Umpqua

[Disgustipated]

*snipped the b.s.*

It is not a fact that gun owners are more likely to die by a gun. States with the highest proportion of gun owners do not have the highest proportion of gun deaths. Fact.

ORLY?

States With Most Gun Deaths Have High Gun Ownership And Weak Gun Laws, Report Shows

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/04/10_...most_and_least_likely_to_kill_people_partner/

1. Louisiana. According to the Violence Policy Center, 45.6 percent of homes have a gun. The state had almost 19 gun-related deaths per 100,000 residents in 2011, the most in the nation. It had the country’s highest murder rate, and its gun suicide rate also was higher than the national average.

Fact!​

AHAHAHAHAHA! I quoted your ignorance on your own case before the edit.

 

[about_average]

Just another Busybody lie.

I don't know if BB is lying, or just takes everything on the internet, especially twitter, at face value.

 

[Que]

ORLY?

States With Most Gun Deaths Have High Gun Ownership And Weak Gun Laws, Report Shows

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/04/10_...most_and_least_likely_to_kill_people_partner/

Fact!​

AHAHAHAHAHA! I quoted your ignorance on your own case before the edit.

Because 9:16 happens before 9:15, Marty McFly? Well, well done.

What I was going to discuss from that misstatement was the common fallacy that because states with more gun ownership have more gun deaths that somehow proves Seans point. Which it doesn't. Causation is not correlation. I removed it because it never goes anywhere. Causation equal correlation to those of you that want to believe it does.

Places that have a lot of gun deaths tend to be the very places where people arm them selves for that possibility. Drownings tend to happen in places with a lot of water.

The only study to have looked into how often a murder victim was, at the time of his murder armed took place in gangland Philadelphia. These were not fine upstanding citizens being gunned down because they had a gun. They just happened to be slower on the trigger.

 

[Lancecastor]

No, that's exactly waht the actual facts say. If you own a gun you are far more likely to die by gun violence. Fact.

Wrong again, L'il Shawn.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2012/12/20/a-useless-study-on-gun-possession/

 

[Sean]

Wrong again, L'il Shawn.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2012/12/20/a-useless-study-on-gun-possession/

Shut up, groveller.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

 

[Que]

Wrong again, L'il Shawn.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2012/12/20/a-useless-study-on-gun-possession/

I knew the Philadelphia study was junk, but I didn't know how desperately retarded the premise of the entire "study" was.

I love how any idiotic grad student thesis gets picked up as a serious "study."

 

[Disgustipated]

Because 9:16 happens before 9:15, Marty McFly? Well, well done.

What I was going to discuss from that misstatement was the common fallacy that because states with more gun ownership have more gun deaths that somehow proves Seans point. Which it doesn't. Causation is not correlation. I removed it because it never goes anywhere. Causation equal correlation to those of you that want to believe it does.

Places that have a lot of gun deaths tend to be the very places where people arm them selves for that possibility. Drownings tend to happen in places with a lot of water.

The only study to have looked into how often a murder victim was, at the time of his murder armed took place in gangland Philadelphia. These were not fine upstanding citizens being gunned down because they had a gun. They just happened to be slower on the trigger.

A novella instead of an apology. Why would anyone expect anything more?

 

[Que]

Shut up, groveller.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Even Harvard studies of correlation do not prove causation.

Places with violent crime have more guns, because they are violent places to live in. People that live in violent places tend to buy guns to protect themselves. Because they live in violent places. See. Same exact facts, different way to express the correlation. You're welcome.

 

[Lancecastor]

Maybe LTR can read the Harvard paper out loud to Bunny and explain why it isn't on point.

 

[Que]

A novella instead of an apology. Why would anyone expect anything more?

I was supposed to apologize for deleting my misstatement BEFORE you pointed out the misstatement?

Whut?

 

[Sean]

Maybe LTR can read the Harvard paper out loud to Bunny and explain why it isn't on point.

Which one of the FIVE papers isn't on point, groveller?

 

[Que]

Which one of the FIVE papers isn't on point, groveller?

All of them. Because none of them show (or even suggest) that YOU are more likely to be killed with a gun if YOU have a gun. They are trying (and failing) to make the point that the availability of guns in society at large has an influence on the numbers of homicides committed.

 

[Sean]

All of them. Because none of them show (or even suggest) that YOU are more likely to be killed with a gun if YOU have a gun. They are trying (and failing) to make the point that the availability of guns in society at large has an influence on the numbers of homicides committed.

Oh, you've read all five papers then?

 

[Aglaopheme]

All of them. Because none of them show (or even suggest) that YOU are more likely to be killed with a gun if YOU have a gun. They are trying (and failing) to make the point that the availability of guns in society at large has an influence on the numbers of homicides committed.

I'm pretty sure if no one owned any guns, there wouldn't be any gun deaths self inflicted or otherwise.

 

[Lancecastor]

The premise makes sense, but hasn't been proven to be true...too many variables.

There is however an upside; when L'il Shawn moves to New Jersey to share LTR's life with her other online doms, he will face a higher liklihood of being shot.

 

[Que]

I'm pretty sure if no one owned any guns, there wouldn't be any gun deaths self inflicted or otherwise.

I made that point earlier. If one lived on an island of no guns one would not be shot.

On the other hand, If one lives amongst guns, owning one does not make you any more likely to be shot than owning a toaster. t may very well not protect you. Moving to a place with less violence is undoubtedly a better option, but unless you hand it over, your gun does not get you shot.

 

[Que]

Oh, you've read all five papers then?

What part of a study on the ownership of guns in society at large has any relevance to whether your having one YOURSELF puts you at risk? Are you really this dense?

In order to make the assertion you are alleging, you would have to look at victims of gunshots and examine whether those victims were gun-owners or not. Even then you would have to know whether they had the gun with them, whether their having the gun was known to their assailant and a myriad of other factors you would have to consider. None of those studies even suggest they looked at any such thing. The Philadelphia study is where you derive your failed talking point. It has been roundly debunked.

 

[Sean]

What part of a study on the ownership of guns in society at large has any relevance to whether your having one YOURSELF puts you at risk? Are you really this dense?

In order to make the assertion you are alleging, you would have to look at victims of gunshots and examine whether those victims were gun-owners or not. Even then you would have to know whether they had the gun with them, whether their having the gun was known to their assailant and a myriad of other factors you would have to consider. None of those studies even suggest they looked at any such thing. The Philadelphia study is where you derive your failed talking point. It has been roundly debunked.

So you've read all five papers then?

 

[Disgustipated]

I was supposed to apologize for deleting my misstatement BEFORE you pointed out the misstatement?

Whut?

You've used that "misstatement" before, liar.

 

[Lancecastor]

Time to take your Ritalin, l'il shawn!

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/c8/b2/c8b2f105e1a2c094b7f06bd90d70050d.jpg?itok=0fvyrIbu

 

[Sean]

It has been roundly debunked.

By debunked, you mean criticised by a right wing journal as opposed to passing peer review?

 

[Aglaopheme]

I made that point earlier. If one lived on an island of no guns one would not be shot.

On the other hand, If one lives amongst guns, owning one does not make you any more likely to be shot than owning a toaster. t may very well not protect you. Moving to a place with less violence is undoubtedly a better option, but unless you hand it over, your gun does not get you shot.

I've not read much of this thread at all, so I should probably not even jump in here......but.

So you agree more guns equals more shootings. This is a good first step.

I will say toasters do not even accidentally shoot ammo and even well trained gun owners make mistakes. Also guns are stolen all the time.

 

[Lancecastor]

PHD's (pretty heavy drinkers)

Too bad l'il shawn and Ish don't post drunk at the same time of day.

That would be epic.

 

[Aglaopheme]

This is one of the funnier gun accidents.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...s-herself-while-adjusting-bra-holster-police/

 

[Sean]

This is one of the funnier gun accidents.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...s-herself-while-adjusting-bra-holster-police/

http://www.khou.com/story/news/2015...-carjacking-shooting-at-gas-station/72923278/