The plan was to steal tools. Then customers drew their guns

Well yes it was originally about the theft of three nail guns and the attempts by armed bystanders to stop the thieves.

 

Yes that uses the Klick excerpt quoted in the CDC study to justify the claim that guns save more lives than they cost. The CDC study does not verify the Kilck study in any way. Here is the actual section from the CDC study:

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). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

Or to put it simply the number of gun deaths is a hard number while the number of lives saved is very very soft and based on a dubious extrapolation of data.

 

Nah. Just proves that people are less and less likely to honestly answer questions from strangers about whether or not they own guns. If you were a poller, the chances of getting me on the phone are slim, because I don't answer unknown numbers. If somehow you did, I'd flat out lie to you if you asked me about what if any firearms I own. And 100% of firearms owners I've had this discussion with have said exactly the same, at least about the lying part. Due to business/employment reasons, not all of them have the luxury of ignoring unknown numbers, lest they let potential customers disappear. I don't have that problem, though I hope I will again someday. Gotta learn how to walk again first, though.

 

Well that quibble would have applied consistantly over time. In fact with the new Republican pro gun ascendancy households should be much more willing to admit owning guns than in the past. But if the data goes against you it always is a goid try to question the data.

Of course then you have to apply the same logic to the Kleck data on defensive gun use but wouldn't that be inconvenient for the claim that defensive gun use saves more lives than guns take.

 

Actually it is the CDC study. In it's entirety. Paid for by Obama.

 

Lol. How supremely stupid.

 

True but the NRA and it's supporters do keep pushing for more guns despite the facts.

 

I have already outlined this issue. Your government needs to step up and quit leaving your people destitute with no way out but by criminal means.

If there are fewer guns in circulation then the bottom should be evident. If you are referring to "law-abiding" gun owners suddenly becoming "criminal" gun owners then your population isn't very "law-abiding" after all. Breaking the law is always illegal.

 

I presented dates you presented none. Show me something that falsifies the study I presented it you are rejecting evidence to remain steadfast in disproven beliefs.

 

I guess you are calling a school mass shooting a single act of violence rather than regarding the number of deaths as a number of acts of violence. You're either outright lying, or just making unwarranted (and flat out wrong) assumptions.

 

You didn't present any study. You posted a link that I just quoted from to show that the Kleck data is flawed. Nothing in the study shows that guns prevent more deaths than they cause except the quote from Kleck.

 

So what data do you have?

 

This is a ridiculous statement. You don't really know what an amendment is or what the term means.

amend
/əˈmɛnd/
verb
To make minor changes to (a text, piece of legislation, etc.) in order to make it fairer or more accurate, or to reflect changing circumstances.

Open the newspaper every day for proof. It cannot be denied that the powerful gun manufacturers' agenda in playing the gun-related murder rate less than what it actually is ... is crystal clear. That is where "biased opinion pieces passed off as being studies" can be found.

The destitute. This what you call EVERYONE?

Exactly my point. You are comparing the U.S. with the third world and using it as your proof of the U.S. "being so much better than any other nation" and ignoring all of those nations that are superior to the U.S. as though they do not exist.

It is unbelievable that you can twist up your own definition (or summarize it) and come up with this counter-definition to the philosophy of Democracy.

 

* Four gunmen murdered 4 people last month in four separate incidents.
* This month one gunman shot up a high school killing 37 in a single incident.

BOTTOM LINE; Gun-related incidents causing death fell sharply!

 

Disagree. 10, 20, 30 years ago, the option to "not answer an unrecognized number" didn't exist. Who was calling? Mom? Dad? Grandma? Girlfriend/boyfriend? Bill collector? Scam artist? Pollster? Prank calling teenager from next door? No way to know, you just had to pick up and take your chances. As for the firearm question(s), back in the day people were generally more trusting and more likely to answer truthfully. It's equally true that firearms have been demonized over that same time. My high school had a rifle team. Students routinely drove themselves to school with a rifle or two in the rack in the back of their pickup and nobody cared, much less had them arrested for a felony and ****ed up their entire life.

Pollsters are going to have to change their methods, though I don't have the first suggestion how. But the days of just calling random numbers and getting roughly statistically accurate numbers are over.

 

The high school I went to, students always had trucks in the parking lot with rifles in the back window. And we didn't even have a rifle team.

 

In Chicago alone there is easily double that number on one weekend. Routinely. How come you don't ever mention those deaths when preaching the evils of firearms?

 

I have absolutely NO IDEA what you are trying to tell me. Please explain or forever hold your peace.

 

Except for the fact that there is no actual proof to support this statement, and demonstrate it as being one of fact. It is nothing more than an assumption.

 

None of which changes the facts of the matter. A constitutional amendment cannot undo precedent established by the united state supreme court.

Once again, nothing more than opinion pieces that do match the findings released by the FBI pertaining to incidents of crime.

Is it not the case?

And yet if one looks closely, even these nations have individuals seeking to immigrate to the united states.

Democracy is nothing more than mob violence operating under the guise of legitimacy.

 

That is twice now you have said the same thing ....... "to undo" ..... which VERY CLEARLY proves that you do not understand what an amendment is or what it means.

 

I think maybe your English is not very good.

 

Just because they haven't been used doesn't mean they are unnecessary. A lot of times just having one is a preventative against crime.

 

So you think everyone you meet is either a nut case who might kill you or a criminal who might rob you.

 

I'm sure you don't, smh