Not One More !

originally posted by: MOMof3
I am not saying taking your guns. I am asking, when did guns replace courage in american men?

Courage only helps you in a fair fight. I can assure you, most criminals are not going to engage you in a fair fight. You may still win in that scenario, but its going to be more blind luck than skill.

Myself, I'd rather not rely on blind luck if I don't have to.

originally posted by: voyger2
I'm not confusing anything. You are. It was anger, yes it is.

If you say so, I do not see anyone arguing the 2nd Amendment acting angrily.

not true. where did I desire violence on other ppl?

Here:

«May your blood fall over your heads.»

Sounds pretty violent to me.

What questions?

About effective means to defend your home when someone is armed with a weapon. Instead of answering you made childish comments about not being 'greedy'.

I was wrong about american values . my conduct has nothing to do whit it.

Your conduct certainly has everything to do with the conversation. You resorted to ad hominems and petulant behavior in a failed effort to prove your point.

originally posted by: voyger2
Although we could not determine causation,

You should have highlighted that part. It tells me all I need to know. If they can't determine causation, the conclusion is largely worthless.

Further, just looking at state-level homicide rates is equally worthless. Its not really a state-by-state issue. Its a rural vs urban issue.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: beezzer



I am not saying taking your guns. I am asking, when did guns replace courage in american men?

...probably started right around the same time many American women started making horrible choices which led to scores of young American males growing up either not knowing who their dad was or knowing who he was but not knowing where he was.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: beezzer



I am not saying taking your guns. I am asking, when did guns replace courage in american men?

...probably started right around the same time many American women started making horrible choices which led to scores of young American males growing up either not knowing who their dad was or knowing who he was but not knowing where he was.

Bingo

a reply to: burdman30ott6

That was the answer I was fishing for. Because I know that. My dad deserted us four kids and it did not turn out well for my three brothers living in the projects.

Since we all know what makes a baby in modern times, why do men create then leave? My dad was a scared man.

Because of that, I have been married for 34yrs and he is the father of all my kids. Through everything, good or bad.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

«May your blood fall over your heads.»
Sounds pretty violent to me.

No Sir. That's not desiring violence. That is only remarking about ppls responsibility for not listen to different opinions with out insulting (you forget to add that to context).

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

About effective means to defend your home when someone is armed with a weapon. Instead of answering you made childish comments about not being 'greedy'.
Yes I answered :

originally posted by: voyger2
if there is no gun's you don't need one to defend yourself.

And that's a problem for debate.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Your conduct certainly has everything to do with the conversation. You resorted to ad hominems and petulant behavior in a failed effort to prove your point.

and then again insults and attacks ...

originally posted by: voyger2
No Sir. That's not desiring violence. That is only remarking about ppls responsibility for not listen to different opinions with out insulting (you forget to add that to context).

Right, so how does 'blood falling on peoples heads' happen non-violently?

Yes I answered :

if there is no gun's you don't need one to defend yourself.

So if someone enters your home unlawfully with a weapon that happens to not be a firearm how do you defend yourself?

and then again insults and attacks ...

Pointing out your poor behavior is not an insult or attack, it is pointing out your poor behavior.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

How do you know? Do you go anywhere without a gun?

Yes ma'am. I carry a gun only when:

- i have large amounts of cash (i run a business and handle the banking)
- i am out of town (unfamiliarity can lead you to areas you shouldn't be in)
- I am hunting

None of any of this has to do with bravery, or anything like that.

a reply to: vor78

I bold this for ya:
We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates.

Read More: ajph.aphapublications.org...

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Here is a conclusion for you:
Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

ajph.aphapublications.org...

That is kind of like a "no kidding" kind of assessment.

Does it not seem obvious that in a place where there are more guns, that more people will be killed by guns?

Do you have statistics that relate to number of killings by any method? Or do you think that being killed by a gun is somehow worse than being killed in any other fashion?

You are reporting an article that is "cherry picking". They state that there is "a disproportionately more number of deaths" related to guns in places where there are guns. I would also, in the same vein, venture that more people drown at the beach than they do in Death Valley. The study presents a nonsense piece of data, and hope that folks take the bait, which it seems happened. Noticed that you only bolded the part I quoted above, but ignored the rest of the sentence: "from firearm-related homicides".

Like i said: more folks drown at the beach than they do in the middle of the Sahara. No kidding.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Right, so how does 'blood falling on peoples heads' happen non-violently?

I dnk that's a metaphor for you.

By the way, what have you to say about this:

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

and this:

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Here is a conclusion for you:
Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

ajph.aphapublications.org...

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: vor78

I bold this for ya:
We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates.

Read More: ajph.aphapublications.org...

You did. But as the saying goes, correlation does not necessarily equal causation. If you want to believe that, you also have to acknowledge that US homicides and the homicide rate have been cut in half over the last twenty years, and during that same time period, concealed carry has also become widespread and gun sales have skyrocketed. If correlation=causation, then higher gun sales and more concealed carry has resulted in a dramatic drop in the US homicide rate and total homicides. You can't have it both ways.

Regardless, the fact that even they admit that they can't determine causation should raise serious doubts about their conclusions.

Futher, again, its pointless to look at the issue from a state-level perspective, because most of the 'gun violence' issue is rural vs urban, not state vs state.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

You are reporting an article that is "cherry picking".

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

The study presents a nonsense piece of data,

Oh, when its against your ideas its "cherry picking". or a «nonsense piece of data». Of course.

we are equal then, aren't we?!

I have to go folks...join you later .. i think.

originally posted by: voyger2
I dnk that's a metaphor for you.

What does 'dnk' mean? And ho could it be a metaphor for me when you and the other poster are the only ones that want to see violence happen?

By the way, what have you to say about this:

It has already been addressed, and furrytexan did a good job of explaining why data like that is skewed. Please post the data on overall homicides by any means from that study.

You still did not answer my question. Your continued avoidance to address it completely only shows that you are not prepared to address this topic seriously.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

dnk = don't know.

yes I did! I did answered your question, You didn't answer mine.

originally posted by: voyger2

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

You are reporting an article that is "cherry picking".

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

The study presents a nonsense piece of data,

Oh, when its against your ideas its "cherry picking". or a «onsense piece of data». Of course.

that's it then.

I have to go folks...join you later .. i think.

This has nothing to do with "me/mine" vs "you/yours". It has to do with logic.

The article cherry picks. If you can dispute my logic, then I am happy to entertain the conversation. My logic:

Of course more people die from gunshot in places where there are more guns. It says nothing about murder rates, and presumes that dying of gunshot is somehow worse than dying from being violently beaten or stabbed. Or, to use a metaphor, of course more people drown at the beach than in the desert.

Now, if you can present a convincing argument that gunshot is a worse method of murder than repeatedly plunging a knife into someone, or beating them until they finally lose consciousness, I am very interested in reading it. Otherwise, I cannot shake the notion that it is cherry picking and misleading. It is a bait and switch, saying "gun death" and implying "murder rate".

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: burdman30ott6



That was the answer I was fishing for. Because I know that. My dad deserted us four kids and it did not turn out well for my three brothers living in the projects.



Since we all know what makes a baby in modern times, why do men create then leave? My dad was a scared man.

I don't know the answer to that. I've kept my personal firearm situation out of it until now, but I will say our backgrounds are as different from each other as our opinions on firearms are, and I don't think that's coincidental. I was raised with my dad home from work every night (parents celebrate their 40th in December) out in the sticks, very, very rural area. I have always been around firearms. I never owned a toy gun because my parents didn't believe in them. When I turned 7, I took Hunter's Safety training and my dad bought me a .22 after I passed the class. I live in Alaska. I carry a firearm with me certainly from the end of our winter until after our next winter has begun. That decision has nothing to do with a lack of courage or insuffieciency of balls, it is actually a choice made based off of common sense for where I live. I hunt and I fish. When I'm hunting my firearm is the tool I use to put meat in my family freezer for the winter. When I fish my firearm is the tool I use to keep myself and those around me safe should an 800 lb brown bear decide it wants to dance along the river bank with one of us. In my home I have zero hesitation about using anything around me, very much including firearms, to defend my family, myself, and my property if somebody is arrogant and feels entitled to barge into my world. I have never shot a human being nor have I ever wanted to shoot a human being, but I have the required mindset to fulfill the death wish of anyone stupid enough to invade my castle.

I would rather deal with the aftermath of killing an invading stranger than deal with the aftermath of not reacting swiftly enough and having something happen to my family. I'm willing to bear that burden.

a reply to: voyger2

How about you come up with something new instead of repeating the same B.S.

You are not from this country so I understand that you don't fully understand what our constitution and bill of rights mean to us so I will kindly ask you to stop trolling us with your propaganda.

originally posted by: voyger2
yes I did! I did answered your question, You didn't answer mine.

You said 'if there is no weapon', I asked if they had a weapon how do you defend yourself?

To answer your question I would need to see the data on overall homicides that they used. They are taking one aspect, homicides by firearm, and extrapolating a hypothesis. The true value of that study would be 'did they increase or did they move from one method to another (firearms)?'