Has freediver backed up a single point?

[bigt8261]

So many of us have linked numerous citations to counter freediver's wholly unsupported claims while he claims we only offer BS and he continues to spout his baseless "facts".

Meanwhile, has freediver offered a single citation for anything?

[part deux]

Only pulling out twisted lies from his groups agenda.

[gryphon]

So many of us have linked numerous citations to counter freediver's wholly unsupported claims while he claims we only offer BS and he continues to spout his baseless "facts".

Meanwhile, has freediver offered a single citation for anything?

I've asked him for his claim that there are only 60,000 DGU's per year (according to the FBI he says) but he has yet to show a cite for that.

[bigt8261]

I briefly scanned freediver's 190 posts. The following are the only two links or urls I found.

A link to a news article asking what we can do about stuff like this.
http://news.yahoo.com/south-carolina-police-stumble-upon-massive-cache-7-132518632.html

A link to a youtube video of a guy advocating for stronger gun control with a supportive comment.


That's it. NOT 1 SINGLE STATEMENT SUPPORTED.

[linux203]

When the facts don't support your claims, use emotion.

[TucTom]

freediver is unable to back up or even go into detail about his thoughts. Try to get him to stick to just one of "his" ideas and discuss them one at a time..... He left for awhile then came back, again and again.

[freediver]

Gentlemen: Since this is just a made-up thread with the intent of bashing me, without any real discussion of gun issues, I won't be involved with it. Have fun playing with yourselves.

[freediver]

Here is the study discussing the low numbers of defensive gun uses (DGU): http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

Here are some statistics compiled by the Bureau of Justice showing that defensive gun uses occur in much lower numbers than claimed by the NRA or gun manufacturers: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

This article discusses why studies like Kleck/Getz are flawed and that the real numbers of DGUs are much lower: http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/

This is a recent discussion on both crime statistics and what they mean as well as surveys of gun owners and their use of guns: http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/

The conclusions of all this is that DGUs are much lower than claimed by various gun proponents. When you factor in the potential downside to carrying a gun (having it stolen, collateral damage to innocent bystanders, self-inflicted wounds) the choice to use a gun to defend yourself becomes less clear. I still think OC or concealed carry is a good idea IF YOU ARE WELL-TRAINED AND WELL PRACTICED. If not, you're kidding yourself as to your ability to respond to a tactical situation.

Food for thought. Happy reading, everyone!

[mosnar87]

So... What you're saying is, actively anti-defensive gun use organizations say it, so it must be true? VPC? The Trace? Armed with "Reason"? Really? These are your "sources"?

Even your Cite from the BJS is hampered by the fact that it only accounts for reported crimes, which many DGU's don't ever become.

[bigt8261]

FINALLY! He did it folks, he provided sources.

VPC? The Trace? Armed with "Reason"? Really? These are your "sources"?

Yep, and that is why it was so important for him to not give away his sources. To whatever extent he wasn't exposed before, I think that is gone now.

Even your Cite from the BJS is hampered by the fact that it only accounts for reported crimes, which many DGU's don't ever become.

Not to mention it's from 1994 using data from 1987-1992.

Also note that 3 of the 4 links are about David Hemenway's research. A well known anti-gun "researcher".

[gryphon]

Not to mention it's from 1994 using data from 1987-1992.

Also note that 3 of the 4 links are about David Hemenway's research. A well known anti-gun "researcher".

I've noted Hemenway here before. 

How many people in the USA had carry licenses back in 1987-1992?  1 - 1.5 million.  Now there are over 11 million, ten times that many.  Plus now there are seven (if you count Wyoming) constitutional carry states where one needs no license to carry open or concealed, and a few dozen more where you need no license to open carry.  With ten times as many people licensed to carry, and with tens of millions of more firearms today than in the mid-90's (actually about 150 million more), do you think the self-defense encounters are going down or up?

[part deux]

Great fully cited and documented counter to false data and junk research presented by FD and others in his organization.

it's worth the read

http://www.johnlott.org/files/GeneralDisc97_02Surveys.zip

[freediver]

As I suspected. I post data from reliable sources; you call it lies, brainwashing, and misinformation. You post info that is obviously false or biased, and it's the gospel truth. It's hard to have a reasoned-conversation with a group of people as close-minded as yourself.

But no matter. I was informed a little while ago that I'm being expelled from MOC for not being doctrinally pure enough. So I won't be playing in your reindeer games any longer. That's too bad; I was getting a lot of amusement from your name-calling and other personal attacks. Especially funny was ultra calling me a communist when he obviously doesn't know what that means. I even learned some things along the way. One of those lessons was that, despite your loudest acclimations, a lot of you are too angry and abusive to be trusted with a firearm.

Adios, ladies and gentlemen. I'll be sure to pass the news of your warmth and acceptance along to your fellow citizens.

[Ultra]

Especially funny was ultra calling me a communist when he obviously doesn't know what that means. I even learned some things along the way.

Adios, ladies and gentlemen. I'll be sure to pass the news of your warmth and acceptance along to your fellow citizens.

An object lesson in discrediting a troll.

And, in his infinite wisdom, he has decided who should and shouldn't be allowed to exercise their rights, based strictly on how the self proclaimed deity interprets our internet postings.

Nope, no god complexes here.  Just move along.

[CharleyVCU1988]

As I suspected. I post data from reliable sources; you call it lies, brainwashing, and misinformation. You post info that is obviously false or biased, and it's the gospel truth. It's hard to have a reasoned-conversation with a group of people as close-minded as yourself.

But no matter. I was informed a little while ago that I'm being expelled from MOC for not being doctrinally pure enough. So I won't be playing in your reindeer games any longer. That's too bad; I was getting a lot of amusement from your name-calling and other personal attacks. Especially funny was ultra calling me a communist when he obviously doesn't know what that means. I even learned some things along the way. One of those lessons was that, despite your loudest acclimations, a lot of you are too angry and abusive to be trusted with a firearm.

Adios, ladies and gentlemen. I'll be sure to pass the news of your warmth and acceptance along to your fellow citizens.

So tell me again how does someone vociferously disagreeing with you = too angry and unstable to possess a firearm? 

[Ultra]

“STOP the NRA,” I was urged by an organization that just sent me an e-mail. The message contained a poster-like drawing of an eagle surrounded by these words. My initial response was that someone wanted me to take a position against the New Deal’s “National Recovery Administration” that employed the same symbolism to promote the state’s NRA. But as this corporate-generated government agency (see my In Restraint of Trade book) was struck down, over eighty years ago, in the famous Schechter case, I suspect that the e-mailers were not that far behind in their political history.

As I quickly surmised, this organization was asking me to join their efforts to further collectivize American society: they asked me to write my alleged “representatives” in Congress and urge them to resist the National Rifle Association’s efforts to protect the rights of ordinary people to own guns for their protection. The e-mail even quoted President Obama’s concern over the “accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them,” a statement that raises the unasked question “who does have such business?” Perhaps this organization is concerned over the federal government putting “weapons of war” (e.g., tanks, drones, armored personnel carriers, attack helicopters)  into the hands of local police departments; perhaps the rash of government killings of unarmed teenagers has aroused, in such people, an awareness of the life-threatening dangers of the state. If such was their purpose, I would think their e-mail campaign would not target the NRA, but would go after the police and war systems which, during the twentieth century alone, managed to slaughter over 200,000,000 men, women, and children in wars, genocides, and other acts of violence.  Urging Congress to “Disarm the State;”  or to stop contracting with so-called “defense” contractors to design and purchase improved “weapons of mass destruction,” would have much more meaning than what is encompassed in the anti-NRA campaigns.

If you haven’t figured it out already, at the center of the “gun control” campaigns is the ongoing struggle between individualism and collectivism.  The statists will never give up their arsenals of deadly weaponry, for the state is defined as a system enjoying a legal monopoly on the use of violence within a given area. Nor will they seriously entertain the proposition that ordinary people are entitled to own weapons as a means of protecting themselves from state violence.  The state is the collective – whose interests are an end in itself; its own reason for being. The rest of us are little more than fungible resources to be transformed and consumed for the benefit of whatever ends are desired by those who presume to own us.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/latest-e-mail/

Lewrockwell.com allows copy paste of content, provided full credit is given with link.

[TheQ]

"[Jeff Cooper] coined the term "hoplophobia" in 1962 in response to a perceived need for a word to describe a mental aberration consisting of an unreasoning terror of gadgetry, specifically, weapons. The most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user. This is not a reasoned position, but when you point this out to a hoplophobe he is not impressed because his is an unreasonable position. ***To convince a man that he is not making sense is not to change his viewpoint but rather to make an enemy.*** Thus hoplophobia is a useful word, but as with all words, it should be used correctly."

- Colonel Jeff Cooper, USMC

[m.marino]

I really don't get this at all. VPC is a known left wing anti gun, pro rights of a criminal to all sorts of aid and "human" rights. The two foundations that funded the study have some rather interesting historical ties that are not healthy for a truly civil society (unless you like legally created classes of citizen).

Armed with reason uses some rather interesting measure for their documents being peer reviewed. Getting a document published in the ncbi simply requires membership and a PhD to sign off on it and they have two who keep showing up on the articles. That is NOT a good sign when doing background research on data. That is a very very bad sign as a matter of fact.

The BJS document puts the number for the years of the study at about 83,000 per year in defense of violent crime. That is a lot of folks. In that vein taking that to a million person population sample it put defense gun use at 8.3 per 10,000 which is greater than both homicide and rape in that study. So don't know how that supports the "debunking" of gun defense.

The article in the Trace proves my point that this is a group seeding the internet with false data as the article quoted is from the same small group. Considering that armed with reason is one of their sub groups. This is called contaminated data. Also known in legal terms as planted evidence (they are using known pathways to create a "valid" research document, which is cross referencing other data provided by the same group). Folks used to take people like this and run them out on a rail for this kind of crap. Another reasons universities really are not worth the money that take off of the taxpayer via pell grant and the underwritten student loans that have a rather high default rate (or get paid off by the government via programs for certain professions).

Freediver, you claim LEO background. Okay what is the value of second hand information which uses itself to verify that it is valid?? What is the value of testimony when there is over riding evidence that the witness know each other and and have discussed how they will present their story? What value is evidence that shows definitive signs of being planted? These groups fall in that group. Sadly they fall in that group. Their agenda is a society run by academics and government agencies that are controlled by special interest groups. Do you take the oath you swore and say that you served under seriously? These groups will take your second amendment natural right away and than your first and than your 4th, 5th and so on.

When you asked me for citation I go to well known and transparent sources that can still be wrong (one of the reason one must always check the validity of a papers data). If you truly wanted learned discussion those sources are not it. If you goal was stirring the pot, then you have just ensured that you will be labeled troll/mole and will be treated as such.

Michael

[gryphon]

Both the Violence Policy Center and The Trace (Bloomberg) have been proven to be liars, and by no less than the liberal media who tried to verify their claims of gun violence.  And that's who he's using for facts.  Hahaha...

I am now convinced that freediver has not been telling the truth and was probably a plant.  No pro-2A person uses those obviously anti-gun biased sources.

[doesch]

Freediver: 500,000 to 3 Million US citizens use a gun for self defense every year (source CDC); according to the FBI less than 8900 people are murdered with firearms annually. Why are you wasting your life trying to disarm people who are statistically more likely to use a gun in defense than to be murdered with one?

I mean let's throw the 2A to the side for a minute. Would those 8900 people have lived if guns were illegal? and if they were illegal would it be morally superior for those 500,000 to 3 million to suffer great bodily harm or death for the sake of banning guns?

Find a real  cause to get passionate about.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/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