Why do many pro 2ndA just default between all guns v no guns

You bet I think it is bad since it leads to an increase in jury and death and a belief that you are defenceless without a gun

 

Yeh, that would be awesome. Find the minute mark where there is evidence to support this claim of yours.

 

What exactly were we supposed to get from your link? It’s to a book we can’t see anything of but the front cover!

Are you advertising for University of Michigan Press or for Amazon?

 

@Bowerbird,

Since you aren’t terribly familiar with your link I’ll help. The discussion of self defense stories begins at 12:50 mark.

 

Wow! Want me to……..

But it just proves that you have NOT watched it - mark is around 12.40 when they talk of “generating gun stories”

 

You beat me to it I had the post ready to go.

 

I’ve watched it more than once. I’m asking for the time stamp where there is ANY mention of fabricating or inventing stories. Please provide it.


I’m uninterested in your opinions. I want evidence.

 

It is actually the main page of the Harvard Injury Control Research centre - and thank you for actually clicking on it. If you click on the side bar where it says “Homicide” it opens to this

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

One of many research studies supporting “more guns = more gun deaths”

Bottom line - people are idiots and cannot be trusted not to choke cleaning their teeth but the the saddest is that the American public in general are paying and paying and paying for the horrific morbidity caused by firearms

 

How could I possibly know the Aussie bloke requested $10M and was offered $100 if I hadn’t watched it? How could I quote the $15-20K number one person said manufacturers MAY offer if I hadn’t watched it?

 

Oh, yes that old research again from the early 2000’s you posted awhile back to address studies I posted from 2020 and 2021 and 2019 studies by the CDC on self defense use of firearms.

Sure there is correlation to be found between firearms and firearm deaths and murders. There is also a plethora of inverse correlation. Illinois has less firearm ownership than South Dakota by not quite half. Yet SD overall firearm death rates are lower as well as firearm homicide rates.

Rural areas have firearm ownership rates double urban areas yet don’t have double the firearm death rates. Racial demographics with the highest firearm ownership rates have the lowest death rates. And on and on.

When you have this level of inverse correlation you can’t pick out a few cases of positive correlation and extrapolate causation. As I’ve pointed out before, even your Hemenway fella won’t allege causation! And he’s the guy I’ve also pointed out uses incorrect Australian suicide data where suicides are counted as accidental deaths in his “research”. Your above links are mostly his work. He’s looser with facts than Wayne LaPierre.

 

She admits to providing the stories. “Ghost writing” them but giving them to local sheriffs so it “looks organic” Now this also comes back to the proven over estimation of Defensive Gun Use.

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

But again the thing that made me hugely suspicious of all these stories about DGUs is that for there to be so many in America (2-5 a week was recommended)

 

She admits to providing the stories. “Ghost writing” them but giving them to local sheriffs so it “looks organic” Now this also comes back to the proven over estimation of Defensive Gun Use.

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

But again the thing that made me hugely suspicious of all these stories about DGUs is that for there to be so many in America (2-5 a week was recommended)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/3/26/how-to-sell-a-massacre-nras-playbook-revealed

 

Mate - I don’t read all your posts because, quite frankly, I find them…………..

My patience is ebbing fast here as well

You should tip your hat to any researcher honest enough to admit that correlation does nor necessarily equal causation- he is being truthful - which is more than I can say for many of his detractors

You have pointed out that rural areas do not fit the “more guns more gun death” correlate but there could be a lot of factors influencing that up to and including the fact you know your neighbours, there is less overall crime etc etc

if you are that passionate - publish a research paper on it

I am sure the NRA would fund you

 

Thanks for proving my point that the money being offered by the NRA makes the poor ols anti gun lobby look feeble

 

No. PLEASE WATCH YOUR VIDEO. She clearly states the articles are written with input from the law enforcement agencies. There is NO evidence the stories are “invented” as you claimed! NONE.

Here is the quote from your link. Nothing about inventing stories unless you are accusing law enforcement of fabricating the stories.

So NOTHING about inventing stories as you claimed.

You realize the above sources you have presented are based on smaller scale surveys than the studies they purpose to debunk? Or did you not read your source again? Also, the most recent data from the largest survey data set yet National Firearms Survey 2021 show 1.6M defensive uses. Your links are all smaller scale surveys from years ago.

You can be suspicious all you want, but even your OWN VIDEO reports on law enforcement agencies being involved in reporting on these events. Are you saying the law enforcement agencies are lying?

 

So Hemenway is being truthful by not claiming causation. But you have claimed causation. Are you being truthful? Do you have information Hemenway is unaware of? If so please present it.

And no he isn’t truthful. As I pointed out to you before with documentation the data on suicides he used from Australia is corrupted.

You find my posts to be based on facts and logic. I call out your disinformation and misinformation as well and I can understand that must be upsetting. You have made numerous false statements just in this latest exchange. You’ve claimed Bloomberg doesn’t lobby and I posted the official lobbying expenditures reported BY his organization. You claimed your video exposed invented stories of self defense. That was an outright fabrication on your part as nothing like that appears in your video. You also claimed Aussies were offered more than Bloomberg spends on lobbying but all the Aussies were offered was a measly $100.

YES! You are starting to catch on. Access to guns does NOT cause violence or death, neither is it highly correlated with same. Because there are MANY factors much more determinate of violence than access to firearms. Yet here you are every day claiming more guns=more deaths when I’ve pointed out MANY cases where there isn’t even correlation.

I don’t need to publish a study. They already exist in sufficient amount. There is plenty of data refuting the more guns=more deaths false premise.

I’m also uninterested in funding from the NRA. I loath the institution. Have since childhood.

 

Ummm. No. I already pointed out Bloomberg alone spends half what the NRA spends. Then there is Soros with several million a year (depending on the election cycle) and sometimes Gates with a million or so per year.

The NRA didn’t offer your Aussie blokes any money. They were offered $100 by a random dude which blows your claim that they were offered much more than the NRA spends on lobbying out of the water.

Please try and post more facts and less disinformation. Unless of course you don’t want ANYONE to take you seriously.

 

In other words she wasn’t lying - just “fibbing”.

Same level of honesty as Tucker Carlson.

I still stand by the fact that these stories are a purely American phenomena. If there were so many necessary DGUs then why are there not more murdered and raped Aussies and Brits? (Oh and please do not try to compare our rape stats as ours are counted differently- here the category is “sexual assault” and can include “goosing” someone. Certainly Trump “grab em by the …..” would have had him see a serious charge

But our murder rate is a fraction of yours. Same with the Brits and pretty much every other industrialised nation



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

All I see here is you trying to avoid the question, because you know the answer negates your position.

You're trying to correlate the number of guns to the number of deaths; as such the number of guns NOT used to kill someone is at least as important as the number of gun which are.

Thus, again:
Yesterday, ~124 firearms were used to kill someone.
How many were not?

 

In other words...
You don't mind people selling dead kids, so long as you like the product.

 

No. Nobody is lying about defensive firearm use. Your own link verified this. Nor is anyone fibbing. It’s a common journalistic practice. It’s legal and when done with collaboration it’s ethical as well. Are you going to say Biden was fibbing the State of the Union address because he didn’t write the thing?

DGU is illegal in Australia. Even pepper spray for self defense is illegal. Any person with a brain who took any action of self defense in Australia would keep their mouth shut. If they didn’t they would either go to jail or spend years and much money trying to avoid jail.

But the main reason reason firearm crime rates and defensive use are higher here is because we are far more violent on average.

We have a place in the US with no guns. It’s prison. The homicide rate there is 3/100,000. In Australia the TOTAL death rate in prison (including homicide) is 0.17/100,000. That means our homicide rate where there are NO guns exceeds your total mortality rate in a place with NO guns by seventeen TIMES.

Your argument is essentially Australians are mostly violent folks. The only thing holding them back from murder and destruction is firearm law that I’ve shown didn’t decrease homicide rates after it’s passage. Such a belief is patently absurd. If Australians had more access to firearms little would change. The people wishing to do violence already have access to firearms as I’m sure you know. Just look at the increased firearm violence in certain areas of Australia.

Of course there are many identified factors that contribute to violent behavior in which the US leads the world. Including but not limited to obesity, fatherlessness, sugar consumption, etc.

When was the last time you heard someone claiming to be fighting firearm violence complain that the children of single parents who take a partner not the biological parent are 40 times more likely to be physically or sexually abused than children in a two biological parent home.? When single parents cohabitate with a partner unrelated to their children, those children are 50 times more likely to die of inflicted abuse injuries than children in two biological parent homes.


Childhood abuse has been known to be associated with violent crime for decades. Now medical science is teasing out the causal pathways, one of which is lowered plasma oxytocin levels in criminal adults abused as children.


When was the last time you heard a politician complain about sexual abuse being associated with a 4 fold increase in suicide planning in young people and advocate for stronger two parent families to prevent that sexual abuse?

The US has child abuse and neglect rates over double those in Australia. Should we be surprised our prison homicide death rate eclipses your total prison mortality rate by a factor of 17–with no guns in either prison?

Probably never going to hear that from anyone but me. Unfortunately the narratives you accept are not science based nor are they concerned about actual reduction of violence. And VIOLENCE is the problem here whether guns exist or not.

 

Since you seem to want to discuss honestly let’s do that. I really know nothing about Tucker Carlson or his honesty. I don’t consume that kind of content.

But I can address the honesty of the video you presented. And your honesty in this exchange.

First, your video seems to have a problem with AR-15s specifically. The first disinformation about them in your video was the claim made that 35 people were killed with an AR-15 in the Port Arthur massacre. This is blatantly false. And a reporter who supposedly researched the video for 3 years included this disinformation to push an anti AR-15 narrative.

Next, the video claims AR-15s are used in war alongside tanks and RPGs. This is false. Then the claim was made tanks and RPGs can’t be owned legally in the US and because of this fact AR-15s shouldn’t be allowed either. But tanks and RPGs are most certainly legal. They are as easy to own as a suppressor and I legally own several suppressors. I don’t own tanks and RPGs because I have no practical use for them.

Finally, the whole notion AR-15s are the problem with mass shootings is absurd. Handguns have been used in twice the number of mass shootings than rifles of ALL kinds put together. If saving lives is really the goal of your journalist from your video, emphasis on AR-15s is not logical.

Perhaps Tucker Carlson says things that are demonstrably false. I don’t know. But your journalist you fawn over certainly does! Why do you not care?

On to your dishonesty. You claimed to have watched the video yet you made numerous claims about the content that are patently false. You claimed the Aussie pro gun folks were offered far more than Bloomberg spends on lobbying. Yet the facts are that Bloomberg spends between $1M and $2M annually and the Aussie was offered $100!

You claimed self defense stories in the media were invented and your video had evidence. That was a false statement on your part. Nowhere is the allegation of invention made in your video. In fact, it has someone ON TAPE saying the stories are written in collaboration with law enforcement. They are actual true stories with the outlines done by US law enforcement agencies. The only “invention” of stories was done by you.

So it’s fascinating you feel the need to use Carlson as a strawman argument when you and your sources are purveyors of blatant disinformation yourselves. Assuming Carlson is dishonest as you claim, that doesn’t excuse your dishonesty or that of your chosen sources.

Nor does bringing Trump into the conversation as a strawman negate the fact Australian rape stats are as goofy as calling suicide accidental death.


In Australia it’s never rape—the women have a “duty” to put out. Australia is the second most misogynistic country—big surprise there huh? Second only to Muslim majority and official religion Malaysia.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/australian-men-rank-among-most-misogynistic/

How can you keep stats on rape if unwilling sex is the duty of women in Australia? I don’t think such a culture in a country where women can’t even carry pepper spray is something to brag about. I suspect there would have to be some kind of reporting system like your counting self hangings as accidental deaths to mitigate that stat. Doesn’t really matter though in this context. Has nothing to do with the violence problem in the US.

When I see some effort on your part to post honest sources and some effort on your part to be honest in your posting I may have an interest in your strawman arguments about Tucker or Trump. Until then refrain from these strawmen because I don’t know anything about the one and don’t like the other. Your opinions on them are of no interest to me. What interests me is the disinformation you post and link to.

 

as I have often noted, it is understandable that anti gun posters tell so many falsehoods because the entire foundation for their anti gun advocacy is not the reason that they claim motivates them.

 

Yeppers. Furthermore, as I have often noted, if progressives didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

 

If its not worth it, then stop making constitutional law claims.