Refuting this "study"
This is a discussion on Refuting this "study" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So I'm in the middle of a debate, and am sent this link. Anyone have information to refute or argue this "study"?
December 27th, 2012 04:28 PM
Refuting this "study"
So I'm in the middle of a debate, and am sent this link. Anyone have information to refute or argue this "study"?
- know the difference
is a fancy name for crappy fighter
You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know
December 27th, 2012 04:57 PM
Homocide is the killing of a Human Being. I does not tell the difference in a Legal Killing or an Illegal Killing.
Murder is the illegal Killing.
Justifable Homocide is the legal Killing.
These are generic terms, but in most states, Homocide is only the Killing of a Human.
I'm sure if somebody took the time to reference all of the BS in this "Study" they could just about refute everything in it.
Graduate: University of South Vietnam-
School of Jungle Warfare
CURRAHEE My Brothers In Blood
December 27th, 2012 05:30 PM
Yep...there is "killin" and then there is cold blooded murder.
Killing can be justified. Murder is not.
One commandment in the Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill". This is the English translation.
The Hebrew translations says, "Thou shalt not murder". Two entirely different meanings.
Even so, most studies call violence anything that involves force whether it is justified or not, and this does the study a disservice, because the meaning is not clear.
For instance, someone breaking into your home at 2AM in the morning and you blast him, ending his lengthy career of thugery. That get counted as gun violence, instead of what it really was...a service to the community to make it a better place to live. So cleary it was not gun violence, but rather justified use of force, a different category.
The gun banners and America haters do not distinguish but use these figures on their graphs to bolster their arguments.
One thing I did like about that article though is this...
. Well it is with the Democrats. They are the ones squalling like mashed cats about guns.
Gun control is not politically popular
I want to have a job where the is no accountability,a job where I can do as I dang well please and make my own laws and act like a KING. I want to be on the Supreme Court.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
December 27th, 2012 05:39 PM
You could bring up the correlation-causation bit. Say that this is just hypothesis-generating data and currently no conclusions can possibly be drawn from it. You could also ask how any of this data pertains to law-abiding citizens who legally purchase firearms for recreational and/or defensive needs. Or you could not waste your time on someone who isn't likely to concede to logic and reasoning.
December 27th, 2012 05:50 PM
Words are words............... as translated. I'll fight with the IDF any day of my life!
I must have spent too many years 'over seas' and did not get the overt change in the US people (who we protected) to understand now that they want to 'gender bender' basic thought speach (Orwell reference) so that 'WE' are supposed to second guess everything that we think is good.
Strange times, no?
December 27th, 2012 05:51 PM
4. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
I read the article and point 4 seemed to jump right out at me - "more guns tend to mean more homicide". I would take this the opposite way, that more homicides mean more guns. I would assume that in states with high homicide rates, the honest citizens would be more fearful of being a homicide victim and more likely to arm themselves with a gun as a defense against this homicide. If there was a state with a very low homicide and crime rate, the honest citizens would be less inclined to arm themselves, since they have less to fear.
So instead of the cause and effect the author presumes, we could have the exact opposite.
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the Peoples' Liberty's Teeth." - George Washington
December 27th, 2012 06:11 PM
I can't refute with facts, but I can throw stones at a few of the arguments.
1. and 2., no argument.
3. "Gun ownership is declining." Here's the 'fatal flaw': reported gun ownership is declining. Note that the steepest decline in the curve starts in the mid-90's, just as the "information age" is gathering steam and all of a sudden, everybody knows who you are and where you live. More and more, people are pushing back against sharing personal information with just anybody. The Census Bureau knows this, as there is a similar downward trend in people filling out census forms. So I think the data here are misleading, and people are just not telling random pollsters that they actually have a gun in the home.
4. More guns = more homicide. Nope; this is the correlation-casuation error. Pogo2 has it right; a higher crime rate induces people to acquire firearms.
5. Stricter gun control = fewer gun deaths. Um - explain the difference between Vermont and Texas? And why on earth is Louisiana such a dangerous place? This map makes little sense, and again there is the correlation-causation error being applied to "prove" a preconceived notion.
Now somebody please do something useful, like tracking deaths by bicycles and backyard pools or not using seatbelts.
NRA Endowment Member
NROI Chief Range Officer
December 27th, 2012 06:32 PM
dear SIGguy229 (my favorite gun, by the way):
IMO, virtually ALL of the so-called "studies" and "research" which argue against the ownership of guns by law-abiding people are out and out LIES. one pro-gun writer described them as "advocacy literature". the authors of such propaganda START from the position that guns are bad, and intentionally slant their statistics, facts, and conclusions to support this position. then others, with the same goal, write new "studies" which cite these earlier "studies". such writers MUST lie, because the facts don't back up their conclusions. such people feel morally obligated to lie because of the holy purpose behind their motives. i find them similar to early 20th century alcohol prohibitionists: 'if we could only rid the world of the demon rum, we could eliminate much of the evil in the world'. they were wrong.
while i will not say that all pro-gun literature is free of such advocacy, we don't have to lie, because the facts support us.
so, in your specific case, a little checking from you (like this very thread) should locate those who can point out all the flaws in the study you're asking about. and not all of those writers are automatically pro-gun. often they are neutral, but dislike slanted 'research'.
December 27th, 2012 11:02 PM
It was in the Washington Post. Need I say more?
December 27th, 2012 11:28 PM
There is a good YouTube video countering a Young Turks video by HowTheWorldWorks in which they reference a lot of this, it's called "Shooting Deaths and Gun Control, the Critique". Sorry, I should be able to figure out how to post a link to YouTube on my phone, but I can't, you'll just have to look it up.
December 28th, 2012 12:19 AM
Shooting Deaths and Gun Control
It's "deaths due to assault" not due to firearms - big difference. When guns were banned in UK/AU, overall violent crimes and substitute weapons were used. These studies also don't distinguish btwn justifiable, criminal, accidental and self homicides
These "studies" also ignore the defensive use of firearms - every the Brady Bunch admits to btwn 80k to 2.5 mil defensive uses per year. Their position is that these defensive uses are rare events and should be ignored, yet mass shootings are more rare events and demand legislative action.
December 28th, 2012 01:07 AM
1. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.
I am sure Healy didn’t take into consideration the other factors, such as each countries law, penalties in each country, culture of each country and other factors. Healy notes that Estonia and Mexico were excluded from the chart. This was obviously done so that Healy’s statement “We(America) are a clear outlier” is justified.
2. The South is the most violent region in the United States.
Pretty much the same factors as above, not taking other factors into consideration. The same type of chart using major cities will bring skewed results. Again many factors need to be taken into consideration.
3. Gun ownership in the United States is declining overall.
Not taken into consideration is the fact that many owners of weapons do not broadcast ownership and most certainly will tell those(survey takers) asking that they do not own any weapons. Thankfully(as of now) America has not real/accurate data on gun ownership.
4. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
Studies/surveys are usually designed to achieve self serving results. Also normally for every study/survey there is one to refute it. Example: FBI data states that when the various states allowed concealed carry crimes/homicides perpetrated with guns declined. Six of one half dozen of the other.
5. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
Again there are other factors as to the results. However if you look at the map provided you will find that many states that do not have stricter gun control laws have the same deaths per 100,000(same color coding) as those denoted as having them. In fact Nevada is noted as a strict law state and is color code at the highest.
6. Gun control is not politically popular.
Gun control is a hot topic and isn’t politically popular. Rightfully so since the language of the 2nd amendment concerning the peoples right is crystal clear. However the anti gun media push and other groups, etc., that continually push for more gun control are attempting to make it popular with the people, Sadly many people and some of our elected representatives are buying into their unfounded rhetoric. Many people have shied away from giving their thoughts on weapons for fear of being belittled/attacked by the anti gun people. The anti gun people have learned well from marketing firms. They ask questions that will make you look like a “monster” or “evil” if you do not give them the answer they want. Many of them start out with the already given “reasonable” infringements of the 2nd amendment. Example: Don’t you agree there should be back ground checks, etc., and then they go after the so called “assault” weapons. Why does someone need such a weapon, why high capacity magazines, no one uses them for hunting, etc.
Howard Cosell said it best...
“What's right isn't always popular. What's popular isn't always right.”
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
--Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney
Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791
and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."
December 28th, 2012 06:49 AM
The man that wrote that is anti gun, Need I say more?
December 28th, 2012 07:50 AM
For every number, every stat, every so called fact, there are and equal number to refute such information.
A large company needed to hire a financial analyst. They needed someone good with numbers.
The company interviewed 3 people for the position.
"We have one question for you" "What does 2+2=?"
Physicist: "(4)...always 4 in this universe or any other universe"
Mathematician " (4)) always 4 in any of our sciences.
Accountant : The accountant closes all the blinds in the room, shuts the door and whispers,
"What would you like it to equal?"
"When those who are governed do too little, those who govern can, and will, do too much." Ronald Reagan
Do what you can; then do what you must
December 28th, 2012 09:55 PM
I would refute it by saying one word, "Chicago". strictest gun laws with 500 guns deaths.
No trees were harmed in the construction of this post. However a large number of electrons were indiscriminately aroused.
Search tags for this page
refuting topics on concealed carry
Click on a term to search for related topics.