Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Seth]

My sympathy is with Jim.

He was responding to a very ungracious post by Collector.

Collector

You criticised me for responding to an implied question with an expansion, instead of yes or no. To the best of my knowledge, there is no rule prohibiting my type of response. I tend to think an explanation is more valuable than bald comments that tell nothing.

You don't expand, you ignore, obfuscate, pettifog and evade, with great regularity.

[Seth]

It seems impossible to get past the protective layer of 'stupid' with some people. Let me repeat.

As the NEJM reference proves, having a hand gun increases your risk of being murdered by 2 to 4 times. This makes owning a hand gun for "self defence" into an act of stupidity, since it increases rather than reduces the risk of being murdered.

Bogus. First, the NEJM is a well-known anti-gun organization, and second, a statistic cannot be used to predict individual risk because of the number of individual variables that increase or decrease the individual's risk factors.

No, my having a handgun does NOT increase my risk of being murderd by "2 to 4 times," it substantially reduces my chances of being murdered because I have substantial training and lots of experience with firearms, and handguns in particular.

That's the problem with your bullshit statistical argument, you fail to understand the limitations of statistics, particularly group behavior statistics, so you misuse them every single time.

[Seth]

...pictures evil home invaders breaking into Collector's home as he feverishly unlocks the arsenal!

Who will win?

Stay tuned for next week's gripping finale...

My home-defense gun safe takes 3 seconds to open. Push the code buttons and the drawer drops open, illuminates the gun with a built-in LED, and places it in a perfect position to be drawn and used in another two seconds.

[Blind groper]

Bogus. First, the NEJM is a well-known anti-gun organization, and second, a statistic cannot be used to predict individual risk because of the number of individual variables that increase or decrease the individual's risk factors.
.

Standard Seth reply.

Any reputable organisation that does not go along with Seth's preconceptions is an anti-gun organisation.

The New England Journal of Medicine does not fit that mould. It is one of the world's most reputable medical journals. It makes sure all articles are strictly peer reviewed. It has a very robust and rigorous editorial system to weed out the crap.

When the NEJM says that owning a hand gun increases the risk of being murdered by 2 to 4 times, you can betcha life on it!

While it us true that an overall statistic does not accurately measure individual risk, it is still, by far, the best such indicator.

Seth is like a gambler who knows that tossing a coin gives 50:50 odds of heads and tails, but stupidly bets on 6 heads in a row anyway for a dollar for dollar return on the bet.

[Collector1337]

Bogus. First, the NEJM is a well-known anti-gun organization, and second, a statistic cannot be used to predict individual risk because of the number of individual variables that increase or decrease the individual's risk factors.
.

Standard Seth reply.

Any reputable organisation that does not go along with Seth's preconceptions is an anti-gun organisation.

The New England Journal of Medicine does not fit that mould. It is one of the world's most reputable medical journals. It makes sure all articles are strictly peer reviewed. It has a very robust and rigorous editorial system to weed out the crap.

When the NEJM says that owning a hand gun increases the risk of being murdered by 2 to 4 times, you can betcha life on it!

While it us true that an overall statistic does not accurately measure individual risk, it is still, by far, the best such indicator.

Seth is like a gambler who knows that tossing a coin gives 50:50 odds of heads and tails, but stupidly bets on 6 heads in a row anyway for a dollar for dollar return on the bet.

Yeah...

I bet a bunch of English doctors have lots of firearm experience and aren't biased against guns at all...

[Blind groper]

I bet a bunch of English doctors have lots of firearm experience and aren't biased against guns at all...

That is very funny. Very, very funny.

Seth, who accuses me of ignorance, thinks the New England Journal of Medicine is British.

Much hilarity!

[Seth]

Bogus. First, the NEJM is a well-known anti-gun organization, and second, a statistic cannot be used to predict individual risk because of the number of individual variables that increase or decrease the individual's risk factors.
.

Standard Seth reply.

Any reputable organisation that does not go along with Seth's preconceptions is an anti-gun organisation.

The New England Journal of Medicine does not fit that mould. It is one of the world's most reputable medical journals. It makes sure all articles are strictly peer reviewed. It has a very robust and rigorous editorial system to weed out the crap.

When the NEJM says that owning a hand gun increases the risk of being murdered by 2 to 4 times, you can betcha life on it!

While it us true that an overall statistic does not accurately measure individual risk, it is still, by far, the best such indicator.

Seth is like a gambler who knows that tossing a coin gives 50:50 odds of heads and tails, but stupidly bets on 6 heads in a row anyway for a dollar for dollar return on the bet.

There is a well-known anti-gun bias amongst the medical community in general and the NEJM in particular. They are not a reliable source for gun information of any kind. That's simply a fact.

[Seth]

I bet a bunch of English doctors have lots of firearm experience and aren't biased against guns at all...

That is very funny. Very, very funny.

Seth, who accuses me of ignorance, thinks the New England Journal of Medicine is British.

Much hilarity!

Much hilarity ensues from your misidentification of the previous poster. I'm perfectly aware of where the NEJM is located.

[Blind groper]

There is a well-known anti-gun bias amongst the medical community in general and the NEJM in particular. They are not a reliable source for gun information of any kind. That's simply a fact.

The so called bias comes from research. The medical community in general has a strong professional concern towards human health and welfare. The oppose anything that harms such health and welfare, whether guns, drugs, or influenza.

Sorry about getting you and Collector mixed up. It is like the Chinese guy talking to a bunch of whities who says :"You all look alike to us."

Gun crazies all seem the same to me.

[MrJonno]

Seth uses lots of long words, quite charismatic in a sociopathic type way and at least appears to have quite a lot education in the arts (history, politics,economics) basically your Anders Breivik type loony

Collector 1337 more your London style machete man

[laklak]

The Illinois house has passed a bill allowing concealed carry and abolishing local gun laws. This would mean the assault weapon bans in Chicago would be null and void. So, the most dangerous city in the nation, and the one with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, may become a real life test case for the opposing views here. The measure must still pass the state Senate, however, if no law is passed by June 9th local authorities will be free to pass their own laws.

So, do we see an orgy of Mad Max style violence in The Windy City, do crime rates drop, or does business continue as usual?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05 ... latestnews

[MrJonno]

With no border controls does it really matter if one side of a border has restrictions and the other doesn't

[Blind groper]

To Mr Jonno

I know your question was rhetorical. The answer is obviously not.

To significantly reduce the murder rate would take an intelligent and targeted measure nation wide, not state by state. Since five sixths of all firearms murders are done with hand guns, they should be the target.

[MrJonno]

To Mr Jonno

I know your question was rhetorical. The answer is obviously not.

To significantly reduce the murder rate would take an intelligent and targeted measure nation wide, not state by state. Since five sixths of all firearms murders are done with hand guns, they should be the target.

Just saying if guns are restricted in one area and across an open border there aren't then crime figures either side don't really tell you much

[Jason]

You mean like the Canadian-American border?