Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 skyth wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.

Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.

Have you seen the crime stats in the US? It's not all unreasonable. I've had to draw my ccw before in a situation where "evasion" wasn't possible. Thankfully I didn't have to shoot.

Why do I get the feeling that you didn't actually need to draw it...

Because you weren't in the situation, and therefore are able to draw conclusions based only on what you have read, which is that he drew a weapon because he felt he was not able to run. There are a lot of feelings people can take from something so vague, and usually those will correspond to their own stances.

Maybe it isn't about firearms and they really are just fans of Harambe.

 Ahtman wrote:
Maybe it isn't about firearms and they really are just fans of Harambe.

Have you pulled your dick out for Harambe yet today?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.

Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.

Have you seen the crime stats in the US? It's not all unreasonable. I've had to draw my ccw before in a situation where "evasion" wasn't possible. Thankfully I didn't have to shoot.

If you didn't need to shoot then how were you in a situation which presented you with enough reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger for you to draw?

This, I think, highlights a serious issue with how guns are used in the US, especially by the police. Guns are not a means of gaining compliance or de-escalation, they are a means of killing someone when all other alternatives are used up. Your gun is what you use when all other alternatives have failed, not your first resort in order to try and gain control over a situation.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.

Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.

Have you seen the crime stats in the US? It's not all unreasonable. I've had to draw my ccw before in a situation where "evasion" wasn't possible. Thankfully I didn't have to shoot.

If you didn't need to shoot then how were you in a situation which presented you with enough reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger for you to draw?

This, I think, highlights a serious issue with how guns are used in the US, especially by the police. Guns are not a means of gaining compliance or de-escalation, they are a means of killing someone when all other alternatives are used up. Your gun is what you use when all other alternatives have failed, not your first resort in order to try and gain control over a situation.

In a vehicle, blocked in front and back by other cars, man with a hammer approaching my window threatening to kill me. Not going to wait until he's beating me with the hammer to draw.

This highlights a serious issue with peoples' opinions of situations they don't understand.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.

Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.

Have you seen the crime stats in the US? It's not all unreasonable. I've had to draw my ccw before in a situation where "evasion" wasn't possible. Thankfully I didn't have to shoot.

If you didn't need to shoot then how were you in a situation which presented you with enough reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger for you to draw?

This, I think, highlights a serious issue with how guns are used in the US, especially by the police. Guns are not a means of gaining compliance or de-escalation, they are a means of killing someone when all other alternatives are used up. Your gun is what you use when all other alternatives have failed, not your first resort in order to try and gain control over a situation.

Because reasonable fear does not mean that factors can't change.

Example- Guys kick in house door. Homeowner greets invaders with drawn weapon. Invaders decide not such a good idea and flees. No shooting required.

Firearms certainly are a method to gain compliance and de-escalation. Whether they are appropriate in a given situation is always the question.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 sebster wrote:

The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.

Given that most modern buildings already have these stashed everywhere, and that automatic sprinkler systems to suppress fire are included in almost every nonresidential building, as well as the fact that a fire isnt going to mug you in a parking lot, the bases are probably covered in that regard. I do carry an extinguisher in my car however.

I just drink a lot of coffee every hour. "Fire extinguisher" ...check!

I can't do coffee...it does terrible things to my guts.

Explosive things.

Sudden things....

 Ahtman wrote:
Maybe it isn't about firearms and they really are just fans of Harambe.

Finally someone who understands the true meaning of this protest. That would explain the size of the some of the...protest items.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This, I think, highlights a serious issue with how guns are used in the US, especially by the police. Guns are not a means of gaining compliance or de-escalation, they are a means of killing someone when all other alternatives are used up.

Of course they are not. They are a means of self defense when presented with lethal force

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Your gun is what you use when all other alternatives have failed, not your first resort in order to try and gain control over a situation.

Assuming there are alternatives.

 djones520 wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.

I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.

Ah, good, Schrodinger's Violence: the United States has a massive gun violence problem or not anywhere near enough gun violence to warrant actually carrying a gun for defense, depending on what state of his argument the gun control proponent has reached.

That is a dishonest argument. Actually it's the pro-gun people that are using Shrodinger's violence. I haven't seen anyone saying that there isn't enough violence to justify carrying a gun so you shouldn't be able to.

 skyth wrote:
And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.

So basically, people feel the need to carry a weapon because of fear of something that is really unlikely. Makes them look silly, much like Sheldon Cooper in his disaster preparation drills...

You make a compelling point djones

Seaward wrote:
Ah, good, Schrodinger's Violence: the United States has a massive gun violence problem or not anywhere near enough gun violence to warrant actually carrying a gun for defense, depending on what state of his argument the gun control proponent has reached.

If you want to think entirely in hopeless generalities with no regard for numbers, then that line sure is a zinger. But actually look at the numbers and you'll see this is pretty simple. The US has about 10,000 murders per year, a per capita rate more than 3 times higher than other developed countries. From a population health POV is isn't hard to understand that if guns were somehow brought under control, there could be a saving of many thousands of lives a year. But at the same time, the US still only has around 3.5 murders murder per 100,000 per year. So while there is obvious scope to potentially save a few thousand lives a year, the actual threat to each individual is very small indeed.

As such, it is reasonable to say that anyone who keeps a gun on their person "just in case", but speeds to work every day is acting in a basically irrational way.

 djones520 wrote:
I know, right? I love how you can pick 10 other gun threads in here, and find non-stop arguments about how bad our gun violence is, and all of a sudden, now it's not that bad at all.

See my post above, and then spend some time thinking about the endless fething times we've discussed this before. Because I know I've had back and forth posts with you about the actual context of US gun violence - that it is much more of a problem than anywhere else in the developed world, but as a direct risk to the average citizen it is still extremely small.

But now all those conversations are just forgotten. It was just like throwing putty at a wall, because you've got your ideological safe zone, and you will not fething leave it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
If you think that most law-abiding Americans who carry are doing so to be "fashionable" or "cool", then you are sorely, SORELY misinformed. And wherever you are getting this "fact" from, that you insist that we outright lie and "admit to", wouldn't know (or understand) the actual facts if they walked and slapped them in the face.

I didn't say Americans carry in order to be fashionable or cool. fething read the words actually written. I said guns are cool, and I think this is a statement everyone here can agree with. And I then said that people want to have them because they are cool. Not 'to be cool', but because guns themselves are inherently cool so they want them in their lives. They then invent reasons to wear the gun, but the primary drive is that they think the gun is cool.

It's a bit like all the women walking around in designer fitness wear. I'm sure there's a million bits of pseudo-science about why their space materials make those better clothes that these women can rattle off if challenged on it. But those reasons are really why these girls walking around the shops in lycra.

Consider this - being struck in the head, or being knocked and suffering a major head injury is way more common way of being seriously hurt or killed than suffering a deliberate, violent attack. And yet very few people walk around the streets or drives their car with a bike helment on. It turns out it really isn't about sensibly assessing real world threats and responding with appropriate measures...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Given that most modern buildings already have these stashed everywhere, and that automatic sprinkler systems to suppress fire are included in almost every nonresidential building, as well as the fact that a fire isnt going to mug you in a parking lot, the bases are probably covered in that regard. I do carry an extinguisher in my car however.

Do you think you are unusual in carrying a fire extinguisher in your car?

 sebster wrote:
If you want to think entirely in hopeless generalities with no regard for numbers, then that line sure is a zinger. But actually look at the numbers and you'll see this is pretty simple.

Which numbers? The numbers that you cherry pick to make your argument, or am I allowed to look at all the numbers? You know, like defensive gun uses per year?

The US has about 10,000 murders per year,

No.

As such, it is reasonable to say that anyone who keeps a gun on their person "just in case", but speeds to work every day is acting in a basically irrational way.

Well, sure. Just like anyone who learns CPR and how to rescue swim is being incredibly irrational, because drowning deaths are far more rare than gun deaths. And let's not even get started on parents who check their babies' sleeping position at night to avoid SIDS.

It was just like throwing putty at a wall, because you've got your ideological safe zone, and you will not fething leave it.

I appreciate irony and self-parody as much as the next guy, but come on.

If both sides of this issue can't discuss it politely, I'm going to lock the generic gun thread this has (shockingly) become

Seaward wrote:
Which numbers? The numbers that you cherry pick to make your argument, or am I allowed to look at all the numbers? You know, like defensive gun uses per year?

We'll use reliable numbers. This means that collected numbers on actual homicides can be used. It means we won't use numbers based on a 1992 phone poll with chronic methodological problems that have been outlined to you in previous threads.

No.

Yes.
2014 13,472
2013 13,741
2012 14,168
2011 13,993

Well, sure. Just like anyone who learns CPR and how to rescue swim is being incredibly irrational, because drowning deaths are far more rare than gun deaths. And let's not even get started on parents who check their babies' sleeping position at night to avoid SIDS.

Yes, a person who puts lots of effort in to a small risk thing, and less effort in to a big risk thing is being irrational. I mean, this is obvious. I think you've lost the track of your own argument there.

I appreciate irony and self-parody as much as the next guy, but come on.

My position can be criticised for many things, but it ideology isn't one of them. If you'd ever read one of my posts, and not just skimmed it for something to get all hot and bothered over, you'd have learned my position is that;
1) Guns are the primary cause of the US higher homicide and suicide rate compared to other developed countries, because duh.
2) That's doesn't mean guns should be banned. Alcohol kills probably eight times as many, and that's okay because we accept that people can and even should do harmful things in the cause of having a good time. Guns are awesome fun and that should be respected.
3) All I want is for people to debate this issue, and decide where the line on gun control should be drawn, with an actual understanding of the real issues, instead of the ideological pap and outright lies that all too often dominate this debate.

That is simply and obviously not an ideological argument. But you'll claim I have one anyway, because it's easier than reading and responding to what's actually written.

 sebster wrote:

Seaward wrote:
Which numbers? The numbers that you cherry pick to make your argument, or am I allowed to look at all the numbers? You know, like defensive gun uses per year?

We'll use reliable numbers. This means that collected numbers on actual homicides can be used. It means we won't use numbers based on a 1992 phone poll with chronic methodological problems that have been outlined to you in previous threads.

No.

Yes.
2014 13,472
2013 13,741
2012 14,168
2011 13,993

Well, sure. Just like anyone who learns CPR and how to rescue swim is being incredibly irrational, because drowning deaths are far more rare than gun deaths. And let's not even get started on parents who check their babies' sleeping position at night to avoid SIDS.

Yes, a person who puts lots of effort in to a small risk thing, and less effort in to a big risk thing is being irrational. I mean, this is obvious. I think you've lost the track of your own argument there.

I appreciate irony and self-parody as much as the next guy, but come on.

My position can be criticised for many things, but it ideology isn't one of them. If you'd ever read one of my posts, and not just skimmed it for something to get all hot and bothered over, you'd have learned my position is that;
1) Guns are the primary cause of the US higher homicide and suicide rate compared to other developed countries, because duh.
2) That's doesn't mean guns should be banned. Alcohol kills probably eight times as many, and that's okay because we accept that people can and even should do harmful things in the cause of having a good time. Guns are awesome fun and that should be respected.
3) All I want is for people to debate this issue, and decide where the line on gun control should be drawn, with an actual understanding of the real issues, instead of the ideological pap and outright lies that all too often dominate this debate.

That is simply and obviously not an ideological argument. But you'll claim I have one anyway, because it's easier than reading and responding to what's actually written.

Total homicides does not equal gun homicides.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-20

Shows by sate weapons used in 2014. Guns are about 60% I think (read that but have not totaled the figures in the table). Of note, 'rifles' including those scary military grade assault weapons of mass destruction with high capacity magazines account for a very low number. You will also notice the murder rate fell in 2014 from 2013 ( https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/murder) even though no new restrictions on guns were implemented (in fact gun sales were up).

Guns are not a 'cause' of anything, guns are a tool. Tools don't cause homicide. If they did, the rates would be going up as the quantity of the tool went up. Rates have been going down...

 sebster wrote:
We'll use reliable numbers. This means that collected numbers on actual homicides can be used. It means we won't use numbers based on a 1992 phone poll with chronic methodological problems that have been outlined to you in previous threads.

Oh, dear. You genuinely believe that's the only data collection that's been done.

You know the CDC looked into this stuff after Sandy Hook, right?

Yes.
2014 13,472
2013 13,741
2012 14,168
2011 13,993

That's 10,000, alright.

Yes, a person who puts lots of effort in to a small risk thing, and less effort in to a big risk thing is being irrational. I mean, this is obvious. I think you've lost the track of your own argument there.

A lot of effort? How much effort do you think it takes?

This is the futility of arguing against people who take an ideological stance on this issue; they have no idea what they're talking about. If it's not hexadecy magnum clips in assault rifles, it's shoulder things that go up or intoning the complex, arcane chanting needed for the ritual of holstering a Glock.

My position can be criticised for many things, but it ideology isn't one of them.

We've been over many, many times how saying something simply doesn't make it true.

1) Guns are the primary cause of the US higher homicide and suicide rate compared to other developed countries, because duh.

Interesting you say that, in light of...

3) All I want is for people to debate this issue, and decide where the line on gun control should be drawn, with an actual understanding of the real issues, instead of the ideological pap and outright lies that all too often dominate this debate.

How's the homicide rate for whites in the US? How's that compare with "other developed countries"?

But you'll claim I have one anyway, because it's easier than reading and responding to what's actually written.

Primarily because the evidence points to it.

But whatever. We're about two posts away from you doing the usual pigeon playing chess thing with this argument.

 sebster wrote:
[ Guns are the primary cause of the US higher homicide and suicide rate compared to other developed countries, because duh.
.

I'd like to point out that Japan is a developed country and their suicide rate alone is significantly higher than the US suicide AND murder rate combined. That's even before you adjust for changes in definitions.

http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html
That is a very entertaining article, but it doesn't even mention other ways countries count murders differently. Some don't count infanticide for instance.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
[ Guns are the primary cause of the US higher homicide and suicide rate compared to other developed countries, because duh.
.

I'd like to point out that Japan is a developed country and their suicide rate alone is significantly higher than the US suicide AND murder rate combined. That's even before you adjust for changes in definitions.

http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html
That is a very entertaining article, but it doesn't even mention other ways countries count murders differently. Some don't count infanticide for instance.

To my understanding, Japan has the strictest gun laws on the planet and a suicide rate that, per capita, far outstrips the U.S.
Alcohol kills roughly three times more people per year than guns and if you rank it against gun related homicides, that number goes up to eight times more per year than guns.
Since the reason most of the anti gun posters here hate them is because of the death and injury they cause, I trust they neither support the alcohol industry by buying their product or having parties where alcohol is served.

 CptJake wrote:
Total homicides does not equal gun homicides.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-20

Shows by sate weapons used in 2014. Guns are about 60% I think (read that but have not totaled the figures in the table).

67.9%. The table below will take you to national totals.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

You will also notice the murder rate fell in 2014 from 2013

The murder rate in the US has been on a 25 year long steady decline. It's a fraction of what it was in the early 90s

This is because, as I've said in countless other threads, the murder rate is driven by lots of other things besides simply having guns. This is why we only look at developed countries when making the comparison, because obviously there are all kinds of problems in developing countries that totally dwarf any impact gun saturation might have.

Guns are not a 'cause' of anything, guns are a tool.

It should be very intuitive and natural to anyone that if a tool is more commonly available, it will be used more.

This is, of course, the argument for defensive gun uses - by having more guns around then it is more likely that a gun is available when you need one. But the flipside of that is also true - when a person decides in the heat of the moment to commit an act of murder, then it is a bad thing when there is a gun on hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
Oh, dear. You genuinely believe that's the only data collection that's been done.

You know the CDC looked into this stuff after Sandy Hook, right?

Yeah, and that limited scope and preliminary research piece was taken by the gun rights people, and then misquoted to buggery.

If you actually read the CDC study, you'll find it didn't do any research of its own on defensive gun use. It just said that other works have shown defensive gun use is roughly equal to offensive, criminal gun use... and then pointed out that all that other work was really unreliable and crappy. It then said it would be good to have some better studies done.

Something you'd know if you read the study. But you haven't. You've just heard a misquoted, deceptive summary, and bought in to it unquestioningly because it told you what you want to hear.

That's 10,000, alright.

Are actually trying to protest that it was more than the figure I gave? I mean, I've seen some nonsensical stuff on the internet before, but...

A lot of effort? How much effort do you think it takes?

Okay, not as pedantic as the bit above, but it is certainly a worthy follow up piece.

Look, if you can't do this and have to resort to trying to drag it down in to debates on single words, then just walk away.

This is the futility of arguing against people who take an ideological stance on this issue; they have no idea what they're talking about. If it's not hexadecy magnum clips in assault rifles, it's shoulder things that go up or intoning the complex, arcane chanting needed for the ritual of holstering a Glock.

Well it is certainly futile to argue with the fantasy nonsense that you've just made up, that I didn't actually say. Maybe don't do it then?

How's the homicide rate for whites in the US? How's that compare with "other developed countries"?

Are you claiming that other developed countries don't have minorities? Because that would certainly be a thing.

Anyhow, we've been through this 'it's all about the blacks and the gangs before'. It was nonsense then, and after some time away you've come back repeating the same stuff. I've got no interest in playing this stupid whack-a-mole game again.

But whatever. We're about two posts away from you doing the usual pigeon playing chess thing with this argument.

Heh, I had genuinely forgotten about your talent for re-writing history. Which, honestly, I can't even fault you for. I mean if I believed a lot of nonsense that kept falling apart when I argued it on the internet, I guess I'd probably prefer to just re-imagine that I won all the arguments and was totally awesome and all the chicks totally love me, because the alternative would be no fun at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'd like to point out that Japan is a developed country and their suicide rate alone is significantly higher than the US suicide AND murder rate combined.

And of course, Japan is in the middle of a 25 year economic decline. Look in the graph below, as unemployment grows following the 90s property crash, suicide grows right along with it. And as Japan has never actually recovered its economy, suicide hasn't come down.

Guns obviously aren't the explanation for everything everywhere. Individual countries will have all kinds of issues. But the high US suicide rate can't be explained by economics, because you've have good and bad economic conditions, and still killed yourselves at a greater rate than other developed countries.

Go read about triggers - read about the risks of having an item in the house that can prompt suicidal thoughts. This is why prescription medication, even non-lethal prescription medication, can increase the likelihood of taking some kind of attempt at your life. It's why it's a terrible idea to live next to a cliff, or near a train line, if you have suicidal thoughts.

That's even before you adjust for changes in definitions.

This is an old myth that's been dragged up countless times on dakka. For starters, it works on the absolute margins, it is plus/minus 5%. It does nothing to explain a rate that is 3 or 4 times greater. Second up, there are studies that use 'non-negligent manslaughter' as a uniform definition across countries. The results there show the same big difference between the US and other developed countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
To my understanding, Japan has the strictest gun laws on the planet and a suicide rate that, per capita, far outstrips the U.S.
Alcohol kills roughly three times more people per year than guns and if you rank it against gun related homicides, that number goes up to eight times more per year than guns.
Since the reason most of the anti gun posters here hate them is because of the death and injury they cause, I trust they neither support the alcohol industry by buying their product or having parties where alcohol is served.

Or you could for the love of all that is fething holy please just fething read what people have fething said.
" That's doesn't mean guns should be banned. Alcohol kills probably eight times as many, and that's okay because we accept that people can and even should do harmful things in the cause of having a good time. Guns are awesome fun and that should be respected."

Relapse wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
[ Guns are the primary cause of the US higher homicide and suicide rate compared to other developed countries, because duh.
.

I'd like to point out that Japan is a developed country and their suicide rate alone is significantly higher than the US suicide AND murder rate combined. That's even before you adjust for changes in definitions.

http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html
That is a very entertaining article, but it doesn't even mention other ways countries count murders differently. Some don't count infanticide for instance.

To my understanding, Japan has the strictest gun laws on the planet and a suicide rate that, per capita, far outstrips the U.S.
Alcohol kills roughly three times more people per year than guns and if you rank it against gun related homicides, that number goes up to eight times more per year than guns.
Since the reason most of the anti gun posters here hate them is because of the death and injury they cause, I trust they neither support the alcohol industry by buying their product or having parties where alcohol is served.

False equivalency and a joke argument.
The reason people dislike them is becaus they are a tool for killing. Yes they can ane are used for self defence, by threatening to kill someone or severly main them. Alchohol is not used for violence, Knives commonly sold are not sold as a way to kill you. Drugs ar the same. No one is going into a theater splashing alchohol on someone to kill them, no one is going into work with a handle of vodka to kill gary the intern.
Guns Kill and they are a tool sold for the express purpose of killing.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
False equivalency and a joke argument.
The reason people dislike them is becaus they are a tool for killing. Yes they can ane are used for self defence, by threatening to kill someone or severly main them. Alchohol is not used for violence, Knives commonly sold are not sold as a way to kill you. Drugs ar the same. No one is going into a theater splashing alchohol on someone to kill them, no one is going into work with a handle of vodka to kill gary the intern.
Guns Kill and they are a tool sold for the express purpose of killing.

So alcohol by itself is "not used for violence", yet more people die from it than from firearms which are "a tool for killing". Is that correct?

 sebster wrote:

Something you'd know if you read the study. But you haven't. You've just heard a misquoted, deceptive summary, and bought in to it unquestioningly because it told you what you want to hear.

It's pretty clear that I'm not the one who hasn't actually read the study here. One of the reasons it got very little publicity in the wake of Sandy Hook is because it didn't end up showing what your side of the debate was convinced it would - namely, that guns are rarely used defensively. You're correct that the CDC looked into all available studies. And their conclusion was that defensive gun use, based on all available evidence, is not nearly as negligible as the ideologues like to pretend it is.

What you're engaged in right now is essentially saying, "Well, based on all available evidence, my point is wrong, so I'm just going to declare the evidence to be bunk, and claim the CDC said the same thing because I sure hope no one else has read it, either."

Are actually trying to protest that it was more than the figure I gave? I mean, I've seen some nonsensical stuff on the internet before, but...

"Here's the number I'm claiming. How dare you point out it's incorrect!"

Okay, not as pedantic as the bit above, but it is certainly a worthy follow up piece.

Look, if you can't do this and have to resort to trying to drag it down in to debates on single words, then just walk away.

If you're going to claim pedantry every time you get called out for making an argument you can't defend, then I'd advise you to do the same. It's a two-way range here, dude, despite the best efforts of our Australian mods.

Well it is certainly futile to argue with the fantasy nonsense that you've just made up, that I didn't actually say. Maybe don't do it then?

No, you definitely said that concealed carrying requires a lot of effort.

Are you claiming that other developed countries don't have minorities? Because that would certainly be a thing.

Anyhow, we've been through this 'it's all about the blacks and the gangs before'. It was nonsense then, and after some time away you've come back repeating the same stuff. I've got no interest in playing this stupid whack-a-mole game again.

Probably because there's no easy way to simply blame 12.5% of the population committing 55% of the homicides on guns.

Heh, I had genuinely forgotten about your talent for re-writing history.

Whatever you have to tell yourself, I suppose.

Warning was given and not heeded. We're done with guns for a while now