The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

@oralloy,

It's the gun control people?
Let's do a quick fact check on your article...

Quote:

" numerically it is only a small part of that category and guns are used in less than 13% of the 6.7 million rapes, robberies, and assaults.[62]

Funny thing is that there are no numbers kept on guns used in rapes by the FBI. Including rapes in the numbers artificially changes things. They also don't use the gun murders in their stats. I wonder why that is?

Why is your source cherry picking statistics oralloy?

From the FBI data for 2011.

Quote:

Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.)

In 2004, according to the FBI

Quote:

Firearms were used in 26.4
percent

of murder, robbery, and aggravated
assault offenses.

2 Replies

@parados,

Let's continue fact checking your article oralloy

Quote:

Based on studies, and propelled by leadership from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the objective has broadened so that it now includes banning and confiscation of all handguns, restrictive licensing of owners of other firearms, and eventual elimination of firearms from American life, excepting (perhaps) only a small elite of extremely wealthy collectors, hunters, or target shooters. This is the case in many European countries.[4]

The citation only lists one person at the CDC, Mark Rosenberg who was not a leader at the CDC. Mark Rosenberg was a researcher in 1993. What is even funnier is Mark Rosenberg didn't make the statement attributed to him. It was made by a reporter.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

It's the gun control people?

Yes.

parados wrote:

Let's do a quick fact check on your article...

Quote:
" numerically it is only a small part of that category and guns are used in less than 13% of the 6.7 million rapes, robberies, and assaults.[62]

Funny thing is that there are no numbers kept on guns used in rapes by the FBI.

Here is the source of their data on rape, according to their footnote:

"Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Selected Findings from National Statistical Series: Firearms and Crimes of Violence 2 (1994)."

parados wrote:

Including rapes in the numbers artificially changes things.

I doubt that.

parados wrote:

They also don't use the gun murders in their stats. I wonder why that is?

Probably because they were specifically providing data to complement the gun murder stats already provided by the gun control people.

"Recall how the CDC's principal researchers on firearms and violence characterized firearms as having "a central role in interpersonal violence."[60] This exemplifies the tendency of grossly inaccurate hyperbole slipping through any kind of editorial review process so long as it supports health advocacy's anti-gun bias. It could rightly have been said that guns are used in 60-65% of the approximately 23,000 murders committed annually.[61] But, though murder is the (p.531)gravest form of "interpersonal violence," numerically it is only a small part of that category and guns are used in less than 13% of the 6.7 million rapes, robberies, and assaults.[62]"

parados wrote:

Why is your source cherry picking statistics oralloy?

They aren't. But they've made a good case that those quacks who publish those public health articles are doing so.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Murder isn't interpersonal violence? In what world is that oralloy? Your source references "interpersonal violence" then specifically includes murder from that violence.
Tell us how murder isn't interpersonal violence. I would love to see your justification for their purposeful exclusion of murder from their numbers.

2 Replies

@parados,

You're trying to have a discussion with a nut case. Don't expect anything rational from oral-boy.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Murder isn't interpersonal violence? In what world is that oralloy?

Beats me.

parados wrote:

Your source references "interpersonal violence" then specifically includes murder from that violence.

No, they criticize the quack articles for limiting interpersonal violence to murder only, and then they point to some non-murder interpersonal violence to show what the quack articles are wrongfully excluding.

parados wrote:

Tell us how murder isn't interpersonal violence.

Pass.

parados wrote:

I would love to see your justification for their purposeful exclusion of murder from their numbers.

They were specifically referring to the stats that the quacks excluded from their articles.

Since the quacks included murder as their sole representation of interpersonal violence, pointing to what the quacks excluded would involve pointing at everything but murder.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You're trying to have a discussion with a nut case. Don't expect anything rational from oral-boy.

CI, you are unusually stupid even for a retard. Can't you go play in the road or something?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

What's funny about you oralloy is you thinking you can go on an international forum as if the number of people who know where you are really coming from is the same as the number in your own immediate vicinity.

A gross miscalculation on your part.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

No, they criticize the quack articles for limiting interpersonal violence to murder only, and then they point to some non-murder interpersonal violence to show what the quack articles are wrongfully excluding.

No, they don't criticize it for limiting to murder. They never mention what stats they are criticizing other than to bring up their bogus stats.

Quote:

They were specifically referring to the stats that the quacks excluded from their articles.

They don't bring up any stats used by others.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

What's funny about you oralloy is you thinking you can go on an international forum as if the number of people who know where you are really coming from is the same as the number in your own immediate vicinity.

A gross miscalculation on your part.

?????

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
No, they criticize the quack articles for limiting interpersonal violence to murder only, and then they point to some non-murder interpersonal violence to show what the quack articles are wrongfully excluding.

No, they don't criticize it for limiting to murder.

"This exemplifies the tendency of grossly inaccurate hyperbole slipping through any kind of editorial review process so long as it supports health advocacy's anti-gun bias. It could rightly have been said that guns are used in 60-65% of the approximately 23,000 murders committed annually.[61] But, though murder is the (p.531)gravest form of "interpersonal violence," numerically it is only a small part of that category"

Sounds a tad critical to me.

parados wrote:

They never mention what stats they are criticizing other than to bring up their bogus stats.

I doubt you can establish that any of their stats are bogus (for the simple reason that none of their stats are bogus).

This line describes what they are criticizing:
"the CDC's principal researchers on firearms and violence characterized firearms as having 'a central role in interpersonal violence.'[60]"

2 Replies

@oralloy,

They criticize it for hyperbole, not for limiting to murder.

They then limit their response to one set of cherry picked data which is just as bad as inaccurate hyperbole.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

"the CDC's principal researchers on firearms and violence characterized firearms as having 'a central role in interpersonal violence.

Perhaps you can define "central role" as a percentage. I can't but it seems you think you can.

Osama had a central role in Al Qaeda attacks but I would hardly say he didn't because he wasn't personally involved in 65% of those attacks.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

They criticize it for hyperbole, not for limiting to murder.

They criticize it for both.

Of course, they were assuming that the quack's hyperbole was based on limiting interpersonal violence to murder.

There is one other possibility. Instead of limiting interpersonal violence to murder, the quack could have been outright fabricating the entire statement.

They probably felt that they should give the quack the benefit of the doubt, by assuming that the nonsensical statement was due to poor logic as opposed to being due to rank dishonesty.

parados wrote:

They then limit their response to one set of cherry picked data which is just as bad as inaccurate hyperbole.

Nonsense. Focusing on the data that the quack left out of interpersonal violence is not in any way cherry picking.

When you're trying to point out data that has been wrongly left out of something, it is generally useful to point specifically at that data that has been left out.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Perhaps you can define "central role" as a percentage. I can't but it seems you think you can.

It is safe to say that for any type of event where only a small minority of the occurrences involve a gun, guns do not play a central role in those types of events.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

So you are just fine with your side fudging the facts and figures. OK.. we get that.

1 Reply

Quote:

Party like it's 1776

Thousands join pro-gun rallies in state capitals

Quote:

Thousands of gun advocates have gathered peacefully at state capitals across the U.S. to rally against stricter limits on firearms.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

So you are just fine with your side fudging the facts and figures. OK.. we get that.

My side does not fudge facts or figures.

I do not approve of fudging facts or figures.

You have no evidence that my side fudges facts of figures.

You have no evidence that I approve of fudging facts or figures.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

You just outright lie your ass off, Oralboy. But in this you aren't much different than Parados.

0 Replies

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know