered to read through it. 

Kleck & Gertz’s study has been debunked multiple times. Its poor use of statistical analysis has been derided by anyone familiar with the subject

https://medium.com/@FromTheId/kleck-gertzs-study-has-been-debunked-multiple-times-fc24f9d82209

See:-

Hemenway, David.  Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates.  Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.  1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David.  The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events.  Chance (American Statistical Association).  1997; 10:6-10.

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David.  The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year?  Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.  1997; 16:463-469.

Also see:-

Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use.  We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

As always, the problem is that you are completely mad and cannot be reasoned with.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: National Academy of Sciences torches Nomenclatures bogus claims

@Nomenclature

No they don't. They show the complete opposite of that.

Again, even the Obama administration admits you are wrong.  

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). 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 (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).

Kleck & Gertz’s study has been debunked multiple times. Its poor use of statistical analysis has been derided by anyone familiar with the subject

The reason the Obama's gun report sites Kleck is because of the credibility.  It is a CDC study with a 95% rated probability with a +-4 percent assurance.  And its results have been replicated.  I'm sure you knew that though.  Oh, the "medium" website didn't tell you that?  Oh My!

The National Academies of Sciences 300+ page analysis of firearms studies says you are full of it.  Your counter study is addressed and ripped to shreds (starting page 102). They conclude Kleck is a more helpful starting point (pgs 102-103)  

Further as the National Academy of Science said in their findings:

As indicated above, the estimated numbers of defensive gun uses found using the NSDS have been reproduced (i.e., are statistically indistinguishable) in many other surveys. Kleck (2001a:270) suggests that replication provides ample evidence of the validity of the findings in the NSDS survey:
The hypothesis that many Americans use guns for self-protection each year has been repeatedly subjected to empirical test, using the only feasible method for doing so, survey of representative samples of the populations. The results of nineteen consecutive surveys unanimously indicate that each year huge numbers of Americans (700,000 or more) use guns for self-protection. Further, the more technically sound the survey, the higher the defensive gun use estimates. The entire body of evidence cannot be rejected based on the speculation that all surveys share biases that, on net, cause an over estimation of defensive gun use frequency because, ignoring fallacious reasoning, there is no empirical evidence to support this novel theory. At this point, it is fair to say that no intellectually serious challenge has been mounted to the case for defensive gun use being very frequent.
However, the committee strongly agrees with the main sentiment expressed by Kleck and others.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10881.

Wow, they spanked you hinny so hard its smoking.  I'm sure you'll claim that "the medium" is more credible than the National Academies of Sciences.  I wouldn't expect less of you.

MayCaesar

JoeKerr said:

@MichaelElpers
That's a piss poor argument.
You wear a seat belt and a life vest to help you in the event of an accident.
It is just common sense to do so just like looking both ways to ensure it's safe to walk across the road.
When I walk around my city I feel safe. You say you feel safe. How can you say you feel safe when you feel the need to carry
something that you might have to use to kill someone? You either feel safe or you don't.
You wear a seat belt and a life vest because it is not safe to not wear them, so as with your gun
you think it's not safe to not carry one so you can't say that you already felt safe. I wouldn't feel safe if I thought I might be
confronted by someone who I might have to kill before they killed me.
Only in America!

I have probably done over 50,000 miles of cycling throughout my life, and the number of times I have put a helmet on is exactly zero. Should I now say that every cyclist out there who wears a helmet is either paranoid or fears for their safety? Or maybe I can just be understanding of someone wanting to take an extra precaution costing barely any effort?

My impression is that most people thinking like this have never had a real conversation with someone carrying a gun with them. Try it, you might be surprised that they are not that different from you in how they feel about the world, and there are merely some superficial differences in their day-to-day choices. Someone ties their shoes one way, someone else does it differently; might just be a difference in minor habits and does not have to imply any profound wisdom about the society.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

The reason the Obama's gun report sites Kleck is because of the credibility.

Please stop making false claims and please stop repeatedly sourcing material which has been categorically debunked as the absolute goddamned nonsense it is. You are a completely insane banshee and there is nothing credible about inventing false statistics like Kleck did.

The Contradictions of the Kleck Study

https://www.vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck

Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6936&context=jclc

Kleck & Gertz’s study has been debunked multiple times.

https://medium.com/@FromTheId/kleck-gertzs-study-has-been-debunked-multiple-times-fc24f9d82209

A May 2014 Harvard Injury Control Research Center survey about firearms and suicide completed by 150 firearms researchers found that only 8% of firearm researchers agreed that 'In the United States, guns are used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

A 1998 study by Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig replicated the Kleck and Gertz survey, but also concluded that the results of these surveys were far too high.[20] A similar conclusion was reached by a 2018 RAND Corporation report, which stated that the Kleck-Gertz estimate of 2.5 million DGUs per year, and other similar estimates, "are not plausible given other information that is more trustworthy, such as the total number of U.S. residents who are injured or killed by guns each year." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

Again, even the Obama administration admits you are wrong.

I am not wrong and you are a profoundly insane individual who ignores everything you do not like. I literally just quoted data from the Harvard Injury Control Centre to prove my case you fanatically mad halfwit. YOU are the reason these mass shootings keep happening. You and your selfish refusal to accept basic common sense.

Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Self-defense gun use is rare

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Like the utterly batsh-t mad gun fanatic you are you IGNORE the conclusions of HARVARD UNIVERSITY, while you simultaneously describe the following as "credible":-

The Kleck study (1994), could very well be the most-debunked study of gun use in history.

In 20 years, no one from the far right side of the aisle has been able to reproduce these results, which should be easy, if it has any grain of truth to it. Of course, the 2.5 million DGUs is utterly ridiculous; that would be more DGUs per year than were used against the Nazis each year in World War II.

https://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/cmm35s/the_kleck_study_1994_could_very_well_be_the/

Debate with you is impossible because you simply reject objective, factual reality. You are utterly, utterly mad.

Wow, they spanked you hinny so hard its smoking.

Listen, you filthily dishonest and ridiculous fanatic, your link does not correspond to your source, as IS ABSOLUTELY TYPICAL OF YOUR DISHONEST RESPONSES. You have linked KLECK'S OWN CLAIM, not the "National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine" you UTTERLY REPREHENSIBLE CLOWN. The text you have linked is KLECK'S OWN QUOTE, which the book you have linked mentioned as part of its own study into defensive gun uses. You are purposefully misrepresenting your sources and attempting to support Kleck's patently ridiculous claims with more of Kleck's patently ridiculous claims!!!!!!!!! The actual textbook definition of circular reasoning.

The link you included takes the user to a page where they are invited to purchase the book you have taken your text from, and the text is not included in the page itself. I had to go looking for a copy of the book just so I could debunk your disgustingly fallacious circular reasoning tactics. Had you actually read this book you have attempted to falsely use as a source, you would have found these quotes from the authors themselves:-

It is widely thought that inaccurate response biases the estimates of defensive gun use. 

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10881/chapter/7#108

It is not possible to identify the prevalence of defensive gun use

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10881/chapter/7#108

Cook and Ludwig (1998), Hemenway (1997a), and others argue that these and other similar comparisons lead to “completely implausible conclusions” and go on to suggest that these inconsistencies “only buttress the presumption of massive overestimation” of defensive gun uses

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10881/chapter/7#111

Both Kellermann and Reay (1986) and Rushforth et al. (1974) compare fatalities caused by self-defense and other motivations. Both studies find that people using guns in self-defense account for a small fraction of fatalities in the home. Kellermann and Reay find that there were nearly 5 times as many homicides and 37 times as many suicides as perpetrators killed in self-defense. They go on to conclude, “The advisability of keeping a firearm in the home for protection must be questioned.”

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10881/chapter/7#111

You are such a disgustingly dishonest person that you should be ashamed to call yourself a Christian. Jesus did not advocate misleading people.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

The statistics are absolutely clear that when you own a gun, everybody else around you is less safe. They are also clear that when you own a gun, you are less safe, since your risk of being shot is higher.

The legal point is still about the transfer of any burden of lethal force from people who do not want to hold equally a United State Constitutional right and would rather higher a person to assume such risk with the use of tax dollars. An issue a President of the United States of America would have presented in an Armed Services court of law due to the laws surrounding State and Federal Courts unconstitutional conflicts of interest created by malpractice of law.

JoeKerr

@MayCaesar
People wear helmets while cycling to protect their heads if they have an accident and fall from their bikes.
They are not paranoid, they are just taking precautions.
You don't wear a helmet and choose to run the risk of a head injury should you have a fall. That is your choice.
Helmets, seatbelts, and life vests are used to help protect you in the event of an accident. Guns are of no use to
anyone involved in an accident. People carry guns to use if they are threatened with violence.
MichaelElpers says he feels safe, but he carries a gun to feel safer.
You have no idea how ridiculous that sounds to someone who comes from a country that doesn't have a gun culture.
If he feels safe he should have no need for a gun.
I can just imagine visiting America and asking someone if I would be safe walking around a certain area to be told that I would be safe
but to make sure I had my gun with me. I would be giving that place a miss.

Dee

@MichaelElpers


Thats fine is you feel unsafe without those things.

I don't,  Americans most definitely do feel unsafe without guns 

Ive been on rollercoasters without seatbelts and ive swam without a lifevest

I've lived my whole life like citizens over here never once requiring a gun 

.  If i felt unsafe i wouldnt have done them.

Using your argument the same applies if you felt safe in your own home you wouldn't require a gun


If the feeling of safety was only a binary option, safe or unsafe, safer wouldnt be a word

But the majority of Americans cite safety  as the reason they have a gun , to them the options are they feel safe with and not  without,  most feel unsafe without



Mitgations makes things safer that doesnt mean the thing you are doing isnt safe.

Mitigations make one feel safe regards guns 


There is a very very small liklihood i get hit/killed while walking (safe).  Im safer if i wear a helmet and a giant bubble suit or a siren on my head.

So why do you think the majority of Americans  require a gun to feel safe?

Wear i live the chances of encountering a bear are slim to none.  With bear spray im safer.

You carry both to feel safe , playing word games and substituting " safer" for "safe" still demonstrates you feel unsafe to start with .

Why did you think most citizens of other countries do not require guns? 

John_C_87

@Nomenclature
You are such a disgustingly dishonest person that you should be ashamed to call yourself a Christian. Jesus did not advocate misleading people.

That explains a lot...

just_sayin

@Nomenclature remained extremely butt-hurt and angry after his sources were annihilated.  Because he could could not make a sound argument

he decided to make a big argument,

not with big facts,

but with a big font.  

Please stop making false claims

Sorry bud, just cause you don't like that the Obama Administrations Gun Report said:

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). 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 (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).

And it quotes Kleck in multiple places, and for multiple reports, because it is considered a credible source.  Same goes for the National Academies of Science report.  In fact the majority of chapter 5 of the National Academies of Science report deals with the various defensive gun reports and why the one's you support are the least trustworthy, and why Kleck is closer to the truth. 

Your large print quotes appear to be from the discussion of the variance in the definition of defensive gun use and the methods used to calculate it in chapter 5.  The 'BIAS' mentioned is actually referring to your own reports.  The authors do not agree with you that your method is best.  Again, the money quote;

However, the committee strongly agrees with the main sentiment expressed by Kleck and others.

As the NAS put it;

As indicated above, the estimated numbers of defensive gun uses found using the NSDS have been reproduced (i.e., are statistically indistinguishable) in many other surveys. Kleck (2001a:270) suggests that replication provides ample evidence of the validity of the findings in the NSDS survey: The hypothesis that many Americans use guns for self-protection each year has been repeatedly subjected to empirical test, using the only feasible method for doing so, survey of representative samples of the populations. The results of nineteen consecutive surveys unanimously indicate that each year huge numbers of Americans (700,000 or more) use guns for self-protection. Further, the more technically sound the survey, the higher the defensive gun use estimates. The entire body of evidence cannot be rejected based on the speculation that all surveys share biases that, on net, cause an over estimation of defensive gun use frequency because, ignoring fallacious reasoning, there is no empirical evidence to support this novel theory. At this point, it is fair to say that no intellectually serious challenge has been mounted to the case for defensive gun use being very frequent. Certainly, the numerous surveys reveal some phenomena. 

You tried to misrepresent the reports and failed - again.  Now go to a doctor and get some butt-salve for the burns you got from the spanking given to you from the vast majority of the literature on defensive gun use.  You tried to your way through this argument and you failed - bigly.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

he decided to make a big argument,

not with big facts,

but with a big font.

Yet another false claim. You're really racking them up here, aren't you? My argument is stuffed full of facts, and the big font is to try to get them through your dishonest, delusional skull. I'm surprised you even had the audacity to came back here after I literally just caught you trying to pass off one of Kleck's own quotes as independent corroboration of his debunked claims!! You deliberately tried to mislead people about the source of your quote!! Don't you feel even a twang of shame about being so repulsively dishonest?

Sorry bud, just cause you don't like that the Obama Administrations Gun Report said:

You just won't stop misrepresenting everything you read, will you? Not only do you keep continuously quoting an author whose work has been systematically debunked, and literally ignoring the Harvard research which debunks him, but you are going even further and adding your own emphasis to text!!! Your text says that the statistics are heavily disputed, so you can't then rely on the same disputed statistics to make a claim like, "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals", because that's a direct contradiction to what you've just stated (i.e. that the statistics are disputed). It's yet more of the typical circular reasoning which permeates every argument you make. Here is false claim x, and false claim x must be true because it says so in false claim x.

You're insane, and if you're simply going to ignore all the research I post which contradicts your insane opinions and misrepresent the sources you use in response, then this conversation is simply pointless because you're a fanatic. The figures you are attempting to use are not simply wrong; they are mathematically impossible:-

For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Getz. However, from reliable victimization  surveys, we know that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the home at the time of the crime, and only 33 percent of these had occupants who weren’t sleeping. From surveys on firearm ownership, we also know that 42 percent of U.S. households owned firearms at the time of the survey. Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertz’s paper is simply mathematically impossible.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262/

And the sound debunking of your fantasy continues:-

In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

It may sound reassuring, but is utterly false. In fact, gun owners are far more likely to end up like Theodore Wafer or Eusebio Christian, accidentally shooting an innocent person or seeing their weapons harm a family member, than be heroes warding off criminals.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262/

It is on you that kids are being shot dead every day and you can answer for it to God, you truly insane, fanatical halfwit.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

People citing safety and feeling safe are two different things.

I wear a helmet for safety, but i ride my bike plenty times without it and I still feel safe but wearing a helmet makes me safer.

So just because you site safety doesnt mean you feel unsafe.

I think you need to read childrens books that teach comparitives and superlatives.
...
Fast, faster, fastest.  All are fast but one is fastest.

Safe, safer, safest all are safe but one is safest.

Finally i provide a math example. Doing act X only has a 0.0000001 percent chance of causing injury.  Thats pretty safe.
But using object Y increases the safety. ...SAFER.

just_sayin

@Nomenclature
You are quoting Politico and I'm quoting the CDC, the National Academies of Science, and the Obama Administration's Gun Report.  Your first quote makes a bunch of false assumptions.  Again, this is addressed in chapter 5 of the NAS report; try reading it - https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/10881. ; Your bias source is defining defensive gun use in an extremely limited manner, and had you read the report, you'd already know that.  Its a non-standard definition used by those who don't want to admit the scope of defensive gun use.

The second quote is just bad science and again uses a non-standard definition of "defensive gun use"..  If you read the NAS it is highly critical of your conclusion and definition.

Further as the NAS report states:

The results suggest interesting associations: victims who use guns defensively are less likely to be harmed than those using other forms of selfprotection. 

MayCaesar

JoeKerr said:

@MayCaesar
People wear helmets while cycling to protect their heads if they have an accident and fall from their bikes.
They are not paranoid, they are just taking precautions.
You don't wear a helmet and choose to run the risk of a head injury should you have a fall. That is your choice.
Helmets, seatbelts, and life vests are used to help protect you in the event of an accident. Guns are of no use to
anyone involved in an accident. People carry guns to use if they are threatened with violence.
MichaelElpers says he feels safe, but he carries a gun to feel safer.
You have no idea how ridiculous that sounds to someone who comes from a country that doesn't have a gun culture.
If he feels safe he should have no need for a gun.
I can just imagine visiting America and asking someone if I would be safe walking around a certain area to be told that I would be safe
but to make sure I had my gun with me. I would be giving that place a miss.

Exactly: just taking precautions. Not necessarily responding to feeling unsafe. One can feel safe riding a bicycle without a helmet on, yet still choose to put on a helmet just in case.

I fail to see the relevance of the distinction you make between an accident and a threat of violence. In both cases one's safety is compromised, and in both cases one may take some precautions to increase it.

One may carry a gun to be safer, not feel safer. Again, one may feel perfectly safe without a gun or a helmet on, yet take an extra precaution. They may have no "need" for a gun, but still choose to carry one. People do not only do things that they need to do.
Ridiculous, you say? Perhaps. Wearing a helmet when cycling may sound ridiculous to me as well as I grew up in a culture where it was normal for a 9 year old kid to hop on a rusty bicycle and go into the woods alone for a few hours, getting in trouble (I realize that in many Western countries it is highly illegal for a parent to let it happen; one of the few advantages of growing up in a shitty country is not being helicoptered by adults). Yet I recognize that societal cultures differ and individual cultures differ as well, and something that I may see as excessive when it comes to safety someone else may see as natural, or even not think about it at all and just do it out of habit.

Playing the Uno Reverse card, I would also ask whether it should sound ridiculous to someone living in a country where people do not shudder at the thought of a stranger carrying a gun on them that in another country they do. Perhaps one should find it ridiculous that in the UK a person cannot feel safe on the street if they are not sure that their government does everything it can to strip everyone around them of any means of harming them. What kind of society is that in which you cannot trust your neighbor to not murder you should they have the means to do so?
I jest, but were I to employ the kind of thinking you exhibit, it seems that this is the line of reasoning I would be just to propose.