florida308
|
 |   |  Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Do you have any reason to believe that thirteen independent studies are all biased?
In any event, you can assume that they are wrong by a factor of ten, and you still end up with the same result: banning guns costs lives.
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 5:37 PM on April 10, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from florida308 at 8:37 PM on April 10, 2007 :
Do you have any reason to believe that thirteen independent studies are all biased?
In any event, you can assume that they are wrong by a factor of ten, and you still end up with the same result: banning guns costs lives.
|
|
???
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 06:42 AM on April 11, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from florida308 at 8:37 PM on April 10, 2007 :
Do you have any reason to believe that thirteen independent studies are all biased?
In any event, you can assume that they are wrong by a factor of ten, and you still end up with the same result: banning guns costs lives.
|
|
???
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 1:51 PM on April 12, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Do you have any reason to believe that thirteen independent studies are all wrong by at least a factor of 11?
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 11:18 AM on April 14, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from EMyers at 3:36 PM on April 14, 2007 :
No more than any other set of studies and statistics. I do tend to believe historical facts over future estimates however.
|
|
You don't have to choose between the two. You can believe that guns cost 30,000 lives and save 400,000. Unless of course you have some reason to believe that 13 independent studies were all extremely wrong.
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 7:50 PM on April 15, 2007 | IP
|
|
EMyers
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Well, let's see what gun activists have to say...
excerpts from a gun activist
Now if there were 450,000 crimes committed with guns and only 8,000 are murders (per his book) , then if those "400,000 times" were "self-defense" used against gun wielding attackers then 7,111 were lives saved vs the 30,000 live that were taken, so guns were used to kill more people than "save" people. In which case I fully believe those 13 studies.
-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough. |
| |
Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:40 PM on April 16, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
That sentence is incoherent. I read it 5 times, and the only thing I was able to discern was that you are trying to cite to some other statistics without a source. I skimmed over that link and I couldn't find you 7,111 number.
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 07:49 AM on April 17, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
It appears to me that you are fighting anyway you can to stick with your previously-formed opinions. I don't think you are looking at it with an open mind.
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 07:51 AM on April 17, 2007 | IP
|
|
EMyers
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Ok.... The numbers that were presented (in some weird attempt to show how few deaths come from gun toting criminals) were that, while there were 450,000 crimes committed with guns, only 8,000 ended in the death of the victim. However, applying that same ratio to your 400,000 "victims" that "saved" themselves with guns, only 7,111 were actually saved because those were the ratio who would've died without the gun. Now since you stated that 30,000 lives were taken by guns, and we can plainly see that only 7,111 lives were saved by guns, then I do agree with the 13 independent studies as you've presented them. My apologies if the ratios were not obvious in my earlier post.
-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough. |
| |
Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:14 PM on April 17, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from EMyers at 7:14 PM on April 17, 2007 :
Ok.... The numbers that were presented (in some weird attempt to show how few deaths come from gun toting criminals) were that, while there were 450,000 crimes committed with guns, only 8,000 ended in the death of the victim. However, applying that same ratio to your 400,000 "victims" that "saved" themselves with guns, only 7,111 were actually saved because those were the ratio who would've died without the gun. Now since you stated that 30,000 lives were taken by guns, and we can plainly see that only 7,111 lives were saved by guns, then I do agree with the 13 independent studies as you've presented them. My apologies if the ratios were not obvious in my earlier post.
|
|
Your calculation is wrong on so many different levels, it is hard for me to comprehend someone thinking this.
First of all, to even do this calculation you have to start with the assumption that the 400,000 number is wrong. You have yet to provide any argument or source to support this.
Second of all, if you did want to assume my numbers were wrong and reduce them, you might start with the 2.5 million number. 2.5 million people use a gun defensively each year. If your ratio does accurately depict the % of times murder is intended, and you reduce 2.5 million, you end up with more than 44,000. Thats 14 thousand more than total gun deaths and about 30 thousand more than gun deaths if you exclude suicide.
Third of all, your 450,000 to 8,000 ratio already contemplates the number of people who save themselves with guns. The variables are not mutually exclusive. If people in this country were not allowed to defend themselves, including defense with guns, the 8,000 would be higher.
Fourth, you are taking a ratio derived from a rate of crime committed with guns and applying it to a number that includes all violent crime.
Its clear you aren't taking this seriously, and you are just grasping at any excuse you can find not to change your opinion.
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 7:02 PM on April 17, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: -1
Rate this post:
|
If you assume the 400,000 number is correct, then 400,000 people per year save their own lives with guns.
How old are you? Am I talking with a 14 year old?
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 5:07 PM on April 18, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
I am asking about your age because at the time it didn't seem like you have the intellectual capacity of an adult.
So lets get back to the topic: given that guns save 400,000 lives each year and are only involved in 30,000 deaths, isn't it safe to say that banning guns is a bad idea?
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 4:35 PM on April 19, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
I am not going to baby sit you through this. I posted a fact sheet with sources. If you feel so inclined, follow up on them yourself.
Guns are used between 800,000 and 2.5 million times each year in self defense, saving as many as 400,000 lives. You applying a bunch of ratios or percentages that aren't applicable doesn't change anything.
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 8:39 PM on April 19, 2007 | IP
|
|
tortoise1956
|
| | Report Post
|
Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
florida308:
you might as well stop wasting your time and respond to posters who actuallyknow how to debate. EMyers is simply a troll who gets his rocks off annoying others. This is evident in his posts. When he can't support his point of view, he attempts to divert the argument and twist others statements.
Troll alert!
-------
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away" |
| |
Posts: 2 | Posted: 9:32 PM on April 19, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
I guarantee you I am better at math than you are. A sociologist or other research spends months or even years coming up with these statistics based on random sampling of the population, and you think you can just take a glance at them and apply some convoluted ratio or percentage to reduce the numbers to your liking?
Moreover, you can't even state the numbers correctly. The 400,000 number has nothing to do with "armed intruders," as you suggest in your last post. It includes all types of criminal attacks, armed, unarmed, home invasions ("intruders"), and public attacks. Additionally, your 2% figure isn't mutually exclusive of your 400,000 number. I also have no idea where you got the 2% figure, since you don't cite your sources.
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 08:56 AM on April 20, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
And so maybe you can explain why the ratio of gun murder to gun crime should be applied to the total instances of self defense against both armed and unarmed assailants.
(Edited by florida308 4/20/2007 at 7:57 PM).
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 7:54 PM on April 20, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
You are applying numbers that aren't applicable, thats the point.
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 2:27 PM on April 21, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
the 8,000 and 450,000 numbers are yours.
(Edited by admin 4/22/2007 at 11:29 AM).
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 10:53 AM on April 22, 2007 | IP
|
|
EMyers
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Actually, as we've already covered, those are the numbers of gun activist, Dr. John Lott. We were simply applying them to your numbers. I didn't make up any numbers. If your numbers aren't applicable, I can't help you. If Dr. Lott's numbers aren't applicable I'd suggest you take it up with him.
However, since you don't like the fact that Dr. Lott's numbers were only taking into account armed criminals, let's take a sampling of Phoenix, Arizona where I grew up. According to the FBI there were 5,424 violent crimes last year. Only 118 were murders. Ergo, roughly 2% of all violent crimes end in the death of the victim (that ratio sounds familiar). How do you get 400,000 lives saved. That would have to mean a grand total of 20 million violent crimes last year where the victim had a gun to protect him/herself with. Your high estimate was only 2.5 million. Your numbers just don't add up.
-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough. |
| |
Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:34 AM on April 22, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
At some point, I just have to step back and realize that explaining things to a person like you isn't worth it.
It is actually rewarding for me, because now whenever I hear of someone with an anti-gun position, and I think to myself "how could they possibly believe that," I just have to remember how irrational and nonsensical you are, and then I understand. The only people who can support a gun ban are people like you, who will stop at nothing to justify your illogical point of view. You go so far as to start multiplying random numbers together, because the facts aren't on your side.
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 3:05 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
|
|
homerb89
|
| | Report Post
|
Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
self defense aside....
"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
-Adolf Hitler
Shortly thereafter the SS went door to door confiscating arms. Why? well in order for any tyranny to succeed the subjects must be disarmed. After Hitler forced gun registration upon, and ultimately confiscated weapons from all the Jews in Germany, he went on to exterminate between 5 and 6 million of them. They could offer no resistance. There are countless more examples throughout history showing that gun control=eventual gun confiscation=tyranny. The second amendment serves the main purpose of guaranteeing the people protection from this.
Arguing(erroneously) that an armed society is more prone to crime is irrelevant. If gun ownership WAS in fact a danger, it would still be a right. Free people own guns, slaves do not.
|
| |
Posts: 11 | Posted: 3:27 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
|
|
EMyers
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Actually, not all free men own guns and not all slaves are weaponless.
Florida, those are not random numbers. I gave you specific numbers. I showed you what they equalled (since division is apparently not one of your strong suits). Anybody with a fourth grade math education, a pencil and a paper can come to the exact same conclusion. Why, when the math is put in front of your face (you are, after all, self-proclaimed to be way better in math than I am) you hide behind sidesteps. What about the 2% ratio confuses you. You keep stating that 400,000 lives are saved because of guns when there are 2.5 million violent crimes, but statistics prove, time and time again, that those lives are not saved because 98% of violent crime does NOT lead to the death of the victim. The 400,000 is apparently pulled out of thin air to make it look pretty, but it DOES NOT ADD UP. If you can NOT figure out that 400,000 is not 2% of 2.5 million I think you need to take a serious look at the education system in your state. It has failed you miserably and you deserve an apology from them.
-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough. |
| |
Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:15 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Emeyers, you are right and everyone else is wrong. You can multiply and divide whatever numbers you want to support your conclusion. Nevermind that scholars with graduate educations do these studies. Nevermind that a dozen independent studies come to the same conclusion. Nevermind that you are applying gun crime statics to total instances of self defense against armed and unarmed assailants. Nevermind that your variables aren't mutually exclusive, though you are too inept to even understand what that means. You are correct and everyone else is wrong.
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 4:52 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Its actually funny that you take yourself so seriously.
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 4:53 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
|
|
florida308
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
See, I know gun control doesn't work. I know because I took the number of ice cream cones eaten per day and divided by the number of gallons of ice cream in your average grocery store and then multiplied that by the number of crimes people commit.
|
| |
Posts: 38 | Posted: 7:58 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
|
|
kindrox
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
This is truly a classic. We just found out that a couple of streets over a woman was abducted from her driveway and raped. No weapons involved, just several men.
TO BAD SHE LET HERSELF BE IN THE WRONG PLACE HUH?
The people below were also generally at home and the attackers armed. You must be pretty good with ninja throwing stars if you think you can stand up to any arbitrary armed attacker with something other than a gun. Or are you going to die on hold with 911?
Two armed men kick down front door at 4am, met by armed roommates.
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2007/04/huntsville_homeowner_kills_int.html
A woman uses her pistol to shoot a would-be car jacker who already has a gun pointed at her husband
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5942137
Clerk uses gun to defend against two armed robbers
http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_117001426.html
A man is stabbed several times, retrieves gun, shoots attacker
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_5686485?source=rss
Man shoots home invader
http://www.wreg.com/global/story.asp?s=6379453
Armed robber shot by store clerk
http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0407/414869.html
Two home invaders shot by homeowner
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070416/NEWS0110/70416019
Woman shoots home invader
http://www.wtoc.com/global/story.asp?s=6372628
Man uses gun to defend family against dogs
http://www.kxly.com/index.php?story_id=10024
Two different homeowners defend against home invaders
http://www.heraldcitizen.com/NF/omf.wnm/herald/news_story.html?rkey=0044201+cr=gdn
Residents fight off two armed home invaders
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/12615615/detail.html?rss=pit&psp=news
Man defends against two armed robbers
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20070405_Home_invasion_ends_in_fatal_shootout.html
2-3 men attack man, kill him.
http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/116580754182860.xml&coll=1
Woman defends herself from two robbers
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6104934
Two Houston brothers defend against 4 armed robbers
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/4432086.html
Man repeals six armed robbers
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5888378&nav=HMO6HMaW
Two robbers shot.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022207dnmetinvasion.1f4148.html
Man uses gun to defend against baseball bat
http://www.eagletribune.com/punewsnh/local_story_104093830?keyword=secondarystory
Home owners defend against attempted break in
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=123226&ran=60183
Quote from EMyers at 8:36 PM on April 11, 2007 :
No, I expect a 120lb, 5'2" woman to make sure she didn't place herself in a position to be attacked in the first place AND if the attacker managed to catch her off guard in the first place he certainly isn't going to allow her to pull her gun out of her purse, car, house, whatever.
No.
I've never said I wanted it banned. What post are you refering to?
|
|
|
| |
Posts: 54 | Posted: 8:08 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
|
|
kindrox
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
I don’t carry in places I am not legally able to carry.
As for pulling a gun, it depends. You name a situation that sounds very rare to my life style. I can see five armed guys kicking down the front door, as I gave a real life news story with 6 armed attackers. Most people defend themselves against 1-3 attackers, with more attackers being less common.
For where I live, if I ran across six armed attackers outside my home I am either caught in a gang bang or a riot. In both cases if I don’t engage them they may allow me to withdraw, which I would certainly do.
Just because I have a gun does not mean I have to use it. I can choose to use it when and if it benefits me, perhaps giving ME the power of surprise.
If withdrawing was not possible, and their actions caused me to reasonably believe deadly force was immediately necessary to protect myself, I would try to get to cover and defend myself. If I was not able to save my life running or fighting, I certainly would be dead anyway. I might not live with having the gun but I would get an A for effort. And I would not die a pussy. Unless these guys were hired to put a hit on me, I don’t think they would stick around for a big gun fight. But you gave a situation which is pretty much total fantasy in anyone’s book.
What is not fantasy is defending your house against multiple armed attackers. As other people do this successfully every day I don’t see why I cannot do the same.
I answered your question so please answer mine. It is two AM and you awaken to hear your front door being kicked in. Two men armed with a shotgun and 9mm pistol are seconds away from bursting in. What do you do?
|
| |
Posts: 54 | Posted: 3:49 PM on May 2, 2007 | IP
|
|
kindrox
|
| | Report Post
|
Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
You responded to two other threads and ignored my question.
|
| |
Posts: 54 | Posted: 5:13 PM on May 3, 2007 | IP
|
|
|
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
|
|
|
Gun Control Debates
