If only there was something we could do...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

There really aren't that many murders here, and guns save more lives than they take, as per the DOJ link I supplied which you ignored.

---

Your article basically says the defensive gun use stats you’re referencing are meaningless because they’re being self reported by lying morons.

“The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high.
For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do vic- tims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS”

“NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.”

“In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents' answers to the followup items are not consistent with respon- dents' reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack—but then re- sponded "no" to a subsequent ques- tion: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?"”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyCarter

Your article basically says the defensive gun use stats you’re referencing are meaningless because they’re being self reported by lying morons.

“The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high.
For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do vic- tims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS”

“NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.”

“In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents' answers to the followup items are not consistent with respon- dents' reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack—but then re- sponded "no" to a subsequent ques- tion: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?"”

---

That all you gotta say? Probably the least important part of my posts.

20kish gun murders, 250k+ medical malpractice deaths, but we both know which one makes the news, because thats the one that keeps us divided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

That all you gotta say? Probably the least important part of my posts.

---

You doubled down on the importance of that by posting it and then referencing it in a follow up.

“Yes, we can address more problems than just one, but from what I've seen, anti gun people don't want to address anything but attacking gun owners.”

Then you are blind, dumb as fuck, or a disingenuous liar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

“Yes, we can address more problems than just one, but from what I've seen, anti gun people don't want to address anything but attacking gun owners.”

Then you are blind, dumb as fuck, or a disingenuous liar.

---

I've literally tried to talk about these things dozens of times in this thread. And you just proved me right. You'd rather insult me than talk about anything seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

20kish gun murders, 250k+ medical malpractice deaths, but we both know which one makes the news, because thats the one that keeps us divided.

---

It’s pretty clear you don’t actually like reading, but hope this helps you understand the numbers you’ve been told to parrot

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/cr...ng-cause-death

is that what he’s saying?

seems like most people are attacking a system that is incapable of changing to what a supermajority believes would result in marked improvements and making a bit of fun of the people that believe the horse buggy whip companies are a public good, forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyCarter

You doubled down on the importance of that by posting it and then referencing it in a follow up.

---

Great, and now I'm trippling down on the other things I said. nothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ex-powderbroker

is that what he’s saying?

seems like most people are attacking a system that is incapable of changing to what a supermajority believes would result in marked improvements and making a bit of fun of the people that believe the horse buggy whip companies are a public good, forever.

---

I could see how you could think that, but its lacking the awareness to focus on things we can all agree about, and put the least productive, most divisive ideas on the back burner. Gun control is like the poster child for most divisive least productive topic.

You're also just kind of narcissistically seeing yourself as right, and that there isno room for anyone to also be right while disagreeing with you. there is no difference of opinion possible, its that your perspective is the right one and everyone else should just get with it, which again, is lacking the awareness I described above. its just narcissistically thinking that everyone should just live and think the way you want them to. Thats a childish inability to recognize people outside of yourself as individuals, rather than a higher consciousness ability to find common cause and work together.

You'd have to let go of wanting to control the thoughts of others, and actually try to find unity and common cause with those who disagree with you about many things.

So, no, thats not what hes saying. They're very different.


Also if it really were a supermajority, then you would have gotten your way by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

I've literally tried to talk about these things dozens of times in this thread. And you just proved me right. You'd rather insult me than talk about anything seriously.

---

It’s wasn’t meant as an insult. You can be insulted by the facts if you want.

I’ll repeat - saying this ““Yes, we can address more problems than just one, but from what I've seen, anti gun people don't want to address anything but attacking gun owners” means you are blind, dumb as fuck, or a disingenuous liar.

Vibes bro. Reread this whole thread for proof I’m right - we’ll wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

Great, and now I'm trippling down on the other things I said. nothing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyCarter

It’s pretty clear you don’t actually like reading, but hope this helps you understand the numbers you’ve been told to parrot

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/cr...ng-cause-death

---

I’m two for two so far!
Maybe after I put the kids to bed I’ll come back and try for more, but I’m sure you’ve done your own research on these items and aren’t just blindly cutting and pasting shit from some group of like-minded dumbfucks in your micropeen support group. The rest have to be better right???

The ‘gun control is so divisive let’s just avoid it’ argument doesn’t hold water. Segregation was an incredibly divisive topic, with highly entrenched cultural and economic self-interests involved. I for one am glad it wasn’t avoided since there were ‘other more productive’ issues to address.

And why did Leroy make several posts harping on the idea that removing a significant quantity of certain gun types requires police forces barging into homes? It’s common knowledge that the main tool is buyback programs eg Australia’s approach, coupled with (of course) the discovery of unregistered or illegal guns during domestic violence interventions etc etc as a byproduct of normal policing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyCarter

It’s pretty clear you don’t actually like reading, but hope this helps you understand the numbers you’ve been told to parrot

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/cr...ng-cause-death

---

Thats a weird article man. it seems to be debunking something, but doesn't link to anyone making the claims it is supposedly debunking, doesn't really seem to use any actual numbers, just focusing solely on this 'third cause of death' thing. And yes, it does seem to describe some errors, but again, it doesn't link to anyone actually showing those errors. it just says, people making these claims are wrong because here is a flawed study. it doesn' show specific claims, and show that this is the specific study they used to support those claims. Also, half the studies it does link are for the fucking UK, a different country. It reads like a medical lobby propaganda piece.

Meanwhile... the study its supposedly debunking is from Johns Hopkins, you know, they do have some credibility.

The highest numbers were 400k... which are too high, which is why I posterd the 250K number.

But ok, lets say you're right, and I'm wrong. Heres a quote from the original study, “Incidence rates for deaths directly attributable to medical care gone awry haven’t been recognized in any standardized method for collecting national statistics,” says Martin Makary, M.D., M.P.H., professor of surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and an authority on health reform. “The medical coding system was designed to maximize billing for physician services, not to collect national health statistics, as it is currently being used.”

Hmmm, well that sure doesn't sound great. I wonder why that is? Cus they want to obscure the stats to keep on making money? Yep, Just like stats for cops shooting people aren't compiled just not kept cus they don't want us to know them.

Seems we should agree there is a problem here, no?

But, its not as important as finding a way to tell me I'm wrong about SOMETHING. You need that. You really fucking do. So do a dance and celebrate if you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frorider

The ‘gun control is so divisive let’s just avoid it’ argument doesn’t hold water. Segregation was an incredibly divisive topic, with highly entrenched cultural and economic self-interests involved. I for one am glad it wasn’t avoided since there were ‘other more productive’ issues to address.

And why did Leroy make several posts harping on the idea that removing a significant quantity of certain gun types requires police forces barging into homes? It’s common knowledge that the main tool is buyback programs eg Australia’s approach, coupled with (of course) the discovery of unregistered or illegal guns during domestic violence interventions etc etc as a byproduct of normal policing.

---

then why don't buyback programs work? They are a joke, people sell 3dprinted guns for profit.

It’s a bit concerning that there’s a sizable portion of society that aligns with the ideology of sociopaths like LeRoi. Individual rights trump all others.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

Thats a weird article man. it seems to be debunking something, but doesn't link to anyone making the claims it is supposedly debunking, doesn't really seem to use any actual numbers, just focusing solely on this 'third cause of death' thing. And yes, it does seem to describe some errors, but again, it doesn't link to anyone actually showing those errors. it just says, people making these claims are wrong because here is a flawed study. it doesn' show specific claims, and show that this is the specific study they used to support those claims. Also, half the studies it does link are for the fucking UK, a different country. It reads like a medical lobby propaganda piece.

Meanwhile... the study its supposedly debunking is from Johns Hopkins, you know, they do have some credibility.

The highest numbers were 400k... which are too high, which is why I posterd the 250K number.

But ok, lets say you're right, and I'm wrong. Heres a quote from the original study, “Incidence rates for deaths directly attributable to medical care gone awry haven’t been recognized in any standardized method for collecting national statistics,” says Martin Makary, M.D., M.P.H., professor of surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and an authority on health reform. “The medical coding system was designed to maximize billing for physician services, not to collect national health statistics, as it is currently being used.”

Hmmm, well that sure doesn't sound great. I wonder why that is? Cus they want to obscure the stats to keep on making money? Yep, Just like stats for cops shooting people aren't compiled just not kept cus they don't want us to know them.

Seems we should agree there is a problem here, no?

But, its not as important as finding a way to tell me I'm wrong about SOMETHING. You need that. You really fucking do. So do a dance and celebrate if you want.

---

LOL… the parrot gettin mad that he’s been eagerly gulping down a whole lot of bullshit.

“Jumbo jets and magic carpets
The consequences of exaggerating the scope of this very real problem should not be dismissed. In 2019, a video released by the National Rifle Association used this myth to claim that medical malpractice was deadlier than guns, specifically that deaths from medical errors were 500 times higher than deaths from accidental gun incidents. Sure, it’s a simple bit of whataboutism, but it provides ammunition to irresponsible gun owners, allowing them to casually deflect criticism.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

It’s a bit concerning that there’s a sizable portion of society that aligns with the ideology of sociopaths like LeRoi. Individual rights trump all others.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Can you cite examples from history of countries that have prized collectivism over individual rights, and how that has turned out well for them?

Cus all the countries that I can think of that do that are horrible, you know, nazi germany, the soviets, communist china etc.

Places that respect individual rights, are places that respect civil rights. Collectivism leads to the erosion of civil rights.

Examples to the contrary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyCarter

LOL… the parrot gettin mad that he’s been eagerly gulping down a whole lot of bullshit.

“Jumbo jets and magic carpets
The consequences of exaggerating the scope of this very real problem should not be dismissed. In 2019, a video released by the National Rifle Association used this myth to claim that medical malpractice was deadlier than guns, specifically that deaths from medical errors were 500 times higher than deaths from accidental gun incidents. Sure, it’s a simple bit of whataboutism, but it provides ammunition to irresponsible gun owners, allowing them to casually deflect criticism.”

---

The fact theres a liberal bias in academia is news? this little blurb is opinion. its not fact or data or anything. Where am I getting mad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

It’s a bit concerning that there’s a sizable portion of society that aligns with the ideology of sociopaths like LeRoi. What I want trumps what most people want.

---

Tightened that up a little for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

The fact theres a liberal bias in academia is news? this little blurb is opinion. its not fact or data or anything. Where am I getting mad?

---

Which part is the opinion? The fact that your malpractice stats are bad data? The fact that the NRA pushed it as a distraction? The fact that you parroted it like you were supposed to as a means of distracting away from the gun issue several times in this thread?

Man, once you have to go off script things really start to fall apart for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

Can you cite examples from history of countries that have prized collectivism over individual rights, and how that has turned out well for them?

Cus all the countries that I can think of that do that are horrible, you know, nazi germany, the soviets, communist china etc.

Places that respect individual rights, are places that respect civil rights. Collectivism leads to the erosion of civil rights.

Examples to the contrary?

---

We already live in a society that recognizes that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. It’s not collectivism, it’s a civil society.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

then why don't buyback programs work? They are a joke, people sell 3dprinted guns for profit.

---

Try to focus. You repeatedly stated that Gestapo-like door to door raids are essential to significantly removing guns from circulation, when in fact the highly studied Australian example removed 650,000 (out of 900k) via buy back. I’m merely making a factual observation that Gestapo-like raids aren’t the only tool in the box.

With polarized clarity, Leroy explains the problem our dumbass nation will continue to debate. As more children are not only slaughtered but mentally scarred from the constant active shooter training...we continue to debate. What a fucked up society and all for a bunch of guns. Been said a million times, but all the other first world citizens just shake their heads at our patheticness.

Yeah but there is no poverty, mental health issues, video games, movies, big pharma, or Freedom in those other first world countries. Plus they still have crime including gun crimes so the whole “it’s not possible to improve things” is proven right there.

But if you want to try to change things well it’s up to mags to lay out the foolproof plan right here - let’s be very clear it’s through the expertise of padded room mags that these other first world countries got to where they are with regards to gun crimes and mass shootings - they did not need to employ anyone with any experience, education, knowledge of the law etc to do it. They crowd sourced it to Internet forum skiers and bikers.

It’s up to us. And if we can’t do it? Checkmate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frorider

Try to focus. You repeatedly stated that Gestapo-like door to door raids are essential to significantly removing guns from circulation, when in fact the highly studied Australian example removed 650,000 (out of 900k) via buy back. I’m merely making a factual observation that Gestapo-like raids aren’t the only tool in the box.

---

they're not the only tool, but all the other tools would be ineffectual without that tool.

Australia, had lower gun numbers to start with, has a more bootlicking authority worshipping culture, and also, every couple months you hear about some retiree getting caught with a basement full of belt fed machine guns or something there, so I am pretty sure there are a lot more guns there than you think there are. Interestingly, the penalties for illegal gun ownership are a slap on the wrist there compared to our draconian penalties.

Besides though, the example given was if SCOTUS just declared only muskets are protected and we have no right to own anything else. If that was the case, you'd see mass non compliance. Hell, we've seen mass non compliance with the ATF stupid hamfisted dishonest attempt to circumvent the legislative process and borderline entrapment with their back and for waffling on the pistol brace stuff.

So, lets skip the 'i'm not saying' and tell me your plan. SCOTUS rules nothing but muskets are protected, state or federal lawmakers ban everything else, hardly anyone complies. What next? Gun buybacks? They DONT work. They are a joke, You have no evidence they have made anyone safer. If you do, please provide it. SO you waste taxpayer money on gun buybacks, there are still millions of guns, what then?