Given that the "pro-gun" arguments are based upon bullshit which doesn't stand scrutiny--this makes total sense.
As I said, an actual read of primary source material on the Second Amendment shows the issue was civilian control of the military whether that is the professional, standing army, or the amateur, civilian militias.
Anyway, it looks bad to say there are 2.5 million DGUs when the actual number comes out to be insignificant (e.g the 300 or so for this year) .
But we see when you count DGUs you exclude cases where the assailant was drunk or hopped up on drugs. Because defending yourself against a violent person is ok, but if they’re violent AND drunk, you should let them have your way with you, because they might be confused or something.
But hey, this post is about the value of CDC research. Why not just go with what they say about DGUs?
NO, the only ones I exclude are those which don't meet the requirements of lethal threat or the threat of serious bodily harm.
Why I don't accept any of the DGU estimates, including that of the CDC, is because they have no way of quantifying the percentage of people who exaggerate the threat in order to justify what they've done. Naturally you deny this every happens because I have no proof, but reasonable people understand that gun owners who take their guns out in a heated moment are sometimes wrong and naturally attempt to cover that up afterwards.
I actually agree with you that the methods used can lead to false reports, but to use that to say 99.9% of the CDC's numbers are not legit is way ridiculous and undermines your point. And we can see that you can't see things objectively by some of the clear DGU cases that you call questionable for no reason other than "it's natural for someone to coverup their crimes, so it must have been murder".
Well, that's not a very fair distillation of what I say about DGUs. I do question them. You're the one who's biased in refusing to admit that some of them are lying about what happened in order to justify their actions.
"Anyway, it looks bad to say there are 2.5 million DGUs when the actual number comes out to be insignificant (e.g the 300 or so for this year) ."
And what is your "primary source material" for your claim of "300 or so [defensive gun uses] for this year"?
Plus, I can hardly wait to see how investigators counted all the events that people never reported. (People that don't trust police don't report such incidents.)
Given that the "pro-gun" arguments are based upon bullshit which doesn't stand scrutiny--this makes total sense.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, an actual read of primary source material on the Second Amendment shows the issue was civilian control of the military whether that is the professional, standing army, or the amateur, civilian militias.
Anyway, it looks bad to say there are 2.5 million DGUs when the actual number comes out to be insignificant (e.g the 300 or so for this year) .
The famous 2.5 million report included people who shot at snakes and one woman who reported one DGU each week.
DeleteAnd the gun nuts keep pushing this bullshit.
But we see when you count DGUs you exclude cases where the assailant was drunk or hopped up on drugs. Because defending yourself against a violent person is ok, but if they’re violent AND drunk, you should let them have your way with you, because they might be confused or something.
DeleteBut hey, this post is about the value of CDC research. Why not just go with what they say about DGUs?
NO, the only ones I exclude are those which don't meet the requirements of lethal threat or the threat of serious bodily harm.
DeleteWhy I don't accept any of the DGU estimates, including that of the CDC, is because they have no way of quantifying the percentage of people who exaggerate the threat in order to justify what they've done. Naturally you deny this every happens because I have no proof, but reasonable people understand that gun owners who take their guns out in a heated moment are sometimes wrong and naturally attempt to cover that up afterwards.
I actually agree with you that the methods used can lead to false reports, but to use that to say 99.9% of the CDC's numbers are not legit is way ridiculous and undermines your point. And we can see that you can't see things objectively by some of the clear DGU cases that you call questionable for no reason other than "it's natural for someone to coverup their crimes, so it must have been murder".
DeleteWell, that's not a very fair distillation of what I say about DGUs. I do question them. You're the one who's biased in refusing to admit that some of them are lying about what happened in order to justify their actions.
DeleteSo mikeb and Laci, what's preventing you from donating money to the CDC for research???
ReplyDeleteWhat's preventing all the gun-grabbing douche nozzles???
"Given that the 'pro-gun' arguments are based upon bullshit which doesn't stand scrutiny--this makes total sense."
ReplyDeleteHere is my argument: MY personal property is MY business, period.
Tell me why MY personal property is YOUR business or government's business?
Tell me why I have no right to privacy.
Tell me why I have no right to be secure in my possessions.
Tell me why I have no right to due process.
Tell me why government can violate my human dignity.
-- TruthBeTold
All those things are done for the public good. If you don't like it you should move to a cave in Idaho.
Delete"Anyway, it looks bad to say there are 2.5 million DGUs when the actual number comes out to be insignificant (e.g the 300 or so for this year) ."
ReplyDeleteAnd what is your "primary source material" for your claim of "300 or so [defensive gun uses] for this year"?
Plus, I can hardly wait to see how investigators counted all the events that people never reported. (People that don't trust police don't report such incidents.)
-- TruthBeTold
The counting of events that were never reported is what your side does. And in the same breath you demand proof and evidence from us.
Delete