Why More White Men Are Dying From Gun Suicides

That's great!

It just so happens that I have just one slightly used bridge for sale.

The following article outlines additional instances in which VPC fraudulently manipulates the numbers to distort the evidence in a way that serves to further their gun ban agenda:

"CPRC at National Review: “Bogus Gun-Control Numbers: To prove that concealed handguns are dangerous, the Violence Policy Center cooks the books”
https://crimeresearch.org/2014/04/c...s-the-violence-policy-center-cooks-the-books/
EXCERPT "Third, and perhaps the worst mistake, the Violence Policy Center actually adds the “pending” and “conviction” numbers together. Convictions are obviously what should be counted. After all, some of the “pending” cases do not result in a conviction, and adding them more than doubles the total number.

There is even more numerical nonsense. The Violence Policy Center then adds in twelve cases that were reported in newspapers and other media over the same years. However, those cases had already been counted in the official statistics by the Michigan State Police."CONTINUED

 

Indeed! We know that the 'high' estimates reflect abuse of very small samples. Of course, if DGU was high, we'd then also expect deterrence knock-on effects which hypothetically generate 'more guns=less crime' effects. However, that hypothesis is repeatedly rejected. Those using the 'high' estimates therefore lack a logical platform.

 

Firstly, you have no idea why the CDC didn't publish facts that refute your opinion about DGUs.

Throughout the rest of your post, you have only revealed how little you know about CWP holders & the everyday facts of living in the real world.

It must have been a real thrill to play with a police interactive situational training simulator involving firearms but that doesn't make you a cop and there is no substitute for decades of real life experience or "street smarts".

The many sensible CWP holders I know & have taught try to AVOID troublesome environments, patiently & calmly try to DEFUSE tense situations when confronted with them, let the thief have the TV & only deploy their firearms as an absolute last resort.
You can't "unshoot" someone & you live with the consequences for the rest of your life.

That you generalize the millions of CWP holders as childish, "wannabe OK Corral gun slingers" only further indicates that you know nothing about firearms or the many responsible people who own them. We do not make the burdensome choice to carry to impress others or wistfully daydream about taking another life.

Since your only experience with the criminal world is playing with a police training simulator & you base your knowledge of DGUs on Facebook, I pity you when you are forced to move out of your parents' home in their gated community & get your own apartment.
Keep your rape whistle handy & good luck.

 

We've all heard the assessment of "opinion", now haven't we?

That's more of your "opinion". Not fact.

I see assertions like this all the time, and I just roll my eyes; it's the same ignorant answer propagated by people with zero training or understanding of real world confrontations. I have posted more than once how modern training addresses these realities, and the gun haters scurry under their rocks and refuse to acknowledge it. Plain and simple, situational awareness and the ability to recognize prefight indicators reduces the likelihood you'll be surprised, and if you are surprised then proper movement and tactics enable you to seize the initiative and win the day; even against a drawn gun. Oh, but in your "opinion" that can't happen, right?

Utter nonsense. Plain and simple, you don't know what you're talking about.

You wouldn't know "factual and credible" if it bit you in the ass. You demonstrate again and again and again that you are a blind ideologue with no ability to process any fact that doesn't jibe with your nonsensical worldview.

 

Factually incorrect. It was congress that restricted the budget of the CDC, holding that no funding may be allowed for political purposes, such as promoting or advocating firearm-related restrictions. The CDC is free to study firearm-related violence to whatever degree it wishes, but it may not advocate anything under any circumstances. It is for research exclusively, not advocacy.

 

If the article was indeed credible, it would not remain hidden behind a paywall.

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/107-cancer-papers-retracted-due-to-peer-review-fraud/

The journal Tumor Biology is retracting 107 research papers after discovering that the authors faked the peer review process. This isn’t the journal’s first rodeo. Late last year, 58 papers were retracted from seven different journals— 25 came from Tumor Biology for the same reason.


It’s possible to fake peer review because authors are often asked to suggest potential reviewers for their own papers. This is done because research subjects are often blindingly niche; a researcher working in a sub-sub-field may be more aware than the journal editor of who is best-placed to assess the work.


But some journals go further and request, or allow, authors to submit the contact details of these potential reviewers. If the editor isn’t aware of the potential for a scam, they then merrily send the requests for review out to fake e-mail addresses, often using the names of actual researchers. And at the other end of the fake e-mail address is someone who’s in on the game and happy to send in a friendly review.


Fake peer reviewers often “know what a review looks like and know enough to make it look plausible,” said Elizabeth Wager, editor of the journal Research Integrity & Peer Review. But they aren’t always good at faking less obvious quirks of academia: “When a lot of the fake peer reviews first came up, one of the reasons the editors spotted them was that the reviewers responded on time,” Wager told Ars. Reviewers almost always have to be chased, so “this was the red flag. And in a few cases, both the reviews would pop up within a few minutes of each other.”


It’s not always the authors providing the reviews. "There is some evidence that so-called third-party language-editing services play a role in manipulating the reviewing process,” said a spokesperson for Springer, the company that published Tumor Biology until this year. Scientists who work in a language other than English may use editing services to polish their papers before submitting to a journal, and some of these services can be unethical and predatory, says Wager.


It might be naive, she says, but “if the authors didn't realize that this is what the editing company was doing, then I feel the authors should have a fair chance. There's probably nothing wrong with the research; it just hasn't been peer reviewed.” But of course, it’s difficult to assess whether the authors knew about it. “It is unclear whether the authors of the manuscripts were aware that the agencies were proposing fabricated reviewer names/e-mail addresses,” the Springer spokesperson told Ars.


This most recent avalanche of fake-reviewed papers was discovered because of extra screening at the journal. According to an official statement from Springer, “the decision was made to screen new papers before they are released to production.” The extra screening turned up the names of fake reviewers that hadn’t previously been detected, and “in order to clean up our scientific records, we will now start retracting these affected articles...Springer will continue to proactively investigate these issues.”


It’s best for editors not to rely on the contact details submitted by authors, but rather search for proper academic e-mail addresses themselves, said Wager. Some journals include this in their editorial guidelines, and other institutions recommend it as best practice. But there are other ways to game the system.


Tumor Biology changed hands in January, and the new publishers, SAGE, were aware of the problems when they took over. “[Springer] were open about the past instances of peer review fraud, and as part of the relaunch they wanted to address the underlying reasons,” a SAGE spokesperson told Retraction Watch. “The Tumor Biology editorial team have already introduced new robust peer review practices expected from all SAGE journals.” However, this doesn’t necessarily mean no more retractions for the journal, since investigations like this recent one may turn up more dirt from the past.

 

It does not matter how many legal defensive uses of a firearm occur in a given year. It could be one million a year, it could be one a year, it could be absolutely none in a decade. Legally it makes no difference in the matter. The protections of the second amendment, according to the united state supreme court, are not subject to a judicial interest balancing test. The legal uses for firearms do not have to outnumber the illegal uses for firearms ownership to remain legal and constitutionally protected against infringement.

 

Then why did you bring it up?

 

I don't but the gun obsessed apparently do because they brought it up!

 

Oh, the IRONY given the endless lies spewed by the NRA!

 

There are no such CDC studies and all you have are puerile ad homs and debunked drivel that contributes nothing of any value.

 

Why do you consistently negate your own feckless position by indulging in puerile and utterly baseless ad homs?

I grew up poor and walked through those neighborhoods on my way to work every day so there is nothing you can teach me, or anyone else, about street smarts. You would feel naked without your precious guns on those streets where I walked alone, unarmed and unafraid. The secret to not being a victim is not being scared and if you need a gun then you are crapping yourself and will be targeted in a heartbeat.

But thanks for once again negating your own position and saving me the trouble.

Have a nice day!

 

You are entitled to your inane opinion but you are not entitled to make up your own asinine factoids.

 

Disingenuous deflection given that it was the NRA who INSTRUCTED Congress to shut down the CDC studies. At least try sticking to the FACTS instead of constantly blaming others for the nefarious deeds of the NRA.

 

Except when they dump their children on others or society to care for them.

 

Pathetic attempt to deny that FACTS that refute your position.

 

Then disprove his claims.

 

An isolated anecdote does NOT alter the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS which obviously WORKS because it exposed the fraud for what it was and took the appropriate corrective action.

Strange how you point your finger at others while denying the fraudulent studies that you fallaciously allege support the NRA.

That says VOLUMES!

 

So explain why the gun obsessed even bring up DGU's anyway if they are irrelevant?

 

I will AFTER he actually makes claims rather than just spouting his erroneous opinion.

 

So what planet are you talking about ?

 

You are spouting anecdotal claims.
Dismissed as bunk.

 

Heed your own words. I don't make up anything, unlike you, and my "opinion" is based in training and real street experience; neither of which you have.

 

...and here we see the very definition of hypocrisy. You have no facts, though you scream self-righteously you do. You accuse the NRA of "nefarious deeds", which is a bald-faced lie.

You should quit while you're behind.