Then do be sure to cite the supposed study that demonstrates such as being a matter of fact rather than opinion.
More for you to poo-poo Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
And one does not ever need insurance in their day-to-day lives, unless something truly bad happens. Up until that exact moment in time, it is useless, and nothing more than a waste of money. Yet no one, absolutely no individual in the world, can ever pinpoint the exact moment in time at which they will actually need insurance coverage.
from your link: exactly whom did they call? this is just more proof of biased 'studies' formed out of opinion to fit an agenda...
According to the rabidly anti-gun VPC, they are used ~95,000 per year in self defense. That is, about 16x more often than to commit murder. You cannot show this to be true. You cannot show this to be true. You cannot show this to be true [/quote] And thus, you have failed to show any of your claims true.
Pretty interesting link to a collection of assertions from studies emanating from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, a well known highly biased research cooperative (research often funded by antigun advocate sources) Directed by David Hemenway, himself a well known and exposed for one of the early highly flawed and biased anti-gun studies sited continually by anti gun advocates who try to elevate the reported, flawed conclusions, of deeply biased studies as fact by being cloaked with the ‘Harvard’ tag that they believe adds a level of credibility based on the name rather than the substance of research. Hemenway’s early study based on an intentionally flawed framework and data collection model (designed to reach its antigun conclusion), concluded guns in the home were more likely to result in death of the home occupant than be used in self defense was generated to respond to John Lott’s prior work resulting in his ‘more guns, less crime’ hypothesis and study which was followed by Klect and other’s studies that reinforced Lott’s findings. Lott’s work was given credence in the 1993 national Study on gun violence and again, reinforced by other studies, in the 2013 CDC study which reiterated Lott’s figures of guns being used for self defense anywhere from 500k to 2.5 million times a year, the majority of which did not result in a firearm being discharged. This early research by both players resulted in a significant debate played out online where Hemenway’s study was shredded, and Lott’s work, while assaulted primarily by Anti gun advocates, has never been discredited, except in the court of anti gun advocates, rather has been reinforced by other, independent studies. Hemenway, in his position as director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center largely because his ability to attract funds from anti-gun donors like the rabid anti gun organizations, Joyce Foundation, Every town for gun Safety, among others, including Bloomberg who provide funding to produce antigun biased studies under the Harvard banner to be used in elevating anti gun rhetoric among the il informed targets of the Left. What is funny, Hemenway’s published criticisms of Lott’s methods and findings seem to have been discarded by using similar survey methods as Lott, but constructing questionnaires designed to yield biased results, to reach the conclusions reported, but unsubstantiated, in the studies referenced in the link above. One of my favorite semantic twits, is use of the word intimidation as if it can’t be associated with self defense. If I stop a potential attack by displaying a firearm (never discharging it) is that not intimidating a potential attacker from an attack and an act of self defense. Is that not an escalation, one resulting in self defense? Semantics, their use and their intended biasing of meaning can be used to both illicit desired answers in a survey and be used to characterize survey results to the intended bias of the researcher. To use the word intimidation suggests a wide range of meaning based on imagination and interpretation. When a weapon is used to intimidate a victim to surrender something of value like money or submit to rape it is entirely different than a weapon being used to intimidating someone from committing a crime; in the latter case, falling under the category of a successful DGU (defensive use of a gun). One type of intimidation use of a weapon is a crime, considered a crime with or without a weapon, the other, is a legitimate use of a weapon by any measure. The reported conclusions shared in the link provide nothing more than assertions that the reader (particularly the already indoctrinated or those susceptible to propaganda) is expected to accept as fact without question because the ‘Harvard’ label is supposed to be some stamp of authority... it’s a label for a brand of cool aid.
More points to poo-poo: An armed home is not safer Guns rarely used in self-defense Gun access does not reduce crime https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
Apples and pineapples You cannot shot your brains out in a fit of pique with a seat belt. Your four year old cannot find a seat belt in the night stand and shoot his sister. You cannot shoot the drunk crazed brother-in-law with a seat belt.
All true, but, I can blow the brains out of a non English speaking man who is trying to rape my young daughter after break a window and getting into my home while I wait on the police only to find out he wasn't suppose to be in this country.
True, but among the left you’s be accused of predisposing yourself to murder and violating the civil rights of the alleged rapist by owning a gun in the first place. No excuses; only the police and military can have guns and provide the protection of the state despite the SCOTUS ruling that the LE is under no obligation to provide protection for citizens and despite the Left’s continuing demonization of LE in any role. Only those on the Left can accurately interpret morality and the law.
I'm aware, will take the risk, not depending on someone to step up, and as civil rights, ones civil rights stop at the threshold of another.
That an article appears in Scientific America by Melinda Werner Moyer is an author with no special credentials relevant to the study of guns or gun violence and the basis for her article is her assertion that more studies support her opinion than the inverse and, indeed offered no evidence or original research, beyond what she has supposedly surveyed in the literature as some kind of fact which offers nothing in the way of an empirical measure. In fact, her base argument about literature support for the politician statement, is contrary to the 2013 CDC led, the one that the Left ignored...likely she never read the study nor explored the list of studies examined by those conducting the study. Being published by Scientific American (or a Harvard publication) does not lend unassailable credibility to an author nor make the author’s opinion fact. Unlike the perception of many, publishing in such a publication virtually never settles fact or theory, but only serves to initiate or expand a debate. “An armed home is not safer” Safer than what? Show a empirical study that credible proves that assertion. “Guns rarely used in self-defense” First, multiple studies contradict that statement. Second, if so rare, why do LE carry weapons?” “Gun access does not reduce crime” No one has ever definitively proven access to guns increases crime, a fact shared by the 2013 CDC study. If there were a direct correlation between guns and crime, the raw numbers collected nationally showing the trend of the massive decrease in violent crime in 90’s while the numbers of guns available to US citizens nearly doubled would, on the surface, seem on the simple surface to indicate an inverse correlation, or at least that the nature and relationship influencing variables are not understood. BTW, I have had a piece published by Scientific American (as well as other science and industry publications) and a Harvard Piece was published about my work by another author. I know what being published means, the criteria for article evaluation and acceptance, and can say those that think such publication bestows some magic on me would likely not be able to co-explore or debate my work. It would take too long to relate he story, but in my early work, the best criticisms I ever encountered was not a peer or colleague, but from a simple question, overlooked by all, that was asked by a 12 girl.... caused my to completely rethink things, jump my previous work, and chart a new industry direction...One I am still exploring some 20 years later. Though I moved on from my early work and lines of thinking, I still find, to my embarrassment, my early work being used and referenced by others.
If you follow the notion of the boundaries of right being, as John B. Finch offered (sometime attributed to Oliver Homes) opined, “your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.” then, apply the same logic to someone’s right to bear arms which is a right as protected as your right to choose not to bear arms.
all these studies are laughable & pure hyperbole, they ask random peoples for their opinion on a subject & then twist it as factual... and here i thought the left hated fox because it was commentary (aka, opinion)...
"Safer" in what regard? In what respect? They are used often enough. Nor does it serve to increase crime. Therefore there is no point in complaining. Irrelevant and mindless drivel from someone who has no idea of what they are attempting to speak about.
that study was bogus they changed the definition of self defense. like most anti gun groups they lied. They decided that if someone pulls a knife and you show a gun and they knife wielder runs you are the criminal for brandishing a gun. or if someone breaks into your house and you show a gun you are the criminal so they discounted all of times a crime was stopped with no shots being fired.
aah, but he could strangle you with that belt, tie you up with it and rape ya, that crazy bro is nuts ya know...
