You know, everything you just said can be summed up as "If we give up our freedom to have guns, we'll have given up our gun freedom!"
That's a tautology. I won't even bother to give you a link. Do your own homework.
Come back after you learn how a tautology is a logical fallacy.
What other freedoms have they given up in AUS and UK, as you suggested? If you do any research you'll find the answer is none. Yet, they still have lower crime and homicide rates even though they can't protect themselves with guns. Amazing! hahaha
Your just spewing out one sided research that has a clear agenda.
1) Don't you mean "you're"? Gonna blame that on the keyboard again? hahaha
2) At least it's research, which is a helluva lot more than you can say.
You might be getting your ass handed to you by a girl.
But I'm not getting my ass handed to me. YOU are but you're too stupid to realize it. The best you've got is "it's one-sided" or "let me pull this one sentence out of one body of research that sorta kinda contradicts the points being made."
Australia, the U.K., and others that have made it extremely difficult to own guns, have significantly lower gun deaths, but they also don't have the freedoms we have.
Where do you get these silly ideas? They're certainly not supported by facts.
Go here and note where the US ranks against UK and Australia for freedom. That's with all values set to .50 except Gun Control which I set to 0 (since you're trying to say that we have more freedoms because of a lack of gun control it seems prudent to remove that from the equation). Hell, even if it Gun Control is weighted the same as the rest, AUS still comes out on top.
In this here Freedom in the World Index, all three come out exactly tied.
And in this Economic Freedom Index, both UK and AUS come out more free than the US.
This Index of Freedom of the World puts AUS ahead and the UK somewhat behind.
There never has been a question that if you take away the guns, you will have less gun violence It's a simple math problem. But in doing so, we give up our freedoms.
Sorry, that's just false and not supported by facts, just like all of the other shit you've been spewing.
It must be so frustrating for you to have everything you say destroyed by factual, researched, proven evidence. Sucks to be you. No wonder you have such a shitty reputation around here.
Here's some more for you to chew on (and drive your cognitive dissonance through the roof)
Results—Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly.
Conclusions—Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society. Source
Odds are that you're one of those who like to use your gun to bully people. No doubt you have a small dick, too. hahaha
Let's see yourself try to tie yourself in knots over this one:
In the UK the intentional homicide rate is 1.0 In the US the intentional homicide rate is 4.7 Source
In the UK the crime rate is 41.00 In the US the crime rate is 50.16 Source
How is it that a country with guns has a significantly higher intentional homicide rate and crime rate than a country without guns when, according to your (utterly flawed) analysis, guns make you 10 or 16 (or whatever bullshit number you decide to use depending on your mood) "more likely to use a gun to defend yourself than to be murdered by one"?
They do not have guns, yet get murdered nearly less frequently.
Those are hard numbers, not just suppositions like you're trying to use in your feeble attempt to make it look like a gun makes you more safe. They don't.
Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).
Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures. Source
Over and over and over and over, studies point to the same fucking thing but you're too dense to get it.
You know what? I'm done with this. Nobody that would be able to gain any knowledge is going to be reading this thread anymore, and you're just plain too dense to accept rational facts, reason, and logic.
I'm sure I'll run into in another thread somewhere and crush you once again. Until then, have a nice life.
I read no less than 3 additional studies last night that picked that study apart.
Hmm, why don't you have links to those? Oh, I know. Because you're full of shit.
Even if you do manage to find a study or two that finds flaws in that one that I referenced, what about all other the other studies that find the exact same thing!
11 thousand murders, 162 thousand successfully defended. My point was that although it raises the "risk" of homicide times 2, it raises your ability to defend yourself by 16 times.
How do you square against this:
Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.
How is it possible that in an actual scientific study they conclude that a gun doesn't prevent you from being victimized in a crime, yet according your hoo-ha a gun owner is 16 times better at protecting themselves? Something doesn't jive there. And it's pretty obvious, if you have any understanding of stats, what it is. The study you're relying on is self-reporting from people who have every reason to embellish or straight-out lie to a)the police; b)their own conscience; c)their friends/family; d)the media; e)the "perp's" family/friends; f)their "god"; g)their "church"; h)society as a whole.
Yea, those are some reeeaaallly reliable numbers. hahahaha. What a dumbass you are.
Aside from the fact your 162,000 is a bullshit number, comparing it to ~10,000 murders and coming to the conclusion that this makes gun owners 16 times more able to defend themselves is also bullshit. First off, you're starting with bullshit numbers. Second, it's not a valid comparison. Here's why: you don't (and can't) know how many of the former are part of the latter. Why can't you know? Because they're from independent studies. And you're dumb enough to try to mix their results and draw a conclusion.
Leave statistical analysis to people who actually understand how it works.
That's really funny. You cherry-pick a single sentence out of one of the several links I've posted that appears, in isolation, to contradict the point that owning a gun increases your risk of homicide, and you think that amounts to getting "my ass handed to [me]."
Try these: "Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home." Source
"Conclusion: Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally (gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm." Source
"... we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7)" (That means almost 3 times as likely) Source
"The adjusted relative risk for homicide, given a history of family handgun purchase, was 2.2" (That means more that twice as likely). Source.
I could go on all day because all the studies say the same goddamn thing you can't or won't get through your thick skull: that owning a gun increases your chances of being a victim of a homicide.
Good luck trying to cherry-pick a seemingly contradictory sentence out of each one of those. ;-)
Go ahead, keep trying to argue against what is glaringly obvious. Keep making yourself look like a stubborn moron. It really is quite amusing.
The reference you provided also acknowledges that "Studies of defensive gun use suggest that millions of defensive gun use incidents occur each year by people to protect themselves or their property against assaults, theft, or break-ins"
... it's actually a very good read.
Yea, it is a good read. Maybe you should read and comprehend it next time instead of cherry-picking that sentence from the rest of the paragraph.
Studies of defensive gun use suggest that millions of defensive gun use incidents occur each year by people to protect themselves or their property against assaults, theft, or break-ins. HOWEVER, guns are also involved in unintentional firearm shootings and domestic altercations in the home and are the primary method used in suicides in the United States. The body of research to date, including the findings of this study, shows a strong association between guns in the home and risk of suicide. The findings for homicide, while showing an elevated risk, have consistently been more modest.
I would say the data actually points overall to responsible gun ownership having more benefits than not. Here is some more interesting reading.
Yea, that's what you would say. Too bad the data points to the opposite. The last 2 sentences are saying that you are more likely to be a victim of a homicide if you own a gun.
The first of your other two references doesn't say anything at all, just a number. The second one ... do you really think that a stat from .05% of the population that quotes them saying they had to use their gun or get killed, people who have every reason to lie and/or exaggerate, proves anything?
Or understood what I said better in the first place, thus avoiding all of this.
my point was that arguing against logic is stupid
You're absolutely correct. But the point you're trying to make isn't back up by data, facts, or reason and therefore not logical:
Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in. Source
Despite the widely held belief that guns are effective for protection, our results suggest that they actually pose a substantial threat to members of the household. People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk of homicide in the home than people who do not.Source
We did not find evidence of a protective effect of keeping a gun in the home, even in the small subgroup of cases that involved forced entry. Source
The good news is I can correct my terrible phrasing
But you'll probably still never start accepting facts that disagree with your opinion.
... then proceeded to make the exact same point I was making in my original post.
I assure you that's not the case. Try looking into reading comprehension sometime.
As you said in your reply, arguing against logic is "reproducible".
No, I said stupidity is reproducible. If you knew anything about this "natural selection" you brought up, you would know enough to realize that "arguing" is not reproducible.
... then called me stupid.
Because you are stupid.
I'll break this down for you: In my post I stated that stupid is the reproducible trait. What came after that word ("that you actually argue against reason, logic, and facts") is a modifier of stupid, the degree, if you will, of stupid. You got that all mixed up, thinking that "argue" was the subject rather than "stupid"
Not real bright.
It's ok to be a dumb ass, but I would appreciate it next time if you would keep it to yourself.