What's More Likely?

[calamity]

How many nuts have attacked people with a legally owned gun? Is it possible those with guns don't find themselves in a position requiring defensive shooting just for the reason they own a gun?

That's a little like saying the best defense against a drunk driver is to drive drunk.

 

[GermanLife]

That's a little like saying the best defense against a drunk driver is to drive drunk.

No it isn't and that's not even close to a comparable analogy.

People aren't as comfortable (you can use your own Jefferson quote here) attacking someone they know is unarmed than attacking someone they know is armed. Seems like that would throw head to head statistics out. Plus who cares who you personally know.

 

[zsu2357]

=ReverendHellh0und;1068207289]They would be incorrect. most shootings are between people who both have criminal records to the tune of 85+ percent. The kids are being used by activist to push a lie.

The emboldened is exactly what I told my wife.

I doubt your story as well.

I also or as Crovax said. Time for different friends. Such as hang out with a different crowd.

 

[calamity]

No it isn't and that's not even close to a comparable analogy.

People aren't as comfortable (you can use your own Jefferson quote here) attacking someone they know is unarmed than attacking someone they know is armed. Seems like that would throw head to head statistics out. Plus who cares who you personally know.

Let's see? The dead cop---clearly he was armed. The guy shot playing cards in the army? Him too, obviously.

Bar fight guys? I know at least one was armed. The other guys just shot first or had better aim. I also know not of the guys investigating suspicious activity was armed. And, all three women shot by their crazy men also had access to a gun--obviously.

Na, your theory is full of holes.

 

[GermanLife]

Let's see? The dead cop---clearly he was armed. The guy shot playing cards in the army? Him too, obviously.

Bar fight guys? I know at least one was armed. The other guys just shot first or had better aim. I also know not of the guys investigating suspicious activity was armed. And, all three women shot by their crazy men also had access to a gun--obviously.

Na, your theory is full of holes.

What are you talking about?

an armed cop dies, so people must attack armed people just as regularly as unarmed people.
An "armed" army guy is playing cards? Clearly your lack of military background is showin here.
Bar fighters? Probably means intoxicated, possibly both parties, but if the one that dies (whether instigating or defense) was armed, so people attack armed people as much as unarmed.
In some sort of Wild West shootout, one armed guy dies, so unarmed people are attacked just as much as armed.
3 guys who own guns kill their female counterpart who had access to the same gun (although not armed with it at the time of their death by said gun), so armed people are attacked just as much as armed people.

You're right. Clearly you've made an obvious point. There is absolutely no difference between the number of unarmed victims vs armed victims and still irrelevant how may people you personally know.

 

[Crovax]

Not sure I understand your question. I'm a stat guy. All I care about are the numbers. And, the numbers support not only the "White" thing, but also what I wrote in the OP.

Obviously you are not if you don’t understand that correlation doesn’t imply causation.

Factors like socioeconomic status and population density are much bigger factors than race.

Reminds of the the saying, “there are 3 kinda of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics”

 

[calamity]

Obviously you are not if you don’t understand that correlation doesn’t imply causation.

Factors like socioeconomic status and population density are much bigger factors than race.

Reminds of the the saying, “there are 3 kinda of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics”

Fact: People with guns in the home are more likely to be shot by those guns than an intruder.

Another fact: those with guns are more likely to be shot than those who have no guns.

Mic drop

 

[calamity]

What are you talking about?

This

All of them were shot by legally purchased guns. I thought I made that clear.

2 shot after a bar fight by legally owned gun
1 shot in the army during argument while playing cards
3 shot by spouses or boyfriends
2 shot while investigating suspicious activity where they worked
2 shot by accident, supposedly
1 shot being a cop by a psycho husband going berserk

And, when we add people I know who committed suicide by gun, I can probably double that list.

an armed cop dies, so people must attack armed people just as regularly as unarmed people.
An "armed" army guy is playing cards? Clearly your lack of military background is showin here.
Bar fighters? Probably means intoxicated, possibly both parties, but if the one that dies (whether instigating or defense) was armed, so people attack armed people as much as unarmed.
In some sort of Wild West shootout, one armed guy dies, so unarmed people are attacked just as much as armed.
3 guys who own guns kill their female counterpart who had access to the same gun (although not armed with it at the time of their death by said gun), so armed people are attacked just as much as armed people.

You're right. Clearly you've made an obvious point. There is absolutely no difference between the number of unarmed victims vs armed victims and still irrelevant how may people you personally know.

Fact: Those who live in a home where someone owns a gun are more likely to be murdered by a gun than those who do not.

 

[Crovax]

Fact: People with guns in the home are more likely to be shot by those guns than an intruder.

Another fact: those with guns are more likely to be shot than those who have no guns.

Mic drop

I’m not sure what you think that proves. Having an item obviously increases the negative risks that are associated with that item.

That’s like saying that people who own cars are more likely to cause a car wreck than those who don’t own cars. Those who own pools are more likely to die by drowning than those who don’t. In fact if you want to look at counterintuitive stats, knowing how to swim increases your risk of death by drowning if you are over the age of 14.

 

[calamity]

I’m not sure what you think that proves. Having an item obviously increases the negative risks that are associated with that item.

That’s like saying that people who own cars are more likely to cause a car wreck than those who don’t own cars. Those who own pools are more likely to die by drowning than those who don’t. In fact if you want to look at counterintuitive stats, knowing how to swim increases your risk of death by drowning if you are over the age of 14.

No, it proves a point. People pushing the NRA gun bull**** argue how much safer they are because they have guns. Well, stats say they lie.

 

[Blkdirt Farmer]

No, it proves a point. People pushing the NRA gun bull**** argue how much safer they are because they have guns. Well, stats say they lie.

Numbers don't lie, but liar's love numbers as they say....

That said I error on the side of caution, and carry daily.

Seems a prudent thing to do, in todays world.

 

[calamity]

Numbers don't lie, but liar's love numbers as they say....

That said I error on the side of caution, and carry daily.

Seems a prudent thing to do, in todays world.

No. Liars are the NRA, theirspokes whores and thei zealots who put their love of guns ahead of common sense.

 

[Crovax]

No, it proves a point. People pushing the NRA gun bull**** argue how much safer they are because they have guns. Well, stats say they lie.

Again you have used stats poorly, you have equated “safety” with not death dying due to a gunshot. While ignoring all the other ways you can die or be seriously hurt and how having a gun factors into those. Not to mention the vast majority of “gun violence” is self inflicted.

 

[calamity]

Again you have used stats poorly, you have equated “safety” with not death dying due to a gunshot. While ignoring all the other ways you can die or be seriously hurt and how having a gun factors into those. Not to mention the vast majority of “gun violence” is self inflicted.

Wrong answer.

 

[Crovax]

Wrong answer.

As always your posts become so eloquent once your argument has been defeated

 

[calamity]

As always your posts become so eloquent once your argument has been defeated

Lol...facts win. You lose.

 

[TurtleDude]

Out of those dozens you know where shot dead, (really?), how many were shot dead by someone that legally owned the firearm?

following the steven Roach (CPD) killing of miscreant Timothy Thomas in Cincinnati about 16 years ago, the CPD were damned and sort of backed off aggressive policing in the dangerous mostly black areas of Cincinnati. The next 100 weeks or so saw about 104 murders IIRC and everyone of them save maybe one or two were black on black. Almost all were caused by felons and most of the slain were mopes too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_riots_of_2001#CITEREFRuckerUpton2006

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Lol...facts win. You lose.

This is flame spam.

 

[Blkdirt Farmer]

No. Liars are the NRA, theirspokes whores and thei zealots who put their love of guns ahead of common sense.

Wrong again. The liars are those emotionally driven zealots who will lie cheat and steal to get their way. Democrats are at the top of the list. Common sense takes logic and reason, not childish emotions. Any thinking adult should know that.

 

[calamity]

Wrong again. The liars are those emotionally driven zealots who will lie cheat and steal to get their way. Democrats are at the top of the list. Common sense takes logic and reason, not childish emotions. Any thinking adult should know that.

Projecting?

Few people lie like gun zealots. I've exposed their biggest lie in this thread. The big lie? That owning a gun makes you safer than not owning one.

 

[calamity]

This is flame spam.

Facts are not spam. They are just factual.

Facts win again.

 

[calamity]

following the steven Roach (CPD) killing of miscreant Timothy Thomas in Cincinnati about 16 years ago, the CPD were damned and sort of backed off aggressive policing in the dangerous mostly black areas of Cincinnati. The next 100 weeks or so saw about 104 murders IIRC and everyone of them save maybe one or two were black on black. Almost all were caused by felons and most of the slain were mopes too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_riots_of_2001#CITEREFRuckerUpton2006

Lesson to be learned--we need cops.

BTW, every single person on my shot dead list was white, as was their shooter. 2/3, at least, knew their killer, and almost all of them owned a gun.

I forgot 2, come to think of it. The couple killed in Jan 2017 were also white and shot by people they knew. They also owned guns.

 

[Rucker61]

Projecting?

Few people lie like gun zealots. I've exposed their biggest lie in this thread. The big lie? That owning a gun makes you safer than not owning one.

Do the numbers actually claim to prove that every single person who owns a gun is less safe no matter what the circumstances, or that on average a person is less safe owning a gun?

Is a person who drives a car less safe than someone who uses mass transit?

 

[calamity]

Do the numbers actually claim to prove that every single person who owns a gun is less safe no matter what the circumstances, or that on average a person is less safe owning a gun?

Is a person who drives a car less safe than someone who uses mass transit?

Nonsensical post. The first paragraph is idiotic. And the second is silly.

 

[Rucker61]

Nonsensical post. The first paragraph is idiotic. And the second is silly.

You're asking us to internalize a risk in the studies you've link previously. Do those studies claim that I as an individual, regardless of my circumstances, would unequivocally be safer if I did not own a gun?