Verified:

Atryn

Member

2149

Jul 16th 2015, 22:24:36

Heston

Member

4766

Jul 16th 2015, 22:48:40

A nice article arguing that one cannot protect themselves. It touched my inner vagina.
❤️️Nothing but❤️️💯❤️️❤️️🌺🌸🌹❤️❤️💯

ssewellusmc

Member

2431

Jul 16th 2015, 22:55:32

Originally posted by Heston:
A nice article arguing that one cannot protect themselves. It touched my inner vagina.


I had to change my panties too...

Atryn

Member

2149

Jul 16th 2015, 23:26:21

Originally posted by Heston:
A nice article arguing that one cannot protect themselves. It touched my inner vagina.


RTFA. You clearly didn't.

Heston

Member

4766

Jul 17th 2015, 0:21:39

Originally posted by Atryn:
Originally posted by Heston:
A nice article arguing that one cannot protect themselves. It touched my inner vagina.


RTFA. You clearly didn't.

It comes out of harrrrrva@arrd. It touches my vagina deeply. Over and over again. It also is clearly unbiased compared to all other surveys and statistics, because it said so and its harrrrrvvvrrrrrrdd.

Read what i said u worthless bureaucrat.

❤️️Nothing but❤️️💯❤️️❤️️🌺🌸🌹❤️❤️💯

ssewellusmc

Member

2431

Jul 17th 2015, 0:41:59

Originally posted by Heston:
Originally posted by Atryn:
Originally posted by Heston:
A nice article arguing that one cannot protect themselves. It touched my inner vagina.


RTFA. You clearly didn't.

It comes out of harrrrrva@arrd. It touches my vagina deeply. Over and over again. It also is clearly unbiased compared to all other surveys and statistics, because it said so and its harrrrrvvvrrrrrrdd.

Read what i said u worthless bureaucrat.



I mean they did combine illegal gun carriers selling drugs with legal gun owning citizens... how could that possibly taint the statistical study? Morons will eat this fluff up.

Cerberus

Member

3546

Jul 17th 2015, 1:25:32

Morons are already eating this fluff up. Guns are necessary for the average law-abiding citizen to protect their family and themselves. Liberal cesspools like Hahvahd don't have a clue what real life is like.

Look at our idiot president. He's a Hahvahd grad. Should give you a clue right there.
I don't need anger management, people need to stop pissing me off!

archaic

Member

6496

Jul 17th 2015, 1:28:05

Because I'm all about running away and hiding in my own home. fluff the kids, they can fend for themselves.

/eye roll

What about the number of fluffnuts that don't victimize somebody else because the first guy clipped his ass.
CandyMan: stop doing KR on our originals.

Atryn

Member

2149

Jul 17th 2015, 1:54:34


Wow, this place really has sunken to a complete cesspool. No wonder nobody comes here anymore.

ssewellusmc

Member

2431

Jul 17th 2015, 1:57:15

Originally posted by Atryn:

Wow, this place really has sunken to a complete cesspool. No wonder nobody comes here anymore.


Are you referencing the statistically invalid "study" they completed that did not support their actual findings... your right, we should drink more kool-aid! After we drink the kool-aid, let's catch a comet to heaven.

Heston

Member

4766

Jul 17th 2015, 1:58:19

Originally posted by Atryn:

Wow, this place really has sunken to a complete cesspool. No wonder nobody comes here anymore.

Is it because everyone so far has fluff on the article?
❤️️Nothing but❤️️💯❤️️❤️️🌺🌸🌹❤️❤️💯

ssewellusmc

Member

2431

Jul 17th 2015, 2:05:07

Originally posted by Heston:
Originally posted by Atryn:

Wow, this place really has sunken to a complete cesspool. No wonder nobody comes here anymore.

Is it because everyone so far has fluff on the article?


When I run out of pages in the Quran, I will start using this for TP.

archaic

Member

6496

Jul 17th 2015, 2:21:14

I mean seriously atryn, you feed the trolls a giant pile of troll-chow, you openly acknowledge you are baiting the trolls, then you cry when the hungry trolls devour all of your troll-chow.

I'm not sure the interwebs work the way you seem to think they do.
CandyMan: stop doing KR on our originals.

Frybert

Member

739

Jul 17th 2015, 2:45:44

Originally posted by archaic:
I mean seriously atryn, you feed the trolls a giant pile of troll-chow, you openly acknowledge you are baiting the trolls, then you cry when the hungry trolls devour all of your troll-chow.

I'm not sure the interwebs work the way you seem to think they do.

KoHeartsGPA

Member

21,140

Jul 17th 2015, 4:58:57

Originally posted by Frybert:
Originally posted by archaic:
I mean seriously atryn, you feed the trolls a giant pile of troll-chow, you openly acknowledge you are baiting the trolls, then you cry when the hungry trolls devour all of your troll-chow.

I'm not sure the interwebs work the way you seem to think they do.
Mess with me you better kill me, or I'll just take your pride & joy and jack it up
(•_•)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6VRMGTwU4I
-=TSO~DKnights~XI~LaF=-

S.F. Giants 2010, 2012, 2014 World Series Champions, fluff YEAH!

Colo

Member

1037

Jul 17th 2015, 7:00:57

Originally posted by KoHeartsGPA:
Originally posted by Frybert:
Originally posted by archaic:
I mean seriously atryn, you feed the trolls a giant pile of troll-chow, you openly acknowledge you are baiting the trolls, then you cry when the hungry trolls devour all of your troll-chow.

I'm not sure the interwebs work the way you seem to think they do.

Heston

Member

4766

Jul 17th 2015, 7:35:45

Originally posted by Colo:
Originally posted by KoHeartsGPA:
Originally posted by Frybert:
Originally posted by archaic:
I mean seriously atryn, you feed the trolls a giant pile of troll-chow, you openly acknowledge you are baiting the trolls, then you cry when the hungry trolls devour all of your troll-chow.

I'm not sure the interwebs work the way you seem to think they do.
❤️️Nothing but❤️️💯❤️️❤️️🌺🌸🌹❤️❤️💯

elvesrus

Game Moderators
Game Moderator
4943

Jul 17th 2015, 7:53:04

Originally posted by Heston:
Originally posted by Colo:
Originally posted by KoHeartsGPA:
Originally posted by Frybert:
Originally posted by archaic:
I mean seriously atryn, you feed the trolls a giant pile of troll-chow, you openly acknowledge you are baiting the trolls, then you cry when the hungry trolls devour all of your troll-chow.

I'm not sure the interwebs work the way you seem to think they do.
Originally posted by crest23:
Elves is a douche on every server.

Dreckon

Member

281

Jul 17th 2015, 13:10:22

Asinine to even contemplate a survey so obviously done to defend a point of view rather than try to find the truth... *goes to look for a study done in Texas* I'm thinking the results might come out a bit different...

All I can say is - they better not break into my house while I am home - Harvard won't approve of the results... Common knowledge around here is that breaking into homes doesn't have nearly the life expectancy of say Chicago or NYC... I don't condone violence - but I have a constitutional right to protect my family and my property!

How about passing some more stringent gun control laws? How'd that work for Chicago and NYC (I'm sure the perps fluffed their pants when those laws passed and turned all theirs in)? Or maybe putting a big sign up reminding everyone that they're illegal? How'd that work for my fellow Marines in Nashville!? http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/...15/07/CKD07ufWIAEqSaM.jpg

elvesrus

Game Moderators
Game Moderator
4943

Jul 17th 2015, 13:20:20

Originally posted by Dreckon:
How about passing some more stringent gun control laws?


They did that in Colorado after the Holmes shooting. Some senators lost their seats through recalls, and I'll bet a lot more wont/didn't get reelected.
Originally posted by crest23:
Elves is a douche on every server.

Sov

Forum Moderator

2248

Jul 17th 2015, 14:17:16

braden

Member

10,344

Jul 17th 2015, 14:22:07

lies. research isnt interesting.

elvesrus

Game Moderators
Game Moderator
4943

Jul 17th 2015, 14:28:37

what if it was for the positive benefits of alcohol?
Originally posted by crest23:
Elves is a douche on every server.

braden

Member

10,344

Jul 17th 2015, 14:45:18

there are none. i learned the other day that it doesnt kill brain cells. but it was on fox news, so who knows :(

Oceana

Member

947

Jul 17th 2015, 16:08:42

So like it stated any weapon is better then none

Cerberus

Member

3546

Jul 17th 2015, 18:03:08

I don't need anger management, people need to stop pissing me off!

Frybert

Member

739

Jul 17th 2015, 18:05:57

mrford

Member

21,100

Jul 17th 2015, 18:30:43

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

Atryn

Member

2149

Jul 20th 2015, 2:31:57

Originally posted by archaic:
I mean seriously atryn, you feed the trolls a giant pile of troll-chow, you openly acknowledge you are baiting the trolls, then you cry when the hungry trolls devour all of your troll-chow.

I'm not sure the interwebs work the way you seem to think they do.


I wasn't looking to engage the trolls archaic, but rather people who actually are interested in the data and the research. But apparently trolls are all that is left here.

Did you think any of the responses had anything to do with the article? Or was it rejected as soon as they saw "Harvard" and that fit some preconceived notion they have about its validity? Did you actually see any cognizant response about the study itself? ssewellusmc came closest, on his second response, AFTER I called out that they hadn't RTFA, but even his response lacked any real substance. Instead he poses an assumptive question, which he himself could have answered if he was interested.

But I suppose ppl here aren't interested in anything that doesn't further their own echo-chamber driven world view.

archaic

Member

6496

Jul 20th 2015, 3:05:00



O'rly?
CandyMan: stop doing KR on our originals.

Heston

Member

4766

Jul 20th 2015, 3:33:42

Originally posted by Atryn:

But I suppose ppl here aren't interested in anything that doesn't further their own echo-chamber driven world view.


Close your legs.
❤️️Nothing but❤️️💯❤️️❤️️🌺🌸🌹❤️❤️💯

Ivan

Member

2355

Jul 22nd 2015, 7:42:24

dont even know why you bother atryn, and no ssewellusmc didnt go change his panties that idea hasnt come to him yet and it wont for another couple of hundred of years right now him and heston are busy running around in their forest with their stone tools :)

Heston

Member

4766

Jul 22nd 2015, 17:39:58

With ivan reporting, all u need is rockman to come add some of his crazy too.
Originally posted by Rockman:
I am wearing anarchist black today.
❤️️Nothing but❤️️💯❤️️❤️️🌺🌸🌹❤️❤️💯

mFrost

Member

325

Jul 22nd 2015, 20:30:37

As biased as this article was in its attempt to support gun control and/or gun bans, by selecting one argument to disprove, it missed the point completely.

The 2nd ammendment is not there to protect me from some gangster in the hood. It is there to protect me from some runaway tyrannical government. Specifically a government that would take my rights away and make it impossible to defend myself from its imposed laws.

Other countries have tried this taking away of the guns from citizens, and the murder rates did not drop. People just got a little more creative in their methods of bring about the demise of another person.

My favorite argument, in this regard came from Archie Bunker..."would it make you feel better if we pushed them off the roof" Heck in china they had a mass murder where the person used a knife. In other parts of the world they use homemade bombs to kill and injure hundreds at a time. Those prediposed to harm others will do so regardless of laws or barriers placed in front of them. Just being pragmatic, and if being armed with the ability to stop just one of these event, i would think it worth it.

Think of it this way would you prefer someone shoots some lunatic threatening your child's life with whatever weapon they choose or come back to you and say sorry for the loss of your child. Would it have been worth it to you to have an armed citizen present if they saved your child or other family member?

Atryn

Member

2149

Jul 22nd 2015, 21:06:55

mFrost:

I went back and re-read TFA (twice) just in case but as I remembered the article doesn't talk about the 2nd amendment or gun control policy at all. It does not call for any gun control nor does it call for lower gun ownership or lower gun use.

The ONLY thing it is about is "debunking the myth of guns in self-defense". It does talk about correcting for errors in prior studies and it does talk about the "reliable floor" for gun defense:

"The only thing we can know for sure is what we have empirical data on: Namely, that there is a reliable floor for defensive gun use estimates at around 1,600 a year. In addition, according to the most recent data on defensive gun use, we have reliable evidence showing that owning a firearm does not give individuals any significant advantage in a criminal confrontation, and they are no less likely to lose property or be injured by using a gun in self defense."

That is part of the reason the reactions on this thread have been so funny. They all attribute things to the article and/or the researchers that aren't even there and then after making that incorrect attribution, they want to discredit the results of the story because they assume it is targeting them or their rights.

Atryn

Member

2149

Jul 22nd 2015, 21:07:27

tldr; for mFrost: nice straw man.

Heston

Member

4766

Jul 22nd 2015, 21:30:22

Sissy la la article written, researched and marketed for sissy la la's that worship homo sex.
Nobody wants to discuss that fluff.
❤️️Nothing but❤️️💯❤️️❤️️🌺🌸🌹❤️❤️💯

mFrost

Member

325

Jul 22nd 2015, 22:27:34

@Atryn, I may jump the gun a bit however it is precisely these types of studies that are cited when the politicos decide to convince the masses of their position. I equate this hit piece to the studies regarding the safety of tobacco. Those scientific papers also had nothing in them in regards to how policies or decision should be derived from the work. Yet cigarettes remained safe for close to 30 years per the science and statistical studies.

A paper like this is a wet dream for those advocating the confiscation of firearms. The reason being it directly attacks one of the foundational pillars upon which the right for gun ownership is fought for.

Just because a paper says there is no difference, does not mean this is a reality at the street level. We should not negate nor discount the human lives saved thru self defense actions involving firearms. Each situation is different and the levels of force needed in each also differ. Now this paper may very well like to point out there is no significant difference in the outcome of a crime. However for those who saved themselves, a loved one, or their property I am quite certain the outcome had a major significance.

Unfortunately the life of someone saved or killed cannot truly be measured as a percentage of significance. What is one life worth these days, for your paper it is just a tic mark a value between 0 and 1. It is callous and akin to saying the outcome for some woman on the verge of being raped would be the same whether or not she defends herself.

Atryn

Member

2149

Jul 22nd 2015, 22:37:11

By that argument no car should ever be allowed on the road because despite strict safety regulations, which use statistical failure rates, it is too callous to refer to that .00001% as anything but a precious human life.

The tobacco example is valid and true - these types of studies can lay the groundwork for a change in public perception of the relative cost/benefit relationships of something. But it sounds like you are saying that if that is a future potential then studying the issue shouldn't be done at all?

To me, the study reveals something that is statistically relevant - people "expect" a gun to provide more protection than it actually does. The reasons behind those statistics are numerous. And the benefit of increased "perceived" protection may be a benefit worth having. There are lots of studies on opinion vs. statistical reality that are shocking to people - like the propensity for shower/bathtub accidents usually surprises people, or the prevalence of bacteria on kitchen sponges.

A study like this seeks to compare public "perception" to statistical evidence. What someone later does with that information is up to them.

KoHeartsGPA

Member

21,140

Jul 22nd 2015, 23:24:42

Problem is that statistics aren't accurate information, it can very easily be manipulated to promote an agenda.


/FAIL
Mess with me you better kill me, or I'll just take your pride & joy and jack it up
(•_•)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6VRMGTwU4I
-=TSO~DKnights~XI~LaF=-

S.F. Giants 2010, 2012, 2014 World Series Champions, fluff YEAH!

ssewellusmc

Member

2431

Jul 22nd 2015, 23:48:17

Originally posted by Atryn:

To me, the study reveals something that is statistically relevant - people "expect" a gun to provide more protection than it actually does. The reasons behind those statistics are numerous. And the benefit of increased "perceived" protection may be a benefit worth having. There are lots of studies on opinion vs. statistical reality that are shocking to people - like the propensity for shower/bathtub accidents usually surprises people, or the prevalence of bacteria on kitchen sponges.


These clowns jammed illegal carrying gun owners in the same category with legal concealed carry.... I would do that too if I wanted to skew the results too.

So combining people who sell drugs and live life like a complete animal is comparable to someone carrying a gun legally for self defense? Nope. But combining the two does help you point out a statistic when your conclusion is set before the study begins.

If you got the raw data, law abiding citizens were more than likely better carrying a gun for self defense than not. Chances are they won't publish raw data because it would disprove their assertion.

Eat it up... it was on cnn and proves someone's agenda on why you should tell me how to protect myself.

Edited By: ssewellusmc on Jul 23rd 2015, 1:15:55
See Original Post

Kat

Member

635

Jul 23rd 2015, 0:51:51

Originally posted by KoHeartsGPA:
Problem is that statistics aren't accurate information, it can very easily be manipulated to promote an agenda.


/FAIL


That is pure paranoia or an excuse to not open your mind.
While your point has truth in it, to apply it to something without any basis of evidence that the statistics were tampered with, you might as well go in the dictionary and disagree with the definitions on the basis that they can change at any time.

ssewellusmc

Member

2431

Jul 23rd 2015, 1:15:00

Originally posted by Kat:
Originally posted by KoHeartsGPA:
Problem is that statistics aren't accurate information, it can very easily be manipulated to promote an agenda.


/FAIL


That is pure paranoia or an excuse to not open your mind.
While your point has truth in it, to apply it to something without any basis of evidence that the statistics were tampered with, you might as well go in the dictionary and disagree with the definitions on the basis that they can change at any time.


I didn't see any evidence the statistics were valid based on 1) common sense 2) the population tested was disimmiliar 3) confidence interval and backup data not presented.

KoHeartsGPA

Member

21,140

Jul 23rd 2015, 1:17:01

Originally posted by Kat:
Originally posted by KoHeartsGPA:
Problem is that statistics aren't accurate information, it can very easily be manipulated to promote an agenda.


/FAIL


That is pure paranoia or an excuse to not open your mind.
While your point has truth in it, to apply it to something without any basis of evidence that the statistics were tampered with, you might as well go in the dictionary and disagree with the definitions on the basis that they can change at any time.


Wow, just lol wow..
Mess with me you better kill me, or I'll just take your pride & joy and jack it up
(•_•)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6VRMGTwU4I
-=TSO~DKnights~XI~LaF=-

S.F. Giants 2010, 2012, 2014 World Series Champions, fluff YEAH!

Twain

Member

3320

Jul 23rd 2015, 1:51:53

Interesting study, but a few things:

1) Generally I trust findings more when there are many studies that say the same thing. I'm not saying the people who did the study let their bias in, but I'm much more trusting of a lot of people doing studies not letting their bias in (or minimizing it at least) than I am with one. So I do think this is worth the read, I'm not ready to start using this as irrefutable evidence when I get in gun debates.

2) One point is obvious: People who are ambushed don't have much better odds whether they have a gun or not. As I said, obvious, but I do think it's worth bringing up for all the people who claim that guns could have stopped some horrible event.

Anyway, I'm sure this post isn't nearly liberal enough for what people expect out of me, so here: Go Bernie Sanders! Redistribution of wealth! More education spending! That should be a bit better.

KoHeartsGPA

Member

21,140

Jul 23rd 2015, 2:02:04

fluff off Twain!!!


:P

<3
Mess with me you better kill me, or I'll just take your pride & joy and jack it up
(•_•)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6VRMGTwU4I
-=TSO~DKnights~XI~LaF=-

S.F. Giants 2010, 2012, 2014 World Series Champions, fluff YEAH!

Atryn

Member

2149

Jul 23rd 2015, 2:37:54

Originally posted by KoHeartsGPA:
Problem is that statistics are accurate information & can very easily be manipulated to promote an agenda.


FTFY.

Atryn

Member

2149

Jul 23rd 2015, 2:45:41

Originally posted by ssewellusmc:
These clowns jammed illegal carrying gun owners in the same category with legal concealed carry.... I would do that too if I wanted to skew the results too.


I'm trying to find where you see that in the article, the survey, the NCVS database description, etc. Can you please provide any citation? For reference, here is NCVS, the source data of the most recent analysis cited in the article: http://www.bjs.gov/...m?ty=dcdetail&iid=245

Originally posted by ssewellusmc:
So combining people who sell drugs and live life like a complete animal is comparable to someone carrying a gun legally for self defense? Nope. But combining the two does help you point out a statistic when your conclusion is set before the study begins.

If you got the raw data, law abiding citizens were more than likely better carrying a gun for self defense than not. Chances are they won't publish raw data because it would disprove their assertion.


As shown above, the raw data is published in a public database operated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics which has been collecting such data for 40 years and makes all the raw data public.

Originally posted by ssewellusmc:
Eat it up... it was on cnn and proves someone's agenda on why you should tell me how to protect myself.


It wasn't on CNN before it was published in a peer-reviewed journal and building upon multiple other prior studies, as cited in the article.

I think we established before that it was you that didn't do any research and jumped to a conclusion before looking at the evidence.

Atryn

Member

2149

Jul 23rd 2015, 2:51:30

Originally posted by Twain:
Interesting study, but a few things:

1) Generally I trust findings more when there are many studies that say the same thing. I'm not saying the people who did the study let their bias in, but I'm much more trusting of a lot of people doing studies not letting their bias in (or minimizing it at least) than I am with one. So I do think this is worth the read, I'm not ready to start using this as irrefutable evidence when I get in gun debates.


Just for reference, the article talks about the prior research with similar conclusions that they wanted to clarify by looking at a new angle. It also compared the statistical analysis from NCVS (which is public so anyone can replicate it) with direct survey data from yet another prior study. They also compare it with studies whose findings were too heavily skewed in the anti-gun camp by double-counting data and discuss how they corrected for that. They also discuss yet another data source (not in this study's analysis, but for comparison) in the Gun Violence Archive (GVA: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/) which attempts to capture more incidents than the NCVS data's sampling method.

Finally, this was a joint effort by multiple researchers from multiple institutions (Harvard and Vermont) and published in a peer-reviewed journal. I.e. - it wouldn't even be published without vetting.

SAM_DANGER

Member

1236

Jul 23rd 2015, 2:58:39

The headline on the article claims there are "no advantages to using a firearm in self-defense situations".

Later, we have this tidbit:

"What’s more, the study found that while the likelihood of injury after brandishing a firearm was reduced to 4.1 percent, the injury rate after those defensive gun uses was similar to using any other weapon (5.3 percent)"

Now, to someone just casually reading this article, not questioning anything the writers put forth, 1% doesn't seem like a significant difference.

But to go from 4.1 percent chance of injury when using a gun for self defense, up to 5.3 percent with other weapons... That is a TWENTY FIVE percent increase in injury rate. If you are unable to flee from your attacker and have a knife instead of a gun, you are ***twenty five percent more likely*** to be injured. "No advantages to using a firearm"? Really?

The writers of this article are letting their bias shine quite brightly.

EDIT: Also, I didn't notice until now, but the writers say that the injury rate with a firearm "was reduced to 4.1 percent" - presumably reduced from not having a weapon at all - they don't say what the "no weapon" injury rate was. Why do you suppose that is?

Edited By: SAM_DANGER on Jul 23rd 2015, 3:06:33
See Original Post