Post New

Ditch the guns...

Although personal protection is a major motivation for purchasing firearms,
existing studies suggest that people living in homes with firearms have higher risks for dying by homicide and suicide...

Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of non-owners.
Among homicides occurring at home, cohabitants of gun owners had sevenfold higher rates of being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner.
Living with a handgun owner is associated with substantially elevated risk for dying by homicide. Women are disproportionately affected.

The rate of suicide was significantly higher after a cohabitant became a handgun owner compared with the rate observed while they lived in handgun-free homes.

Study findings in one other area were noteworthy: homicides perpetrated by strangers...
Homicides of this kind were relatively uncommon in our study population'much less common than
deaths perpetrated by the victim's partner, family members, or friends. But when they happened,
people living with gun owners did not experience them less often than people in gun-free homes.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3...

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-ho...

Care to comment on homicides avoided because the intended victim had the means to protect himself and his family. The police certainly cannot do it.

I see.
What if you lived in a town where the police have been defunded and criminals aren't being caught, much less prosecuted? Are you supposed to allow some random crook to victimize you and your family?

homicides avoided because the intended victim had the means to protect himself and his family

A fave talking point. It'd be nice if accurate data was compiled that would illustrate how may of the burglars did their break and enters with AR15s vs those who broke armed with nothing but a drug habit that needed to be fed quickly. I seem to recall pressure by a political party to defund helpful research on firearm statistics. Oh well.

Care to comment on drunk driving fatalities?

On average over the 10-year period from 2011-2020, about 10,500 people died every year in drunk-driving crashes.

Self-defense? The police certainly cannot do it.

What if you lived in a town where the police have been defunded and criminals aren't being caught, much less prosecuted? Are you supposed to allow some random crook to victimize you and your family?

Now I'm a'quiverin.. I better get me a case of hand grenades to lob into the foyer at 3 a.m. before I don my gravy seal costume and round the corner wit my AR15 and Glocks.

But Hey, great question! Never heard that one before, much less answered to the satisfaction of patriots and fetishists.

Trolls line up with the same talking points that they have asked and had answered a thousand times.

<<Care to comment on homicides avoided because the intended victim had the means to protect himself and his family.>>

If you are asserting that this happens frequently (or ever) please support your argument with evidence. Thanks.

If you have no evidence...

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." ~Christopher Hitchens


Study findings were noteworthy: homicides perpetrated by strangers...
Homicides of this kind were relatively uncommon in our study population'much less common than
deaths perpetrated by the victim's partner, family members, or friends. But when they happened,
people living with gun owners did not experience them less often than people in gun-free homes.

But Hey, great question!

It is. Thanks for being a great board ambassador.

Nothing is foolproof.

BUT anytime I've relocated - I pay very close attention to demographics, and key metrics within demographic categories.

Yep, the obvious, real ones.

There's some demographics I embrace.

Some I avoid like the plague.

<<What if you lived in a town where the police have been defunded and criminals aren't being caught, much less prosecuted? Are you supposed to allow some random crook to victimize you and your family?>>

Adorable!
The only place this town exists is in the false right-wing bedtime stories you've been fed.
Do you ever tire of being frighteningly misinformed or of people taking advantage of your gullibility?

Run along now and make your monthly NRA donation, the $$ will be used to protect your freedom!
And your 10% tithe to the church, because god is all-powerful, but he's terrible with money!
And don't forget to pay your cable news bill, Rupert Murdochs yacht doesn't run on fear alone!

Adorable!
The only place this town exists is in the false right-wing bedtime stories you've been fed.
Do you ever tire of being frighteningly misinformed or of people taking advantage of your gullibility?

Thanks for being a great board ambassador and fine representative of the left wing style of argument!

Troll

Troll

Thanks again! It's posters like you who make the internet what it is today.

sano: Troll

Dope1: Thanks again! It's posters like you who make the internet what it is today.


Well, what exactly would you call a poster who asks the board why there's such a difference in the numbers of mass shootings between Switzerland and the U.S. and when several posters explain that Switzerland has strict vetting for potential gun owners, mandatory gun training, does not allow individuals who have been convicted of various crimes to own guns, registers guns, and does not allow open carry and has a very limited conceal carry policy, that poster abandons the thread?

Or a poster who starts a thread criticizing Biden for decommissioning ships and says s/he will have a lot more to say about the topic but when it's pointed out that his/her source is suspect, that the Navy (not Biden) has been trying to decommission those ships for some time because they have too many ships in service, that keeping those ships seaworthy would be a waste of money, and that, contrary to the poster's implication, Biden wants to significantly increase the Navy's budget, that poster abandons his own thread?

LOL.
For one, I don't owe you anything.
For two, given the past behavior on other forums, the name calling is beyond rich.
For three, I don't feel a need to maintain the post volume I once did and it's not up to anyone else to dictate that.
For four, you don't get to dictate anything about how others post.

Does that clear it up for you?

In one of the other threads I did mention more about China and how all the other pieces fit. The post was meant for someone else to read.

For one, I don't owe you anything.
Translation; I crap anywhere and walk away.

For two, given the past behavior on other forums, the name calling is beyond rich.
Translation: Look! A squirrel!

For three, I don't feel a need to maintain the post volume I once did and it's not up to anyone else to dictate that.
Translation; I crap anywhere, on multiple boards, and walk away

For four, you don't get to dictate anything about how others post.
Translation; I crap anywhere and walk away

And thank you, for continuing the level of conversation you had with everyone over on Discord here.

'Thanks for being a great board ambassador and fine representative of the left wing style of argument!'

He's not wrong though. Your insistence on referencing verifiably deceptive or inaccurate information without confronting the factual criticisms of your sources is reflective of a faith based worldview. It's not surprising that people who prioritize faith over fact would embrace factually inaccurate sources.

"Care to comment on homicides avoided because the intended victim had the means to protect himself and his family. The police certainly cannot do it."

He did. Read his post again.

He's not wrong though.

Uhh, yes.
I see you folks are 100% all-in on the logical fallacy of Poisoning The Well: "I don't like that source so therefore anything that comes out of it is out of bounds!!!!"

Sorry, that doesn't work. The worst news site in the world can report that 2+2=4 and that's a true statement (unless you're a student of woke left wing math, that is).

Factual claims need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; you're not allowed to throw out what you makes you uncomfortable because you don't like the source material.

Sorry, that doesn't work. The worst news site in the world can report that 2+2=4 and that's a true statement (unless you're a student of woke left wing math, that is).

Factual claims need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; you're not allowed to throw out what you makes you uncomfortable because you don't like the source material.

Nice try.

Occasionally surrounding something with 2+2=4 with 3 hours and 59 minutes of bullshit was Rush Oxylimbaugh's secret sauce, and boy did his cult eat it up and regurgitate it.

Hence the rapidly growing popularity of the Brandolini app.

Nice try.

Nope. Not a nice try.
Shooting the messenger, poisoning the well, whatever label you want to give it - it's always a fallacy.

Shooting the messenger, poisoning the well, whatever label you want to give it - it's always a fallacy.

Your messengers are doing just fine and typing furiously, the well is full of limbaugh/fox/oann/red state/hot air/war room poison. Lotta money is being made selling that swill.

"Nope. Not a nice try.
Shooting the messenger, poisoning the well, whatever label you want to give it - it's always a fallacy."

That is silly.

According to your logic, the National Enquirer is just as valid of a source as the Washington Post because they once broke the Gary Hart news decades ago.

We don't need to waste all of our time debunking stupid stories about Elvis pumping gas in Michigan, Bigfoot walking around in rural Washington, and aliens impregnating a woman because we know that the reliability of the source matters.

Sources that are known to be unreliable have to jump through extra hoops before a rational person pays attention to them.

That is silly.

Actually, it's argumentative logic 101. Now, granted, the worldwide left has been waging an all-out assault on Objective Fact and Truth for decades so that concept may be outmoded to many of you.

"Actually, it's argumentative logic 101. "

No. It is logic 101. Anyone steeped in science papers should know that the quality of sources matters.

"Now, granted, the worldwide left has been waging an all-out assault on Objective Fact and Truth for decades so that concept may be outmoded to many of you."

LOL

Which White House advisor came up with the phrase alternative facts?

Do you like getting laughed at?

Do you like getting laughed at?

Of course they do. Why else would they be here?

Like the geek perched over the dunk tank, they receive some sort of perverse gratification thinking they "own libs."

Ditch the guns...

Although personal protection is a major motivation for purchasing firearms,
existing studies suggest that people living in homes with firearms have higher risks for dying by homicide and suicide...

Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of non-owners.
Among homicides occurring at home, cohabitants of gun owners had sevenfold higher rates of being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner.
Living with a handgun owner is associated with substantially elevated risk for dying by homicide. Women are disproportionately affected.

The rate of suicide was significantly higher after a cohabitant became a handgun owner compared with the rate observed while they lived in handgun-free homes.

Study findings in one other area were noteworthy: homicides perpetrated by strangers...
Homicides of this kind were relatively uncommon in our study population much less common than
deaths perpetrated by the victim's partner, family members, or friends. But when they happened,
people living with gun owners did not experience them less often than people in gun-free homes.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3...

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-ho...

Homicides of this kind were relatively uncommon in our study population much less common than
deaths perpetrated by the victim's partner, family members, or friends.

--------------------

Homicides by mass shooters are not only relatively uncommon, but far and away massively less common, than homicides in general, but you guys are pretty worked up over that. And no I am not saying mass shootings are in anyway acceptable. I am just pointing out an inconsistency in your argument that homicides by strangers is not a risk you should be able to defend against.

Ditch the guns...

Although personal protection is a major motivation for purchasing firearms,
existing studies suggest that people living in homes with firearms have higher risks for dying by homicide and suicide...

Todays tragic example: A 2-year-old boy in Norwalk, Ohio, shot his pregnant mother in the back, killing her and the unborn child, police say.

Guns have killed more than 18,000 Americans this year. Guns are the leading cause of death for American children.

We know the answer. It's the guns.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/us/norwalk-ohio-two...

Maybe someday, women in America will have as many rights as guns do?

Guns have killed more than 18,000 Americans this year. Guns are the leading cause of death for American children. - vsg

--------------------

Offset by the number of crimes that were prevented by the 2 million plus defensive gun uses each year.

Offset by the number of crimes that were prevented by the 2 million plus defensive gun uses each year.

There aren't two million plus defensive gun uses each year.

As we've discussed in the past, that figure can't possibly be accurate. There just isn't enough crime for that to be happening. Given the number of gun owners, they would have to be experiencing rates of attempted crime that are well more than an order of magnitude higher than everyone else. That can't possibly be happening. Instead, the ridiculously high rate is an artifact of the methodology of the one study that produced that number - just asking people to self-report their history, often years after the events in question.

That means two things. First, some (probably very many) of these events didn't really happen - or didn't happen when the respondents think they happened, as people misremember whether a scary incident happened within the last year or longer ago.

Second - and perhaps more importantly - it means that some (probably very many) of these events weren't actually in response to an attempted crime. They were people using their guns (mostly by displaying them, but sometimes by firing them) against innocent people. Remember the spate of shootings against innocent people a short time ago? People engaging in "defensive gun use" by shooting innocent folks who knocked on the wrong door, or turned into the wrong driveway, or mistakenly went to the wrong parked car? We know about them because they resulted in criminal charges against the shooters - but had they not had such tragic outcomes, they might have just been considered "DGU" incidents by the gun owners.

And that's the thing. When that happens, these "defensive gun uses" aren't preventing a crime. They're just people using their guns to scare innocent people who haven't done anything wrong. And in many contexts, doing that is itself a crime. If you see someone walking down the street when you're alone at night, and you intentionally brandish your firearm so that they cross the street to avoid you, that's not actually a defensive gun use - you're committing assault with a deadly weapon.

Given that, I strongly suspect that the "two million defensive gun uses" represent more crimes being committed than actually prevented. It's lots and lots of gun owners using their weapons to scare people that haven't done anything wrong. The gun owners know, at some level, that it's wrong to use a lethal weapon to scare someone who's innocent - so they convince themselves (either in the moment or after the fact) that the person had in fact done something to merit the use of a deadly weapon to frighten them. Just boatloads of criminal assault with a deadly weapon, rationalized as defensive actions.

bighairymike: Offset by the number of crimes that were prevented by the 2 million plus defensive gun uses each year.

We went over this myth in another thread. It's nonsense.

In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial self-reporting 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.

Also...

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.

Researchers analyzed DGU data in a study in Arizona, which examined newspaper, police reports and court records for defensive gun uses in the Phoenix area over a 100 day period. At the time Arizona had the 6th highest gun death rate, an above average number of households with firearms and a permissive 'shall issue' concealed carry law meaning that defensive gun use should be higher than the national average.

Extrapolating Kleck-Gertz survey results to the Phoenix area would predict 98 defensive killings or injuries and 236 defensive firings during the study period. Instead, the study found a total of 3 defensive gun uses where the gun was fired, including one instance in which a feud between two families exploded into a brawl and several of the participants began firing.

More on the DGU myth here: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/de...

As we've discussed in the past, that figure can't possibly be accurate. - vsg

----------------------

Probably true because some are likely not reported. Like when the criminal just backs off and runs away once he sees his intended victim is armed.

where the gun was fired

==============

DGU's don't require the gun to be fired.

Probably true because some are likely not reported. Like when the criminal just backs off and runs away once he sees his intended victim is armed.

You misunderstand. The figure is way too high, not too low. Like, ridiculously well-over-an-order-of-magnitude too high. It's a fiction - it can't possibly be right, because it would yield results that are utterly inconsistent (ie. vastly too high) with every other measure of crime.

>>Probably true because some are likely not reported. Like when the criminal just backs off and runs away once he sees his intended victim is armed.<<

You misunderstand. The figure is way too high, not too low. Like, ridiculously well-over-an-order-of-magnitude too high. It's a fiction - it can't possibly be right, because it would yield results that are utterly inconsistent (ie. vastly too high) with every other measure of crime.

=========================

I know this is not as reliable as Fox News but it's the best I could find.

Per the Heritage Foundation....

All of the law-abiding citizens featured in this database successfully defended their liberties, lives, or livelihoods with the lawful use of a firearm. These cases are not based on hearsay, but on verifiable reports found through public sources.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There's good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.

This database, therefore, is not intended to be comprehensive. Instead, it highlights just a fraction of the incredible number of times Americans relied on the Second Amendment'not the government getting there in time'to protect their inalienable rights. Despite the limitations on data, these confirmed cases of defensive gun use help prove that the 'good guy with a gun' is not a myth, but an integral part of American society.

From your quote:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year.

You didn't provide a link to the Heritage Foundation document you linked to, and I couldn't find anything from the CDC on the subject. It appears that what they're referring to was that the CDC used to say on their webpage that:

The stats sourced from a CDC-commissioned study finding that instances of defensive gun use occur between 60,000 and 2.5 million times per year. References to that study were deleted from the site following private meetings with gun control advocates in 2021, emails obtained and published by The Reload show.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cdc-removed-stats...

Note the difference between 60,000 on the low end of what the CDC actually said, and the 500K that the Heritage quote shows. That's probably the result of Heritage defining "major study" in such a way as to only include the very high estimates. I suspect they excluded the studies that use actual reported data to assess DGU rates, and instead only "counted" the ones that came in with a really high number.

That's not hard, because all of the very high-estimate "studies" are basically just surveys of people asking them (sometimes years after the fact) about whether they used their guns for DGU. But again, all of those "studies" are consistent only with themselves. They're completely, utterly, and absurdly inconsistent with any data for gun use that can actually be measured. You either end up with people owning guns experiencing crime at rates 10x or 100x that of other people within their same zip code, or people only reporting defensive gun use to the police 0.16% of the time (when those same surveys have people responding with a police report rate of 50% or higher).

The reason, of course, is that the survey method is utterly useless for figuring out the real rate at which DGU's occur. Because people misremember what happened, when it happened, or misattribute an instance where they "use" their gun on an innocent person as a DGU. As noted in the analysis that commonone cited above:

Kleck and Gertz often defend their paper by claiming that their results are consistent with the findings of other private surveys. They explain that the reliability of a survey should be judged by the degree to which it coheres with the estimates of other surveys. However, using a tool we know to be flawed, over and over again, does not increase the quality of estimates deriving from the tool'it merely produces convergence to an arbitrary number. Surveys, for example, regularly show that men have sex with women more often than women have sex with men. Survey results don't mean anything if they don't pass muster with reality.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/de...

It's a myth, BHM. Those 2-3 million DGU figures are almost certainly off by a factor of close to 100x. Analysis of DGU that extrapolates from actual, measured data - rather than just people's recollections or survey responses - come in closer to 5K-30K.

It's a myth, BHM. Those 2-3 million DGU figures are almost certainly off by a factor of close to 100x. Analysis of DGU that extrapolates from actual, measured data - rather than just people's recollections or survey responses - come in closer to 5K-30K.

======================

I didn't expect to convince you. A DGU doesn't require a gun to be fired. And speaking for myself my guns have never threatened me but I am leery of my toaster.

A DGU doesn't require a gun to be fired.

It's not about whether the gun is fired.

The people who are responding to these surveys are reporting being exposed to crimes at rates that are far, far, FAR too high to be realistic. They're claiming that their DGU events - whether the gun is fired or not - were reported to the police as attempted crime far, far, FAR more often than actual police reports show. And as the Politico piece noted, even the original study author - Kleck - estimated that about half of the "DGU's" were actually illegal uses of the firearm. Those DGU's weren't crimes prevented, but crimes committed - the use of a deadly weapon to harass or intimidate a completely innocent person who wasn't about to commit a crime.

These surveys are fiction, BHM. People overstate their DGU, either inadvertently or intentionally misreporting their actual experience - for the same reasons that make other "survey" analyses of social phenomena unreliable. People who own guns want to think they're useful (social desirability bias). They want other people to think they're useful (strategic response bias). They're more likely to misremember things that happened outside the survey timeframe as happening more recently (time telescoping bias). And again, about half the DGU's they report are crimes committed, not crimes averted.

And speaking for myself my guns have never threatened me but I am leery of my toaster.

That's an attempt at humor, but your guns can destroy your life in a way that your toaster cannot. If you make a mistake with your guns and use them to injure or kill an innocent person, the harm will be incalculable. At best you have years and years of legal bills and the guilt of having wrongfully hurt another person; but the worst case scenario is that you spend the rest of your life in jail. And of course, if you ever succumb to depression or suicidal ideation, you're far more likely to kill yourself with a gun than a toaster.

You should be leery of your guns. Unlike your toaster, they're the most dangerous thing in your house to you. Unless you have a particularly unusual geographic or demographic situation, they probably increase the danger to you more than they reduce the danger from crime to you. If you continue to believe - falsely - that guns are frequently used to prevent crime, you won't be able to make a rational assessment of whether they're worth having.

These surveys are fiction, BHM. People overstate their DGU, either inadvertently or intentionally misreporting their actual experience - for the same reasons that make other "survey" analyses of social phenomena unreliable. People who own guns want to think they're useful (social desirability bias). They want other people to think they're useful (strategic response bias). - albaby

-----------------------

And people against private ownership of guns want to think that guns cause criminal activity (accidents aside). This is something we will never agree on.

This is something we will never agree on.

I expect not - but I'm hoping you might at least consider the fact that the figure you commonly cite for DGU's is certainly flawed, and way too high.

The statistical problems with these surveys are enormous. Their reported results are completely inconsistent with all the data on crime incidence (the respondents would have to experience crime rates an order of magnitude higher than what other people face in their area). They're completely inconsistent with data on gun ownership (Kleck & Gertz report that half of DGU responders are women, even though women are only 20% of gun owners and about 14% of justifiable homicide committers). The internal data is completely absurd (nearly 16% of defenders report firing at their attacker, and 8% report wounding them - both of which are ridiculously high on their own, but combine for a 50% hit rate which is beyond what we observe both police and criminal firearm discharges). And they're structured in a way that is guaranteed to be wrong (if you don't correct for telescoping bias, people will over report the frequency of X in their past - no matter what X is).

I have no expectation that this will change your mind on gun ownership - either generally, or for yourself personally. But perhaps it might lead you to be more skeptical of that two million DGU figure that you mention here from time to time.

I have no expectation that this will change your mind on gun ownership - either generally, or for yourself personally. But perhaps it might lead you to be more skeptical of that two million DGU figure that you mention here from time to time. - albaby

-------------------

Even 1 million is a lot and is much more believable than the 5K-30K you "allowed" in you earlier post. Confirmation bias cuts both ways.

One million isn't believable either, just because that implies a crime rate against gun owners that is far, far, higher than the actual crime rate in the general public. That's his point. I'm sure that won't budge you on the issue, which is fine. We're just trying to get to realistic statistics if statistics are going to be discussed.

Only about 30% of Americans actually own firearms. There's no way they are repelling 1M would-be criminals every year. Our crime rate simply isn't that high.

Even 1 million is a lot and is much more believable than the 5K-30K you "allowed" in you earlier post. Confirmation bias cuts both ways.

Mike,using the same techniques as your DGU study, 30 million Americans have seen Aliens, but a startling 1 million Americans have actually met them.

So Mike, what do you think the chances are of all guns being taken away from all Americans? I would say it is approaching zero, but never zero. We'd have to reinterpret the 2d, and then have fellow Americans cooperate - that approaches zero chance too.

There's a huge area to compromise on guns, and a very tiny chance they'll all be taken away.

So Mike, what do you think the chances are of all guns being taken away from all Americans? I would say it is approaching zero, but never zero. We'd have to reinterpret the 2d, and then have fellow Americans cooperate - that approaches zero chance too.

==================

If you accept the premise that gun ownership drives otherwise law abiding citizens to homicide, then how can you allow any to exist in the hands of private citizens?

So Mike, what do you think the chances are of all guns being taken away from all Americans? I would say it is approaching zero, but never zero. We'd have to reinterpret the 2d, and then have fellow Americans cooperate - that approaches zero chance too.

==================

If you accept the premise that gun ownership drives otherwise law abiding citizens to homicide, then how can you allow any to exist in the hands of private citizens?

Answering a question with a question Mike? Dodging? :) But I'll answer yours - but I have to reframe it.

Given the same level of citizenry, add more guns into the pool and there will be more accidents, and violence. I assume there is a saturation point with guns, and the increase varies with cultures, etc.

So now, answer my questions please. :)

There's a huge area to compromise on guns, and a very tiny chance they'll all be taken away.

Compromise how? One side wants to exercise a right to self-defense and the other side actively works to restrict that right.

So Mike, what do you think the chances are of all guns being taken away from all Americans? I would say it is approaching zero, but never zero. - Lapsody

--------------------------

OK, direct answer to direct question: there is zero chance. Happy now!

We went over this myth in another thread. It's nonsense.

But what do you want to bet he'll keep repeating it? How many no-nothings will repeat and believe.

I'm hoping you might at least consider the fact that the figure you commonly cite for DGU's is certainly flawed, and way too high.


Seems unlikely given his track record.

<We went over this myth in another thread. It's nonsense.>

<<But what do you want to bet he'll keep repeating it? How many no-nothings will repeat and believe.>>

"We may never reason a man out of an opinion which he was never reasoned into." ~Jonathan Swift

But I commend you folks for trying!

But what do you want to bet he'll keep repeating it? How many no-nothings will repeat and believe. - ges

---------------------

"no-nothing"????


I'm smart! Not like everybody says...like dumb...I'm smart and I want respect!" ' Fredo Corleone

<So Mike, what do you think the chances are of all guns being taken away from all Americans? I would say it is approaching zero, but never zero. - Lapsody

--------------------------

OK, direct answer to direct question: there is zero chance. Happy now! BHM

+100 points :)

Ditch the guns.

Friendly reminder...

Although personal protection is a major motivation for purchasing firearms,
existing studies show that people living in homes with firearms have higher risks for dying by homicide and suicide...

Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of non-owners.
Among homicides occurring at home, cohabitants of gun owners had sevenfold higher rates of being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner.
Living with a handgun owner is associated with substantially elevated risk for dying by homicide. Women are disproportionately affected.

The rate of suicide was significantly higher after a cohabitant became a handgun owner compared with the rate observed while they lived in handgun-free homes.

Study findings in one other area were noteworthy: homicides perpetrated by strangers...
Homicides of this kind were relatively uncommon in our study population much less common than
deaths perpetrated by the victim's partner, family members, or friends. But when they happened,
people living with gun owners did not experience them less often than people in gun-free homes.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3...

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-ho...

Ditch the guns...

Although personal protection is a major motivation for purchasing firearms,
existing studies suggest that people living in homes with firearms have higher risks for dying by homicide and suicide...

Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of non-owners.
Among homicides occurring at home, cohabitants of gun owners had sevenfold higher rates of being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner.
Living with a handgun owner is associated with substantially elevated risk for dying by homicide. Women are disproportionately affected.

The rate of suicide was significantly higher after a cohabitant became a gun owner compared with the rate observed while they lived in gun-free homes.

Study findings in one other area were noteworthy: homicides perpetrated by strangers...
Homicides of this kind were relatively uncommon in our study population much less common than
deaths perpetrated by the victim's partner, family members, or friends. But when they happened,
people living with gun owners did not experience them less often than people in gun-free homes.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3...

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-ho...

The rate of suicide was significantly higher after a cohabitant became a gun owner compared with the rate observed while they lived in gun-free homes.
Also consider this:

<snip>The (Suicide) belt is comprised of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming, according to a 2011 report by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV).

Alaska also consistently has a very high suicide rate, but its geographic isolation excludes it from the suicide belt.

Sociologist Matt Wray of UNLV originally deemed this swath of the United States the suicide belt when he noticed the suicide trend in the early 2000s. Looking closer at the data, he determined several key factors that could lead to these states' high suicide rates.

"The Intermountain West is a place that is disproportionately populated by middle-aged and aging white men, single, unattached, often unemployed, with access to guns," Wray told Freakonomics Radio in the 2011 episode "The Suicide Paradox."<snip>

Add a little belief that you have to be rugged and self reliant, stoic and tough - bad mix.

Homicides of this kind were relatively uncommon in our study population much less common than
deaths perpetrated by the victim's partner, family members, or friends.

Same way with rapes in the barrio - you are more likely to be raped by someone you know.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.