Lol. This is real life. Buzzfeed is upset the poor vulnerable women face consequences for lying about rape.
"It’s not uncommon for judges to call these women “wicked”; one male judge said a convict had “betrayed the sisterhood”.
^This is said as if it is a bad thing. Again: this is real.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
And hey I'm sure there are some genuine instances where it isn't wise to put a woman in jail for rape, but if you read the article...not all the examples they give are in that category.
"A spokesperson for the Avon and Somerset police pointed to “a number of factors in this case, including the fact the allegations resulted in an innocent man being wrongly detained and remanded in custody”. It would be a “travesty” if this case “were to undermine the confidence and experiences of victims in any way”, the spokesperson said.
But CPS guidance outlines many reasons why prosecutors could have chosen not to prosecute Eleanor and Rhiannon. They both fit the description of “vulnerable”. They were upfront with detectives about flaws in their stories. Some police officers did not seem convinced their cases would make for straightforward prosecutions. But alongside the consideration of “reputational risks” in Rhiannon’s case, and after a private case brought by a wealthy financier in Eleanor’s, the authorities went after them anyway – and shattered both of their lives."
I want to see them give as much thought to the shattered lives of the innocent men accused.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Nah, this a cursory analysis of DGUs, rather than a deep dive. Freedom Toons relies on the Kleck study, and then make the bizarre claim that the survey is validated by further data(this is not true) and does not include the comments of the researchers themselves. The results found in the Kleck and Gertz study are significantly higher than nigh any other survey conducted on this subject. Notice he never even cites Bureau of Justice's survey held twice a year. There is pretty much only one separate survey which finds DGU rates close to Kleck. That survey being NSPOF. The Bureau's survey considers consistently about 100k DGUs per year(still an astonishing number to be sure). But why is there is such a large gap between those private surveys and the public ones? The private surveys ask directly about DGU's and are thusly more comprehensive. But this straightforward method can cause respondents to include behavior such as, "(1) while investigating a suspicious noise but not actually seeing an individual or (2) to deter someone suspected of thinking about committing a crime." Additionally, the private surveys rely on older and far smaller samples which skews the data. And on top of that, the private surveys are simply less representative. This is all of course assuming that survey data is respected throughout the criminology community. It isn't.
(Hemenway 1997) finds that there are 100,000 gun wounds treated at the hospital per year, despite Kleck's study claiming that DGU killed or injured 207,000 people. Similar discrepancies exist regarding burglaries and sexual assault etc. Kleck has responded to many of these claims in books and studies, but I find a lot his answers to be unsatisfactory(way too lazy to discuss now). Anyway, even in further surveys, most researchers find the results to be implausibly high. Take the NSPOF for example, Cook and Ludwig claim, "that the numbers were so high as to be implausible: the number of rapes prevented by women armed with guns exceeded the number of rapes reported by
the NCVS, and “NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by non–law enforcement civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.”4 For those reasons, Cook and Ludwig arrived at the conclusion that Americans were exaggerating or falsifying defensive gun uses in the surveys." Freedom Toons also doesn't even bother to mention the GVA or Tough Targets when forging his assessment. Shit vid if you ask me.
__________________ "I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."
I did my own research (not original research, I mean looking for scholarly articles to form an argument) and I could not find the things he found during my efforts (I just simply could not find the citations he found). And found most of the counter-talking points to those results. INB4 "well, you didn't look hard enough." Sometimes, certain keywords are necessary to net results in my quite exhaustive 30-second google searches.
Also, about your points regarding what constitutes defensive gun use: if the person feels it was a defensive use, then it should be counted. How the person feels about the use is the most important measure of "quality" because there is almost no objective way to truly capture legitimate DGU as police-reported and documented DGU is capturing anywhere from a small fraction to nigh-negligible amounts of DGU. Thus making truly objective measures of DGU literally impossible without an absurd amount of mass-surveillance in dwellings and streets to capture every moment to measure reports against actuals. More important is keeping people safe and allowing people to feel safe enough to live their life.
You can break up DGU into more nuanced categories such as "discharged firearm which resulted in a DGU" vs. "stated I had a firearm and it deescalated the situation" but those are not really important.
As far as those people who are anti-gun, they can counter-argue that mace or tasers may have similar rates of defense. Their point would be less lethal weapons have similar rates of defensive use being reported, thus un-justifying the firearm zealotry that many have.
Also, your point about gun-shot injuries: perceived strikes vs. actual strikes may be part of the discrepancy. Additionally...why the **** would a criminal get themselves in trouble by getting medical care? Are you aware that police have to be involved with any gunshot wounds in most hospitals as policy? And, in fact, this is true:
"Over 90% of over 300 criminals who had been wounded sometime before their incarceration reported going to a hospital for treatment after being shot."
These types of statistic genuinely prevent many from seeking medical help with non-fatal wounds during attempted crimes. The data speaks for itself when 90% who sought medical treatment, ended up in jail with only 10%, who still ended up in jail, not seeking medical treatment. It doesn't take an idiot to figure these things out and most criminals are not idiots.
Regardless, this is talking about fractions of fractions of legitimate DGUs. And isn't it telling that this is the cherry picking done to try and discredit DGUs?
Additionally, over-reporting of injury or homicide due to DGU can be over-sampled with confirmation bias when the research is conducted. However, the burden of proof is on the naysayers to demonstrate through nigh-impossible means that the confirmation bias is a result of the oversampling of DGU homicides and gun-injuries. How science works: you cannot just say, "it's wrong" and then it is magically wrong. That's not how results duplication or peer reviews work.
But when you read the descriptions from how Kleck sampled, it turns out that he seems to have truly randomly sampled:
Random auto-dialed to 5000 people in 48 states. If you oversample Texas, Oklahoma, or Alaska, you will have a gross-oversampling of DGU due to wildlife defenses and "varmint" uses. Kleck also documented the scrupulous efforts of the samples to distinguish between shady or clear DGUs.
Evan Defilippis and Devin Hughes tried to tear apart Kleck's work by using research done by Arizona State professor W.V. Fabricius where they used news paper and police reporting to figure out DGUs and they found only 3 such instances (in 2004) whereas Kleck's ratio would have found 300. A huge discrepancy, right? But wait...wouldn't that require those cases be reported formally to news outlets and police in order to be counted? Kleck has put forth the idea that even using a true random sample method, like he did, will still result in under-reporting due to distrust of the researchers and unwillingness to potentially implicate themselves in what they perceive as a crime. In some of the researchers who like to shit on Kleck, they report that they did not count unfired DGUs. Meaning, if the defender did not fire their gun, it wouldn't be counted as a DGU. lol...How intellectually honest do you want to get?
Also, Kleck has already addressed Hemenway's arguments. With Hemenway crying about ad hominems instead of Hemenway actually proving that oversampling of DGUs vastly exceeds underreporting of DGUs.
Here's the bottom line: the fact that DGUs exist to begin with in verifiable, by highly under-reported numbers, is enough to end the debate to begin with. Trying to play the game of "30,000 gun injuries vs. 100,000 DGUs" is stupid to begin with. It's an arbitrary line people have drawn in the sand that is very meaningless.
Since the CDC - which tried to hide their results but did not successfully do so because FOIA, bitches - found data that nearly matches Kleck's data, Kleck is going apeshit over this and is using that data to extrapolate the CDC's results to match or show how their data is similar to his results. Here is how intellectually honest Kleck is: someone pointed out an error with Kleck's comparison between the CDC's data and his own so he retracted his paper and is reworking his data after correcting for the error (instead of doubling on the falsehood like a punk-ass).
It's a great vid after having read through your points and realized how well the vid does to explain the situation quite quickly and sucinctly. The video looks even more solid after reading through your paraphrased points of others. Thanks for making it look even better.
In fact, I'll be sure and share that video with as many people as possible and also indicate that there is pseudo-intellectuals floating around (the stuff you delve into) that tries to dishonestly obfuscate the data due to retarded agendas.
Also, I did not proofread any of my post and I am not going to go through it. Things may be out of order, misspellings, or grammar errors but this is too much effort already, I think, to expend on a person that just regurgitates talking points.
I am certainly well of police underreporting. But I do not see the value of including "(1) while investigating a suspicious noise but not actually seeing an individual or (2) to deter someone suspected of thinking about committing a crime." The questioning should be more specific to filter out the bullshit.
This statistic just helps my argument. The fact that most prisoners do end up going to the hospital after getting shot. Kleck and Gertz are assuming that more than half of criminals who get shot don't end up going to the hospital. This is simply is not supported by the majority of criminology data. Which is why the study you cite finds, "This limited finding is consistent with the proposition that hospital/emergency department data may miss only a small percentage of gunshot wounds to criminals." If you wanted to debunk my claim, you would refer to the counter reply posted by Kleck: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers...ract_id=2832173
Essentially, Kleck claims that the criminals are lying. While I think this may have some merit, I still don't believe it is realistic that they are fibbing to such an extreme degree. And I am not even sure why are fighting this fact, as Kleck has admitted that it is likely overestimated. To quote RAND,
Cherry picking what? This is a crucial statistic and exposes the numerical inflation. Secondarily, there are more discrepancies across the board. There were more DGUs for burglaries exceeds the number of actual larcenies on gun owners. Kleck's explanation is also underreporting, but to quote RAND,
-
I am well aware of media and police underreporting, not sure why you mentioned this. I am also well aware of Kleck's claims regarding distrust of surveys. But, as Hemenway has noted there is also a counter effect. Gun owners may wish to justify their ownership and thus lie about their usage. Secondarily, there is the problem which plagues almost all surveys: human error. If I performed a DGU 16 months ago, I might say I performed it this year, due to my hazy memory.
DDM, you gotta be more scholarly. I don't like Hemenway much at all, but I am not sure you have done the proper research to assert this claim. There have multiple books and scholarly articles published by both individuals back and forward. The idea that it has all been ad hominem is absurd.
How is it arbitrary? I am using self-reported data and juxtaposing it against reality.
There is nothing wrong with regurgitation. I am not attempting to bring anything new to the conversation and neither are you. We both are regurgitating what we have found on the internet. But, I am must say, I don't think you have done nearly as much research on this topic as I have(10+ hours).
__________________ "I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."
Oh yeah, and how much of that 1.3% comprises the "variable" you just listed? I just looked at the research...I don't even see that shit you're talking about. Are you lying on purpose are drinking the wrong koolaid?
Here's what you need to do if you wish to go down this path:
1. Cite all survey questions.
2. Break down those numbers.
3. Demonstrate that a significant percent of the 1.3% figure is due to spurious bullshit like you mentioned above.
"Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard." Rs who answered "yes" were then asked: "Was this to protect against an animal or a person?" Rs who reported a DGU against a person were asked: "How many incidents involving defensive uses of guns against persons happened to members of your household in the past five years?" and "Did this incident [any of these incidents] happen in the past twelve months?" At this point, Rs were asked "Was it you who used a gun defensively, or did someone else in your household do this?"
I mean like...holy shit, dude, how much of a liar do you have to be to try and pull the shit you just tried?
So, be honest...I caught you. You've been had. Your game is up. Though it wasn't anywhere close to difficult to catch you lying like this because you repeatedly demonstrated that you had a superficial understanding of the topic, at best, you still should have exercised a bit more caution when regurgitating your talking points.
No it doesn't, it harms, greatly, your position. All them were incarcerated and almost all of them sought medical help who were incarcerated. How could you miss the actual point I made?
Where's the figure for the people who were injured or shot at that did not get incarcerated? Oh, right, they got away with it and are not about to fess-up or incriminate themselves.
Nice try but you failed fundamentally.
I mean...it's right there in the quote what I said is being cherry-picked. That crucial statistic does not expose a "numerical inflaation" it demonstrates that criminals are not on-board with self-incrimination. Factually, technology is allowing us to determine that in at least one municipality, only 14% of firearm discharges in the city (which should not be happening) are being reported.
Well, doesn't that just shit all over your parade? What about in predominately black neighborhoods who strongly distrust the police? Hmm?
Seems like you've been drinking your talking points for so long that you're incapable of thinking that your position might be foundationally unsound.
I would LOVE to know your true thoughts after having your talking points (that you took from others) destroyed this thoroughly. The amount of cognitive dissonance you're experiencing right now must be extremely uncomfortable. I know I'm being a dick at this point but I am quite sure you didn't realize or know that almost no gun discharges are actually reported to the police at least according to the data we are starting to be able to collect with tech that can track this.
Seems like you have a difficult time following any sort of logical predicates that leads to a conclusion. I can't help you with this...you just have to be smarter, man. I don't know what to tell you on this. Perhaps more practice will help you follow these arguments a bit better.
So you're going apeshit over possible over-reporting but not at all addressing the fact that under-reporting is, by necessity, baked into Kleck's survey? Or the fact that under rerpoting is actually part of this problem, to begin with? Why did you avoid the under-reporting side of it, hmmm? Are you being intellectually honest? Seems I addressed both but you only addressed the potential (but did not prove it was over-reported) for over reporting.
Says the dude who clearly demonstrated intellectual dishonesty, who skipped over points that directly contradicted your position, and pretend to no follow the logical predicates.
My position is that you don't understand any of this at all and have been caught, yet again, regurgitating talking points which is why it seems like you're fumbling so severely after a single volley with me.
And the fact that you must use a strawman to say "it has all be ad hominem" is telling of how desperate you've become after making it that far through my post.
I just explained how in the text you quoted. Making a point of justifying guns by pretending like 100,000 DGU's does or does not justify the 30,000 gun violence numbers is arbitrary. This is the 4th such incident that you've clearly just not understood a simple point. At this point, I am not sure if you're really this stupid or just playing dumb. I've never conversed with some on the internet that seems to miss so many obvious points. Are you tired or feeling exhausted at the moment? If so, sign out, get some rest, come back. This is not serious business. Just for fun.
You mean you are presenting seemingly contrasting data sets without a shred of intellectual honestly or foundational predicates.
There is, actually. Especially in cases like yours. You need to first understand the arguments you're regurgitating. This is part of critical thinking and this is what is holding you back (I'll tell you again: quantity does not equal quality). Also, you need to have a more logical thought-process, you need to be able to juggle slightly more complicated arguments and argument variables to make truly cogent arguments. You're failing at this and it is actually getting in the way of you establishing your points.
I have brought several new ideas and ways of debating this topic but you have not. That's because you don't quite understand what you're talking about. Sorry, you can't bring me down to your level of a glorified copy-paster.
lol, you can't be intellectually dishonest, demonstrate repeatedly that you do not understand the topic, demonstrate repeatedly that you do not understand my points, and then pretend like you triumphed.
Do you understand why I write you off as an idiot, as someone not worthy of my time? It's not that I'm arrogant, it's just that I think you're too much of an idiot to be worth anyone's time to engage in any sort of debate. Even people that most consider morons on this board can follow along topics and arguments better than you can. This is why I think you may be tired or exhausted.
Just 2 volleys and I'm systematically torn your positions apart and I didn't have to expend effort at all to do this or exercise any sort of in-depth thinking (due to the superficiality of your understanding and dishonesty). This is not talking about my ability, at all..it has nothing to do with me and only to do with you: you don't understand the topic very well and you can't follow along.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jul 20th, 2018 at 07:17 PM
No one cares about our arguments, at this point. They stop reading. You're not putting on a show for anyone, either. This type of back-and-forth doesn't really look good on anyone.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Lol calm down my dude.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
I don't think you were harder on him than he can take. I'm just confused why you seem really chill 90% of the time but then random shit that nobody could predict seems to throw you into a random outrage.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
KMC Community Forums
Jul 12th, 2018 07:31 PM
