Why More White Men Are Dying From Gun Suicides

Got to love the HYPOCRISY given your consistent abject FAILURE to substantiate that utterly bogus allegation.

 

Projecting again?

Yup, because you have nothing else of any substance to contribute.

 

What was presented on the part of yourself is nothing more than politically-motivated opinion pieces driven by a seething hatred for differing political beliefs. The constant, incoherent screaming and out of hand dismissals on the part of yourself does not amount to a substitute for facts. Facts are what are absent on the part of yourself. If the NRA truly had such power to exert over congress at will, there would be no firearm-related restrictions in place currently. But such is not the case.

 

Ultimately an abstract is meant to condense and boil down the intent of the study so that it may be presented within a few seconds, and reduced to the lowest common denominator so that it may be understood by the stupidest, most inept individuals who do not actually have either the attention span, nor the intelligence, to read the study for themselves.

The abstract of a study is as meaningless as the dicta of a ruling by the united state supreme court. It means nothing without the entire body of work being presented. The fact that such is fought against yourself so viciously, in a desperate attempt to avoid having to present the full study, does little more than indicate that such a fact is indeed known by yourself.

 

we must find our own devices, if we are left with our own devices.

Original Sinners Unite!

Manna from Government whenever we cannot convince Any God, through our Faith!

 

The matter has indeed been proven by the sheer number of retractions of papers being certified as being peer reviewed. If something is truly peer reviewed, there is no legitimate reason for it to be retracted at all if the review process is truly of a scientifically reliable nature.

 

When ultimately the goal is demonstrating the fallacies of one presenting a factually-deficient, emotionally-driven tangent, there is no need to contribute anything to the discussion. Demonstrating the fallacies presented can easily be done by picking apart the language utilized by the individual who is screaming incoherently.

 

Kneejerk denialism turned up to 11!

The NRA even ADMITS that it has power over Congress with it's LOBBYING division and it's RANKING of the votes of members of Congress.

 

Given your paucity of subject matter knowledge that is amusing.

 

Why do any firearm-related restriction exist at the federal level?

 

Every lobby has some power over Congress. That's their whole reason to exist.

 

WRONG!

That proves the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are fallaciously alleging.

It demonstrates that the Peer Review process is held is high esteem amongst scientists and therefore they will purge any and all attempts that do meet the appropriate standards.

That you don't even comprehend WHY those papers were withdrawn is GLARINGLY obvious and says volumes about your lack of subject matter knowledge in this regard.

 

Which must be the individual who is staring at you in your mirror!

 

You need to try and explain that to Xenamnes.

Good luck!

 

They were withdrawn because ultimately the peer review process is devoid of credibility and meaning. If it were not, hundreds of papers based on fraud would never get past the review process and published.

 

Why does it matter? Pro-2A voters will vote against anti-2A politicians every time and in red states they will continue to elect Republicans. If it wasn't the NRA-ILA identifying anti-2A politicians, it would be someone else. Heck, voters could just go to the Brady Campaign site for the exact same information.

 

An entire collective that hates and wants to ban Guns in the worst possible way,
Hires the same type of people to research firearms, and the same ilk peer reviews those studies.
There can only be one result from such a stacked deck.

There is only Laughter as a response to the true believers of Gun Control.
As the Latin phrase says,
We laugh at you.

 

Wrong.

You FAIL. You should just change your avatar to

 

Obviously, you did not bother to read the article I linked to which explains why an overestimate of defensive gun use is much more likely than an underestimate.

Suppose that 99.9% of Americans did not use a gun to defend themselves in a given year and 0.01% did.

Suppose that 1% of the people in each group (people who used a gun to defend themselves and people who did not) lied in a survey about defensive gun use. 1% of 99.9% is 0.999% and 1% of 0.01% is 0.0001%. So 0.999% of the survey respondents falsely claimed that they used a gun in self defense when they did not and 0.0001% of the survey respondents falsely claimed that they did not use a gun in self defense when they did.

The American population is about 325 million. 0.01% of 325 million is 32,500. So there were really only 32,500 defensive gun uses. However, 0.999% of 325,000,000 is 3,246,750 and 0.0001% of 325 million is 325.

32,500 (true value) + 3,246,750 (liars) - 325 (liars) = 3,278,925 (survey result)

So according to the survey results 3,278,925 people used a gun to defend themselves but in reality only 32,500 people did. That is a huge overestimate. It is an overestimate of 9,989%!

 

One, you're still just making up numbers, and two, the number of DGUs in a given year doesn't matter one single bit.

 

Excellent post!

 

None of which matters. Legally in the united states, it does not matter how many individuals have successfully defended themselves from harm with a firearm. It could be a million a year, it could be one a year, it could be none in the last decade, it makes no legal difference. The united state supreme court has ruled the second amendment is not subject to a judicial interest balancing test against the concept of "public safety" in determining the scope of its protection. It does not have to be proven that it is redeeming itself and justifying its existence through legal deeds outweighing illegal deeds. It is not the job of private citizens to deter and stop criminal offenses from being committed, that is the task of law enforcement. Legally no more justification for firearms ownership must exist than it simply being what the people want.

 

I read it, and its a total fail.

It starts out with the assumption on page 1435, the very first sentence in his argument that defensive gun uses are over estimated:
"Self-report surveys tend to overestimate rare events which carry no social stigma".

Fail #1 - Contrary to the basic assumption of the article, firearm ownership has a significant social stigma - that's why so many gun owners do not admit to owning a firearm. That's why Pew and Gallup claim surveys of gun ownership are unreliable and underestimate.

Fail #2 (and its a great big FAIL) - the entire section V Survey Bias Toward Substantial Overestimation, is entirely Hemenways personal opinion. No fact, no hard data, just assumption and opinion. He assumes misclassification errors, he assumes responses fall into certain categories, he assumes certain behavior.


The article is a complete and utter embarrassment.