Are Gun-Owners Delusional, Dishonest, Indifferent or Just Ignorant of the Evidence?

[Twilight Hue]

If you want a serious discussion, don't misquote people. No one said car deaths are OK. The point that has been made over and over is that cars are regulated precisely because they are dangerous, and guns should be at least as regulated. If cars were as loosely regulated as firearms in the US, I'm sure they WOULD be as "vilified" as guns.

Well it's apparently acceptable in society isn't it? We would be vilifying cars right now if it wasn't the case. I don't think I misquoted anybody. All the talk about the gun debate is human death same death as cars cause.

Don't talk about deaths then.

 

[Audie]

Not live in a paranoid fantasy world about "they"

Not live in a paranoid fantasy world about "they"

Easy, and very unkind words from someone who has not experienced what I have.

 

[Revoltingest]

Easy, and very unkind words from someone who has not experienced what I have.

It's easy for people to view the world as mere statistics of groups,
ignoring individual experience which doesn't neatly fit their view.

 

[Audie]

It's easy for people to view the world as mere statistics of groups,
ignoring individual experience which doesn't neatly fit their view.

I wish him no harm, but if he experienced a tenth of what I did, I believe it would
change his outlook.

To quote whoever it was who said it, it would be an
awakening something like that of JW with appendicitis!

 

[Revoltingest]

To quote whoever it was who said it, it would be an
awakening something like that of JW with appendicitis!

A friend from long ago was a big fan of faith healing.
But once when playing soccer in field of tall grass,
he accidentally kicked a piece of concrete.
Suddenly, a hospital became a very compelling thing.
Experience is great at adjusting perspectives, eh.

 

[Mister Emu]

"Nonsense " ? LOL. It's virtually a word for word quote.

Yes, nonsense. Balderdash. Poppycock. BS.

You made up an argument out of the thin air, and then purposefully misattributed it to me. Direct me to the "virtual word for word" equivalent in what I said to "evil doers are just waiting for a chance to enter the home" or retract your disingenuous claim.

Here's something someone recently said:

If you want a serious discussion, don't misquote people.

Pfft.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Easy, and very unkind words from someone who has not experienced what I have.

You don't know what I've experienced. But you asked, I answered. Don't ask questions you don't want answered, maybe?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, nonsense. Balderdash. Poppycock. BS.

You made up an argument out of the thin air, and then purposefully misattributed it to me. Direct me to the "virtual word for word" equivalent in what I said to "evil doers are just waiting for a chance to enter the home" or retract your disingenuous claim.

Here's something someone recently said:

Pfft.

Are Gun-Owners Delusional, Dishonest, Indifferent or Just Ignorant of the Evidence? Post 69. If that's not the implication in that post, do tell us what you were talking about, then, please?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well it's apparently acceptable in society isn't it? We would be vilifying cars right now if it wasn't the case. I don't think I misquoted anybody. All the talk about the gun debate is human death same death as cars cause.

Don't talk about deaths then.

The difference, of course, is that taking steps to limit car deaths is apparently OK. Try to limit gun deaths along similar lines and we get... well, this.

 

[Audie]

You don't know what I've experienced. But you asked, I answered. Don't ask questions you don't want answered, maybe?

Any excuse to be mean spirited is a poor one.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The difference, of course, is that taking steps to limit car deaths is apparently OK. Try to limit gun deaths along similar lines and we get... well, this.

Well I'm not against raising the age limit to 21 and safety certification giving today's collective generation has proven not mature or competent enough as compared with generations in the past to be fathered in. Competency and responsibility needs to be a serious consideration.

Still my whole point is cars are still the leading cause of death when it comes to tools and equipment. So the gun debate based on numbers of death just doesn't fly with me.

Additionally, I wouldn't mind seeing smart guns coming on the scene for safety reasons as well.

I can at least meet people partway on that aspect giving how spooked some people are being made nowadays.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Any excuse to be mean spirited is a poor one.

I wasn't being mean spirited. I was answering your question.

 

[Mister Emu]

If that's not the implication in that post

There was no implication, I wrote exactly and only what I meant. Anything you drew from what was explicitly written is sourced solely in your imagination.

 

[Nous]

How does the fact, being granted for the sake of the argument, that my guns are statistically likely to make my home more dangerous contradict having guns as a last resort for relief from violent assaults on my life, liberty, and property?

Perhaps you need to look up what "contradiction" means. See #3: the definition of contradiction Explain why you want an instrument in your home that is more likely to be used to kill or injure a friend or family member than to be used for "relief from violent assaults on [your] life, liberty and property"?

Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994. - PubMed - NCBI
"497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm"

That number (497,646) is a projection based on responses to a survey of 1,678 households, of which 105 reported retrieving a firearm because of an intruder during the previous year. Given that nothing resembling that number of reports to the police were made, there is little reason to believe that that number of such incidents actually occurred.

 

[Mister Emu]

Perhaps you need to look up what "contradiction" means.

I note you haven't even attempted to show where any contradiction exists.

Explain why you want an instrument in your home that is more likely to be used to kill or injure a friend or family member than to be used for "relief from violent assaults on [your] life, liberty and property"?

Because, "I absolutely will not allow my life to depend on the timeliness of police response or the mercies of the depraved".

That number (497,646) is a projection based on responses to a survey of 1,678 households

Yes, that is how surveys work. Projections to population based on a, hopefully representative, sample.

Given that nothing resembling that number of reports to the police were made, there is little reason to believe that that number of such incidents actually occurred.

Given that half of all violent crime doesn't get reported to police, there is little reason to use a lack of reports of thwarted crime as a means of definitively establishing a number.

The NCVS has the number at about 100,000 a year, some have the mid-hundreds of thousands, and some rather absurd ones have the number in the low thousands(GVA) on the lower bound or millions(Gleck, etc.) on the upper. I don't think it is quite at either pole; I'd suggest that the number is between the NCVS and the CDC number, closer to the NCVS.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

There was no implication, I wrote exactly and only what I meant. Anything you drew from what was explicitly written is sourced solely in your imagination.

More tap dancing. Whatever you need to justify your Red Dawn fantasy, I guess.

 

[Mister Emu]

More tap dancing. Whatever you need to justify your Red Dawn fantasy, I guess.

I won't cater to your delusions of hidden meaning in what I wrote.

Pray tell, for my amusement, what exactly is this "Red Dawn fantasy" you've conjured up for me?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I won't cater to your delusions of hidden meaning in what I wrote.

Pray tell, for my amusement, what exactly is this "Red Dawn fantasy" you've conjured up for me?

The meaning wasn't hidden, it was quite clear. The fact that you're now pretending your own words didn't say what they quite literally, explicitly said notwithstanding. I'm really not sure what you hope to achieve by denying you meant what your words literally meant, but hey, you do you.

 

[Mister Emu]

The meaning wasn't hidden, it was quite clear. The fact that you're now pretending your own words didn't say what they quite literally, explicitly said notwithstanding. I'm really not sure what you hope to achieve by denying you meant what your words literally meant, but hey, you do you.

First it was virtually word for word, then an implication, and now explicit and literal meaning, it seems to change every post. Which is it?

As for what I'm achieving, that would be a smile, a small amount of enjoyment as I mockingly address your glaringly apparent inability to engage with what I've actually said and instead concoct blatant falsehoods.

By all means, prove me wrong and reveal me to be the fraud you claim:
Here is what I said:
"There is no contradiction between the facts you have presented and my position that if someone were to violently invade my home, I want(I have) a gun to fend them off.

All the platitudes and percentages in the world will do nothing for me if it happens. I simply and absolutely will not allow my life and the life of those around me to depend on the timeliness of police response or the mercies of the depraved."

and here is what you claim is the literal and explicit meaning of those words:
"unnamed and nebulous evildoers are just waiting for a chance to enter the home with the willful intent to do harm"

Which part of what I wrote has that literal and explicit meaning? Good luck, I look forward to the old college try, as they say.

 

[Nous]

I note you haven't even attempted to show where any contradiction exists.

Yes, I did. See the OP. You haven't said anything different than did those answering the Pew survey who said their primary reason for having a gun is for "protection". There is a logical contradiction in having a gun for purposes of "protection" when the evidence shows that the gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure a friend or family member or used otherwise for socially undesirable acts.

Yes, that is how surveys work. Projections to population based on a, hopefully representative, sample.

You only linked to an abstract (which mentioned nothing about the CDC); I'm not sure that I bothered to look up the study. In the abstract the authors do not even defend the findings that are quoted (and that you quote) or the methodologies by which those numbers are obtained. And apparently you don't know whether the sample was representative, or whether the numbers are the product of flagrant errors. Hemenway provides a very informative critique of a Kleck and Gertz study that produced findings of similar numbers of reported instances of self-defense use of guns: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6936&context=jclc I encourage you to read it.