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.
You do realize that more than 70 years has passed since that battle in WW2, right? Gov'ts have made vast improvements in their weaponry in that time, while the gun you almost certainly have is hardly different than that sniper's.
If that situation were to happen today, taking out that sniper would be no more trouble than swatting a fly.
There's quite the difference between a gun owner and a gun nut. People who delusional enough to think their pea-shooters (in comparison to the weapons the gov't can bring to bear) will make the slightest bit of difference are gun nuts and deserve every bit of condescension they get.
You know that's not how natural selection works, don't you? Actually, you probably don't.
Natural selection depends on a positive (advantageous) reproducible (genetically inheritable) trait; choosing to own a handgun is not a reproducible trait.
However, being so stupid that you actually argue against reason, logic, and facts is reproducible. However, it's not at all positive, nor does low intelligence increase the probability of reproducing in the first place (unless you find your "equal" which only hurts the next generation's odds as far as natural selection goes).
Your hyperlink seems to be defective. Did you test it in your browser?
Hmm, that's odd. If you notice if you hover over the link I tried to create it appears to be an active link (by turning blue and underlining) but is not actually clickable. I guess it must have something to do with the fact that I tried to bold the link, but I've done that any number of times before with no problem. Weird.
But, yes, you quoted the comment I was referring to. I did notice that different gravatars between the one from the orginal comments and the one on your recent posts, but assumed it was the same person from a different location (eg: posting from work then later from home). After more thoroughly reviewing the thread I see now that you are not the same person that started the thread.
Please admit that, in New York, the state grand jury proceedings are governed by, among other provisions of state law, the chapter known as the criminal procedure law (CPL).
Wow! That's quite the informative and supportive link you provided there (see? it helps when you actually follow links people provide), the entirety of which reads:
§ 1.00 Short title. This chapter shall be known as the criminal procedure law, and may be cited as "CPL".
Haven't you ever learned to do research?
Anyway, if what you're trying to say is that just because a grand jury is governed under CPL it therefore is itself a criminal proceeding, you're wrong. Funny how they don't define it as such in their own definitions of criminal courts (and if you're gonna have a criminal proceeding it only stands to reason it would have to occur in a criminal court):
S 10.10 The criminal courts; enumeration and definitions. 1. The "criminal courts" of this state are comprised of the superior courts and the local criminal courts. 2. "Superior court" means: (a) The supreme court; or (b) A county court. 3. "Local criminal court" means: (a) A district court; or (b) The New York City criminal court; or (c) A city court; or (d) A town court; or (e) A village court; or (f) A supreme court justice sitting as a local criminal court; or (g) A county judge sitting as a local criminal court.
A grand jury is not a criminal proceeding, no more than Standards of Proof (also mentioned in and governed under the CPL) or Securing Defendants (also mentioned in and governed under the CPL) or Forfeiture of Bail (also mentioned in and governed under the CPL). The grand jury is a step along the way to a criminal proceeding, but that does not make it itself a criminal proceeding.
Sorry, but there have been a fair number of citations in this thread.
Oh, so now I have to do your homework for you, too? I guess you couldn't be bothered to follow any of the links I provided in the first place which is why we have to do this little dance again. Ok, here you go Try reading them this time.
As a preliminary matter, please point out where I myself have either directly or indirectly asserted that “the grand jury's purpose is to determine criminality”?
Ok, I see what you're doing now. After having the rest of your argument destroyed you're trying to salvage this one little bit -- that a grand jury is a criminal proceeding -- so you can save face.
Fair enough. I'll stipulate that a grand jury is part of the criminal process. Ok?
Your turn. Admit that
The grand jury's decision does not create a case of a homicide without a perpetator. It creates a case of a homicide that is not criminal (in the eyes of the grand jury). This is not a legal conundrum, and anyone who thinks it is probably shouldn't be writing about the case.
is wholly incorrect as I and others have demonstrated.