Joseph Meehan wrote:
The fact that you choose to ignore facts is not the same as the the
absence of fact. There are plenty of people, like yourself, who are
"Fact Deniers"; they believe that the world is flat, that Americans
never walked on the moon, and that the Big Mac is the ultimate
burger.
What exact "facts" am I ignoring.
Sorry, but if you want someone to regurgitate what was previously presented
you have mistaken this ng for alt.bulemia.anorexia.
you would have to be bag-O-rocks stupid, irrational, or
closed-minded to look at guns any differently in this regard than
you would look at any other tool.
So, which are you?
I commented on specific cases that were presented by others to
prove that privately owned guns have prevented or ended high profile
situations.
No... what you did is try to limit your examples to an ambiguous and
self-serving definition of a tight cohort which not only is just
plain silly, it has no applicability to the actual daily use of
firearms in personal protection. Again, you try to pick and choose
facts not in existence to support your unsupportable agenda.
You are welcome to your opinions. Do you have a better set of
documented examples?
Plenty of facts were presented, as well as sources for facts. If you wish,
feel free to introduce your sources.
Of those cases, I found that the people who were involved
in ending the situation were professionally trained.
You have *failed* to make the point, because you have failed to
distinguish why the training of a long-retired professional is any
different than anyone else who has taken classes and developed
shooting skills. The fact is this: the former is often more poorly
trained and a worse shot than the latter. You have also failed to
make your point, because you have tried to self-select examples to
serve a thesis that is a lie. And your thesis has no bearing on
whether 2.9 million protective actions occured with the use of guns
in the hands of potential victims.
What is this long-retied stuff?
Let's get back to the point. Do you have any evidence that real
people in well documented and reported cases who have not been
properly trained in the use of firearms in the type of situations,
have been successful in stopping a crimes?
This is how tedious and silly your lame argument against guns are. Define
'well-trained'. You keep trying to slip and slide with your original
statement in which you said 'professionals'. Now you're saying 'well
trained'. And the point isn't 'training', the point is 'how many uses of
firearms, by civilians outside of ANY police agency or force, are used to
prevent or stop the bad guys from comitting a crime'. Now, show us your
facts that show that ordinary folks DON'T use guns to stop crimes.
I have no and
have not seen any other information. have you?
It has been pointed out to you.
I have looked for
it, but I have not found much and most of that is dubious at best.
No one is surprised by that statement. Anything that doesn't support
your closed-minded thinking would be dismissed. Bwahahahaha. The
problem is, the facts don't depend on you for approval.
I have tried not to be closed minded, but I do wonder about you.
You have provided faulty stats, claimed a lack of access to information that
is easily found via Google, have tried to ignore facts presented by claiming
that a source for the facts is biased but without demonstrating that those
facts are incorrect, and constantly trying to redefine the issues presented
in order to backpeddle.
SteveB wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote
If it was proven that a legally owned gun in the home was more
likely to kill someone in the family by suicide or murder that to
provide self defiance, what would you say?
Joseph Meehan
Dia 's Muire duit
I'd say that didn't happen in my home. Suicide is something you
cannot prevent for someone hell bent on doing it. If a person is
going to kill themself, they'll drink bleach. Should we outlaw
bleach?
I would guess that most would agree that Japan has strict gun
control and highly restricts gun ownership. Yet the suicide rates
in Japan, per 100,000 are 36.5 for females and 14.1 for males.
American rates are 17.6 for females and 4.1 for males.
So, given a Meehanian-style conclusion based on a Meehanian-style
analysis of the facts, here is proof positive that the right to
keep and bear arms actually LOWERS the risk of suicide.
--
Dave
What are the overall rates and the rates by gun in both countries?
How about other countries? Could you reference your sources?
Sorry, Bubba, but you're not going to wiggle around and try to
reposition YOUR argument. You made the statement that GUNS were more
likely to be used in suicides. Therefore, according to your logic,
the data for suicides would show a lower rate in countries in which
guns are not prevelant.
You have presented data without references and and I have asked
for the sources and additional data, if available, to help analyze the
data. You fail to provide an answer and you say I am trying to
wiggle .....
The data came from WHO,
http://www.who.int/mental_health/pre...iciderates/en/ and was
stated in my OP. You want to help 'analyize' the data? I think you meant to
say that you want to try and 'spin' the data.