Originally posted by Emperordmb
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.
You seriously just pulled "u mad, bro?" card?
I don't want to comment too much on this because I'll get into specifics and start shitting on DS0 again which I just apologized for...which would make it seem disengenuine. "Old dadudemon" doesn't really come out to play that often anymore so I can see why reading very strong dickish arguments from me might make you a bit unsettled.
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.Here is the study:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
Only 5 questions were asked:
"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? wink
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.
I thought your disorder was ODD not autism. It is impossible for me to demonstrate how much of the 2 million figure is spurious. However, there are clear discrepencies(as stated above) and structural problems(as also stated above). None of the questions you cite, contradict any of the flaws mentioned. I'll go through question by question.
1. 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?
This could include using a gun to investigate a suspicious noise or apprehending someone who you suspect of committing a crime. So, far so good.
2. Rs who answered "yes" were then asked: "Was this to protect against an animal or a person?"
This could include using a gun to investigate a suspicious noise or apprehending someone who you suspect of committing a crime. So, far so good.
The rest of questioning simply expounds upon these two premises. This truly is a bizarre point...
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.
First and foremost, I want to note that the study's conclusion is the same as mine: "This limited finding is consistent with the proposition that hospital/emergency department data may miss only a small percentage of gunshot wounds to criminals." Quite funny that the authors of the study agree with me. But, I am not sure you actually read the questions. The survey isn't just referring to their time in prison now. Rather it asks whether or not they had ever gone to the hospital after a violent injury resulting from criminal behavior. This is undoubtedly a poorly conducted survey(Kleck 2018). But the conclusion does support my position.
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.
There is no criminology evidence which indicates that the lack of hospitalization is so great as to necessitate the numbers provided in Kleck and Gertz. Kleck is the only criminologist I have seen who subscribes to this claim. And he even admits that there could certainly be overreporting.
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. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkn...d/#3713c3634758 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 pol
I am not sure the point of all this given that I am not referring to police reports. But let's assume that only 14% percent of firearm discharges are being reported to the city. So, we'll say that roughly 14% of all DGUs are being reported. Using, the Gun Violence Archive(this relies on police reports), there were 2,030 DGUs in 2017. This is above 14% of 15,000. Thusly, we can conclude there are roughly 15,000 DGUs. That really aligns with Kleck's data.
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.
Apeshit, yes totally. When in my statement do I deny the possibility of underreporting? By saying there is a "counter-effect" that supposes the existence of an initial one.
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.
Says the dude whose ego is so fragile that he has to through tactless insults at a 15-year-old.
The rest of your points are blabbering nonsense. Get off your highhorse DDM, there is a reason why everyone thinks you have anger issues.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Says the dude whose ego is so fragile that he has to through tactless insults at a 15-year-old.
If you're going to insist that you be taken seriously despite your age, you shouldn't turn around and use your age as some aegis because your points were trounced. Poor form. I rate that at a solid 5/7 on the Poor Forum Decorum scale.
He's also apologized for his dickish comments.
Originally posted by Robtard
If you're going to insist that you be taken seriously despite your age, you shouldn't turn around and use your age as some aegis because your points were trounced. Poor form. I rate that at a solid 5/7 in the Poor Forum Decorum scale.He's also apologized for his dickish comments.
It was more of a personal insult, not a shield. I don't mind criticism; I just found DDM to be a little pathetic.
DDM is literally a frothing berserker, a smoldering cauldron of bubbling rage masquerading as a human being. Those near him mysteriously get black eyes and broken noses. He is sending his messages from a high-security prison, in solitary confinement to protect his fellow inmates. The walls around him tremble and fall at his whim.
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]At least those EAT's are Adults....Unlike some Other Sexual Predilections the Left endorses.YouTube video [/B]
If you look at a 10-year-old drag queen and get turned on, the problem is you.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I thought your disorder was ODD not autism. It is impossible for me to demonstrate how much of the 2 million figure is spurious. However, there are clear discrepencies(as stated above) and structural problems(as also stated above). None of the questions you cite, contradict any of the flaws mentioned. I'll go through question by question.1. 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?
This could include using a gun to investigate a suspicious noise or apprehending someone who you suspect of committing a crime. So, far so good.
2. Rs who answered "yes" were then asked: "Was this to protect against an animal or a person?"
This could include using a gun to investigate a suspicious noise or apprehending someone who you suspect of committing a crime. So, far so good.
The rest of questioning simply expounds upon these two premises. This truly is a bizarre point...
"Did you use your gun to investigate a suspicious noise?" No, that's not one of the questions.
You're literally wrong about everything, here. Insults aside, you got caught lying. You created your own question, got caught, and this is your pathetic attempt to backpedal.
But I have "autism", right? Good job. You really should stop talking to people who teach you things like that...it really does make you look pathetic to handle someone's argument, when you've clearly had your ass handed to you, but screaming "YOU HAVE AUTISM!"
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
First and foremost, I want to note that the study's conclusion is the same as mine: "This limited finding is consistent with the proposition that hospital/emergency department data may miss only a small percentage of gunshot wounds to criminals." Quite funny that the authors of the study agree with me.
Quite funny that both you and the authors are committing the very sophomoric mistake of sample bias. Their sample was from people already in incarcerated which would be the explicit set of people I am not referring to.
When my point is about people who avoid medical care to avoid getting into trouble with the law...it should be quite obvious where people like you and the authors of the study fundamentally failed.
👆
FYI, you missed the point 3 times, now. Do you even remember my original point?
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I am not sure the point of all this given that I am not referring to police reports. But let's assume that only 14% percent of firearm discharges are being reported to the city. So, we'll say that roughly 14% of all DGUs are being reported. Using, the Gun Violence Archive(this relies on police reports), there were 2,030 DGUs in 2017. This is above 14% of 15,000. Thusly, we can conclude there are roughly 15,000 DGUs. That really aligns with Kleck's data.
Before we explore why your point is clearly dishonest (that's your whole MO), what factors or variables do you think you're missing that would result a much much larger number of DGUs?
I'll give you a hint:
Discharging a firearm is not the only measure of DGU.
Start at a baseline: what DGU figure do you feel is accurate? The 100,000 number? 200,000?
Clearly, the 2,000,000 figure makes you furious. So we can start at a baseline.
I will give you my opinion: likely, figures are somewhere between 200,000 and 3,000,000.
This is my opinion based on my 10x hours of research on this topic. x = any whole number greater than 1 where x is a value that demonstrates I've studied this topic at least twice as long as you have. haermm
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Apeshit, yes totally. When in my statement do I deny the possibility of underreporting? By saying there is a "counter-effect" that supposes the existence of an initial one.
By focusing on only over-reporting and using that as the only talking point for why the numbers are wrong while also ignoring under-reporting. You have not talked about under-reporting at all nor have you acknowledged why it could equal or even greatly overwhelm over-reporting figures. If you wish to be honest in a debate, you MUST acknowledge the weak points of your position and figure out a way to over come them OR simply admit your position is wrong, untenable, or weak.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Says the dude whose ego is so fragile that he has to through tactless insults at a 15-year-old.
When I was 15 and arguing with others on the internet, they didn't know I was 15, I didn't use my age as a crutch, and I was much much better at it than you are. If you'd like to know, I was best as this kind of thing at 17 - 17 year old me would hand my ass to me because he was that good (I think it has a lot to do with aggression and being able to think many steps ahead - something I've let become unpracticed as I've gotten older).
The only reason I apologized for my typical argumentation style (which I never do) is because I got PMs from people stating I shouldn't be so harsh on such a poor little boy. It had nothing to do with "anger" and only to do with me respecting the input of specific others. It had nothing to do with me feeling bad as you have wrongfully assumed.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The rest of your points are blabbering nonsense. Get off your highhorse DDM, there is a reason why everyone thinks you have anger issues.
Literally no body does. (Lazybones got his ass handed to him multiple times by me so he has a lazybone to pick with me)
Your hurt feelings do not automatically mean I am angry. If you cannot handle a debate with adults, I suggest you stick to only your small circle of pals who stroke your ego instead of trying to force your way up to higher levels with pseudo-intellectualism. Keep in mind, you started the conversation with condescension. I always hit back harder than I take because I find it extremely amusing to rustle the jimmies of big egos like yours. If you're respectful, I'll keep in respectful. I've civilly argued for pages and pages with people on this site many times so it's clearly possible to engage me with disagreement, debate, and argumentation while having a damn good time about it. No need for condescension or insults at all.
If your only tactic to handle getting your ass handed to you is to whine about how angry and mean the big bad adults are, perhaps you should reconsider your participation or approach style.
Edit - I see Robtard already addressed the age crutch. We are beating a dead horse.
The Land of U.K. Truly Full of Horrible and Quite Stupid Leftist Peopele.
"Did you use your gun to investigate a suspicious noise?" No, that's not one of the questions.You're literally wrong about everything, here. Insults aside, you got caught lying. You created your own question, got caught, and this is your pathetic attempt to backpedal.
But I have "autism", right? Good job. You really should stop talking to people who teach you things like that...it really does make you look pathetic to handle someone's argument, when you've clearly had your ass handed to you, but screaming "YOU HAVE AUTISM!"
WTF lol. My point was not that a question was explicitly asked about a suspicious noise, rather then none of the questions directly precluded that idea.
Quite funny that both you and the authors are committing the very sophomoric mistake of sample bias. Their sample was from people already in incarcerated which would be the explicit set of people I am not referring to.When my point is about people who avoid medical care to avoid getting into trouble with the law...it should be quite obvious where people like you and the authors of the study fundamentally failed.
thumb up
FYI, you missed the point 3 times, now. Do you even remember my original point?
DDM, this is a sample of criminals, the only way we can actually attain this sample is by going to a prison. But this point does not invalidate the study because it relies on faulty logic. These criminals are not in jail due to their gunwound, they are in jail due to other crimes. The fact that they are merely incarcerated does not comments. Secondarily, I see no reason to believe that hundreds of thousands of them are not going to the hospital, this number is just implausibly large.
Before we explore why your point is clearly dishonest (that's your whole MO), what factors or variables do you think you're missing that would result a much much larger number of DGUs?I'll give you a hint:
Discharging a firearm is not the only measure of DGU.
Start at a baseline: what DGU figure do you feel is accurate? The 100,000 number? 200,000?
Clearly, the 2,000,000 figure makes you furious. So we can start at a baseline.
I will give you my opinion: likely, figures are somewhere between 200,000 and 3,000,000.
This is my opinion based on my 10x hours of research on this topic. x = any whole number greater than 1 where x is a value that demonstrates I've studied this topic at least twice as long as you have.
I made an error here, so I apologize for that. I was referring to violent DGUs that would be 217,000. Obviously, 217,000>>15,000.
By focusing on only over-reporting and using that as the only talking point for why the numbers are wrong while also ignoring under-reporting. You have not talked about under-reporting at all nor have you acknowledged why it could equal or even greatly overwhelm over-reporting figures. If you wish to be honest in a debate, you MUST acknowledge the weak points of your position and figure out a way to over come them OR simply admit your position is wrong, untenable, or weak.
There is no reason for me to focus on underreporting when you spoke on it in your post.
When I was 15 and arguing with others on the internet, they didn't know I was 15, I didn't use my age as a crutch, and I was much much better at it than you are. If you'd like to know, I was best as this kind of thing at 17 - 17 year old me would hand my ass to me because he was that good (I think it has a lot to do with aggression and being able to think many steps ahead - something I've let become unpracticed as I've gotten older).The only reason I apologized for my typical argumentation style (which I never do) is because I got PMs from people stating I shouldn't be so harsh on such a poor little boy. It had nothing to do with "anger" and only to do with me respecting the input of specific others. It had nothing to do with me feeling bad as you have wrongfully assumed.
This was a personal insult because I find you to be extraordinarily petty and childish, not a crutch.
DDM, you bluster out about nonsense all the time, you have a fellated view of yourself that is only held by your friends and your friends only. No one, other then them, thinks you crushed Lazybones or myself. Take a chill pill and get off your own dick.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
WTF lol. My point was not that a question was explicitly asked about a suspicious noise, rather then none of the questions directly precluded that idea.
Yes, your point was quite obvious and I immediately recognized it for the dishonest pile of shit that it was.
I give you no quarter, your argument of the boogey man in the gaps is rejected. The more you lie just to be right, the worse it will get for you. I am relentless and I really suck for people like you.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
DDM, this is a sample of criminals, the only way we can actually attain this sample is by going to a prison. But this point does not invalidate the study because it relies on faulty logic. These criminals are not in jail due to their gunwound, they are in jail due to other crimes. The fact that they are merely incarcerated does not comments. Secondarily, I see no reason to believe that hundreds of thousands of them are not going to the hospital, this number is just implausibly large.
This is a whole bunch of words for you just to dance around the subject that:
1. You didn't get the point even after it was explained 3 times.
2. You didn't know what a sample bias was.
3. Any study that tries to survey people who are incarcerated will fundamentally demonstrate my point...which you still seem to be missing.
I'll make it simple for you:
"I got shot or otherwise injured while committing a crime. I will not get medical help."
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I made an error here, so I apologize for that. I was referring to violent DGUs that would be 217,000. Obviously, 217,000>>15,000.
Ugh.
Man...this is so painful. I legit facepalmed at my desk, here.
Yes, it is quite obvious that you made a mistake and forgot to put in a negative modifier in that sentence. My entire response was made under the assumption that you made that mistake. Hence...why...I...would...point out that you clearly...are missing quite a few...other...things because your conclusory figure is obviously too small.
Do you do this stuff on purpose? Pretend to be a moron so people get so exhausted trying to hand-hold you through the topics so you can chime in, after exhaustion, and plant a flag while declaring, "AHA!!! I have triumphed!" If so, it is working.
So, now, instead of avoiding the points I made, care to post on topic?
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
There is no reason for me to focus on underreporting when you spoke on it in your post.
That's not how a debate works. You have fundamentally failed to address why your argument fails or is weak. I have addressed over reporting and under reporting.
Here is why you refuse to address under reporting: you know the study excluded anyone younger than 18 and there is a bias against reporting firearm use at all for fear of prosecution or involvement with law enforcement.
It is quite obvious that you would dodge under reporting entirely because it kicks the chair from your point, entirely.
Again, your stance is either weak, at best, or overtly wrong, at worst. So while you are grandstanding about over reporting, all of your points are negated or even overwhelmed by the problem of under reporting.
Why do you not see this as a problem?
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
This was a personal insult because I find you to be extraordinarily petty and childish, not a crutch.
I'm devastated that someone called me childish and petty.
Eat poopoo and swish with peepee.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
DDM, you bluster out about nonsense all the time
Yes, yes, you've said this before. But I guess you've discarded your word of the month, bloviate, and now picked up "bluster."
Here is the funniest thing ever: you telling anyone that they bluster nonsense.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
you have a fellated view of yourself that is only held by your friends and your friends only.
You...you...you just paraphrased the exact thing I said about you. haermm
Let me go talk about this with all of my internet friends. BRB...having lulz with them. Oh man, it is gonna be such a GOOD party with my e-pals while we laugh at you for being so terrible at insults.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
No one, other then them, thinks you crushed Lazybones or myself. Take a chill pill and get off your own dick.
I am absolutely devastated that you just said I have a dick so large that I can sit on it. haermm
Anyway, it is hard to type while sucking my huge dick.
Originally posted by BackFire
DDM is literally a frothing berserker, a smoldering cauldron of bubbling rage masquerading as a human being. Those near him mysteriously get black eyes and broken noses. He is sending his messages from a high-security prison, in solitary confinement to protect his fellow inmates. The walls around him tremble and fall at his whim.
You make me sound like Juggernaut from Deadpool 2. hmm
Yes, your point was quite obvious and I immediately recognized it for the dishonest pile of shit that it was.I give you no quarter, your argument of the boogey man in the gaps is rejected. The more you lie just to be right, the worse it will get for you. I am relentless and I really suck for people like you.
Despite, claiming you understood the argument, your words indicate otherwise. The first thing you said in your post was this: "Did you use your gun to investigate a suspicious noise?" No, that's not one of the questions. This is not an adequate counter and has no bearing on my point. So, either one of two things is true.
1. You can't read
2. You are attempting to puff your chest despite having no idea what the initial argument was.
Both are possible.
This is a whole bunch of words for you just to dance around the subject that:1. You didn't get the point even after it was explained 3 times.
2. You didn't know what a sample bias was.
3. Any study that tries to survey people who are incarcerated will fundamentally demonstrate my point...which you still seem to be missing.I'll make it simple for you:
"I got shot or otherwise injured while committing a crime. I will not get medical help."
It's funny there have been multiple responses by criminologists to this study, but it's ironic that none of them are using your arguments. They must be idiots.
1. I did understand your point, it was shit and made no sense. Let me explain, when initially addressing the study, you claimed this:
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."'
This is not a valid response, as it implies that those incarcerated are there due to their hospitalization. So, it wasn't me not understanding your point; it was you failing to read the study.
2. When did I say I didn't know what sample bias is?
3. This wasn't your original point, but I'll address it as such. There is no reason that these individuals being in prison invalidates their commentary; you've yet to provide one. I'm still waiting.
Ugh.Man...this is so painful. I legit facepalmed at my desk, here.
Yes, it is quite obvious that you made a mistake and forgot to put in a negative modifier in that sentence. My entire response was made under the assumption that you made that mistake. Hence...why...I...would...point out that you clearly...are missing quite a few...other...things because your conclusory figure is obviously too small.
Do you do this stuff on purpose? Pretend to be a moron so people get so exhausted trying to hand-hold you through the topics so you can chime in, after exhaustion, and plant a flag while declaring, "AHA!!! I have triumphed!" If so, it is working.
So, now, instead of avoiding the points I made, care to post on topic?
You may have recognized the error but you failed to address the argument. This is what you said:
I'll give you a hint:Discharging a firearm is not the only measure of DGU.
If you were aware that I made a typo, why even mention this?
Start at a baseline: what DGU figure do you feel is accurate? The 100,000 number? 200,000?Clearly, the 2,000,000 figure makes you furious. So we can start at a baseline.
I will give you my opinion: likely, figures are somewhere between 200,000 and 3,000,000.
In what way does this address the argument? My point was simple there is a discrepancy between the numbers purported in the survey and reality. Your only response was that you think DGUs are between 200,000 and 3,000,000. WTF. DDM stop trying to cover your ass and stop lying.
That's not how a debate works. You have fundamentally failed to address why your argument fails or is weak. I have addressed over reporting and under reporting.
You acknowledged overreporting in the same way that I acknowledged underreporting. Both errors exist, and both errors counteract each other. Which is what I said.
You...you...you just paraphrased the exact thing I said about you.Let me go talk about this with all of my internet friends. BRB...having lulz with them. Oh man, it is gonna be such a GOOD party with my e-pals while we laugh at you for being so terrible at insults.
Except in my case, it is accurate! Also, I didn't really paraphrase, no. You lied two times during this post DDM, keep it up.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Despite, claiming you understood the argument, your words indicate otherwise. The first thing you said in your post was this: "Did you use your gun to investigate a suspicious noise?" No, that's not one of the questions. This is not an adequate counter and has no bearing on my point. So, either one of two things is true.1. You can't read
2. You are attempting to puff your chest despite having no idea what the initial argument was.Both are possible.
No, the first thing I said was to quote your question, then point out the fact that your question is no where in the survey and it is not there directly or implicitly. You were caught lying about survey questions to bolster your poor position.
There's nothing left to talk about on this. I'll be ignoring any further attempts you try to save face on this: you have no face left to save.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
It's funny there have been multiple responses by criminologists to this study, but it's ironic that none of them are using your arguments.
None of them are making arguments about people who committed crimes, did not get caught, and avoided seeking medical attention.
Odd, it's as if they are sampling a completely different data set than the one I'm referring to...
You still do not comprehend what we are talking about. Sorry, man...I won't entertain your idiocy any longer. You're literally too stupid to continue a conversation with.
Go ahead, tell me about those surveys of people who fess up to committing crimes and got injured while doing it.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
This is not a valid response, as it implies that those incarcerated are there due to their hospitalization. So, it wasn't me not understanding your point; it was you failing to read the study.2. When did I say I didn't know what sample bias is?
3. This wasn't your original point, but I'll address it as such. There is no reason that these individuals being in prison invalidates their commentary; you've yet to provide one. I'm still waiting.
1. Correlation, causation, etc. It can be a correlation that they are measuring, but not necessarily the direct causation. This is a massive duh and is unnecessary to even discuss.
2. An ignorant person does not know what they are ignorant of especially when their ignorance is obvious such as your case.
3. It was. And I've already pointed out the reason that this is the explicit data set we would be excluding. Got back and look at my original point that you've missed for the 5th time.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
You may have recognized the error but you failed to address the argument. This is what you said:
You don't need to quote my words back to me. But responding to me as such, you've indicated, yet again, that you don't know what we are talking about.
If you had understood where you went wrong, you'd understand that the 15k number needs to be grossly inflated multiple times over because of obvious things you missed.
I'm done spoon-feeding you all your answers to you. If you don't understand or cannot follow a simple conversation, you won't be responded to.
Honestly, I don't normally respond this much to people as dumb as you are. You're time-sucks/time-wasters. If I did not know you better, I would assume you're trolling but you're definitely not. You're really this dumb. I am being dead serious.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
In what way does this address the argument? My point was simple there is a discrepancy between the numbers purported in the survey and reality. Your only response was that you think DGUs are between 200,000 and 3,000,000. WTF. DDM stop trying to cover your ass and stop lying.
I've covered this already. We are 5/5, now, of points I've already covered and things you just don't understand.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
You acknowledged overreporting in the same way that I acknowledged underreporting.
Incorrect, I've acknowledged and discussed both. You've failed to address under reporting.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Both errors exist, and both errors counteract each other. Which is what I said.
No you didn't.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Except in my case, it is accurate!
It's accurate that you have a fellated view of yourself that is only held by your friends and your friends only?
What a weird thing to admit.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Also, I didn't really paraphrase, no.
You did.
And I've noticed you're now trying the "you lied" thing that I caught you doing. It's kind of cute that you're trying to copy me. But here's a hint on how to use it: it has to be accurate.
You want to try again?
Let's clear all the previous back and forth.
Based on the things I've seen, I see between 200,000-3,000,000 DGUs as being the range where the true figure lies. Also, I think this figure is irrelevant to the gun-possession topic. Whether there is 1 gun homicide or 1,000,000 gun homicides, DGUs and gun homicides are almost completely unrelated. Trying to make the argument that DGU figure justifies the gun homicides is a faulty and malformed defense to begin with but it is an often cited argument in the gun debate for the US.
The YouTube video did a great job discussing this topic with sources I had not found, prior.
First Major Point: Misleading Gun Violence Figure vs. Actual Gun Violence Figure
The video starts with the often dishonest 30,000 gun homicide figure. Removing suicide and accidental death and it drops to 11,000. It breaks up that figure, correctly so, and shows how people dishonestly try to use the 30,000 figure. You said the video was "shit vid" but starts out very well.
The actual deaths are a bit more than 33,000 and gun homicides are closer to 12k so his figures are rounded down in both cases.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/
First major point: a win for Freedom Toons.
Second Major Point: Gun Crimes per year vs DGUs per year.
300,000 gun crimes committed per year.
Then he goes on to mention the CDC's own research where they corroborate Kleck's and Gertz findings but to a slightly lesser degree. Kleck had it around 1.3% and CDC was knocking on the door of just 1%.
https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/questionnaires/pdf-ques/98brfss.pdf
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15
Second Major Point Assessment: a win for Freedom Toons especially since he uses the 500,000 to 3,000,000 figure to be intellectually honest.
Third Major Point: Effectiveness of DGUs
"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies..."
Meaning, DGUs are found to be effective compared to victims who used other self-protective measures.
Third Major Point Assessment: another very poignant win for Freedom Toons because he pointed out that DGUs are effective compared to the initial dishonest point of 30,000 gun deaths.
Conclusion: Your initial statement that the video is shit is a terrible statement and it shows more of an ignorant bias on the topic than it does a nuanced and honest rebuttal to the points in the video.