More Deceit From The Antis

[ErSwnn]

http://www.upworthy.com/a-man-walks-...-the-price-tag


I don't know what to say other than I want to smack some people upside the head with a 2x4.

First thing wrong that comes to mind is the fact those weapons are evidence and once the case is closed the evidence is destroyed.

They can't argue with actual facts so they just lie, use trickery and play on the reality most first time buyers haven't a clue...so the lies are easy to use against them.

Damn, I'd love some of us to walk into such an operation and set it straight.

[GunLawyer001]

All of their "facts" have been thoroughly debunked.

For example, "does having a gun make you safer"? Well, yes, it does. But they do truly stupid and naive and malicious things with their studies. For example, they ignore the circumstances of each person, and they blur the lines between self-defense and murder.

People who live in really bad neighborhoods are more likely to buy guns, and more likely to fall victim to the bad neighborhoods. So what those "studies" SHOULD DO is compare the fates of those with guns in such a neighborhood, to those without guns in the same neighborhoods. Otherwise, you can equally "prove" that people wearing seatbelts have more car accidents than people who don't wear them, as long as you include people who are not driving cars. (If 20 million people are driving right now, and 18 million of them are wearing seatbelts, but 300 million people are neither driving nor wearing seatbelts, then the group of people having accidents will overwhelmingly be coming from the "people wearing seatbelts" group, not from the 302 million people who were not wearing seatbelts.)

Second, the Brady fabulists like to cite a changing and bogus factoid about a gun in the home being 6 times or 20 times or 40 times more likely to "kill a family member or someone you know" than to be used to kill an intruder.

Two problems with this; first, guns are used defensively, but without killing anyone, MANY times per year, up to 6 million times per year according to John Lott's research (which has not been debunked by any fair standard of academic science, although it's been attacked by the same lefty zealots who embraced Bellesiles' fabricated study.) Displaying a firearm ( a "defensive display") is extremely effective against any sober, sane predator. It works.


So "killing an intruder" is not the definition of a legitimate defensive use, or of "saving the life of the owner". Comparing "killings" of bad guys to all other gun deaths is like saying "there's no food in the house" because you ran out of fish sticks, while ignoring the full shelves of chicken and meat and vegetables and yogurt and everything else except fish sticks. Their numbers ignore the MAJORITY of lawful defensive uses, by only counting lethal uses.

At the same time, pretending that every shooting death of "someone you know" is a wrongful murder, ignores the reality of crime in America. When a stalker kicks in the door and attacks his victim, she probably "knows" him. Same for most attempted murders that would cause the victim to shoot in self-defense. They say "you only hurt the one you love", and that's true, most attempted murders are against someone who knows the killer. Strangers are less likely to make you want to kill them.

So they grossly inflate the "bad" shootings while completely ignoring the vast majority of good uses of firearms.

All of their stats are like this. The facts are not on their side, so when they try to engage with facts and logic (instead of relying on pics of dead kids), they have to make up facts that suit them. But that's OK, because in their heart they know that their cause is just (which is why you should think with your brain, not with a pump.)

[Gun]

I'm still looking for the hardware store that has the axe for sale that Lizzy used.


Guns will make one no safe. Guns will however give one a fighting chance to save their life.

[ErSwnn]

All of their "facts" have been thoroughly debunked.

For example, "does having a gun make you safer"? Well, yes, it does. But they do truly stupid and naive and malicious things with their studies. For example, they ignore the circumstances of each person, and they blur the lines between self-defense and murder.

People who live in really bad neighborhoods are more likely to buy guns, and more likely to fall victim to the bad neighborhoods. So what those "studies" SHOULD DO is compare the fates of those with guns in such a neighborhood, to those without guns in the same neighborhoods. Otherwise, you can equally "prove" that people wearing seatbelts have more car accidents than people who don't wear them, as long as you include people who are not driving cars. (If 20 million people are driving right now, and 18 million of them are wearing seatbelts, but 300 million people are neither driving nor wearing seatbelts, then the group of people having accidents will overwhelmingly be coming from the "people wearing seatbelts" group, not from the 302 million people who were not wearing seatbelts.)

Second, the Brady fabulists like to cite a changing and bogus factoid about a gun in the home being 6 times or 20 times or 40 times more likely to "kill a family member or someone you know" than to be used to kill an intruder.

Two problems with this; first, guns are used defensively, but without killing anyone, MANY times per year, up to 6 million times per year according to John Lott's research (which has not been debunked by any fair standard of academic science, although it's been attacked by the same lefty zealots who embraced Bellesiles' fabricated study.) Displaying a firearm ( a "defensive display") is extremely effective against any sober, sane predator. It works.


So "killing an intruder" is not the definition of a legitimate defensive use, or of "saving the life of the owner". Comparing "killings" of bad guys to all other gun deaths is like saying "there's no food in the house" because you ran out of fish sticks, while ignoring the full shelves of chicken and meat and vegetables and yogurt and everything else except fish sticks. Their numbers ignore the MAJORITY of lawful defensive uses, by only counting lethal uses.

At the same time, pretending that every shooting death of "someone you know" is a wrongful murder, ignores the reality of crime in America. When a stalker kicks in the door and attacks his victim, she probably "knows" him. Same for most attempted murders that would cause the victim to shoot in self-defense. They say "you only hurt the one you love", and that's true, most attempted murders are against someone who knows the killer. Strangers are less likely to make you want to kill them.

So they grossly inflate the "bad" shootings while completely ignoring the vast majority of good uses of firearms.

All of their stats are like this. The facts are not on their side, so when they try to engage with facts and logic (instead of relying on pics of dead kids), they have to make up facts that suit them. But that's OK, because in their heart they know that their cause is just (which is why you should think with your brain, not with a pump.)

We tend to know the truth in place such as PAFOA but the novice or easily manipulated will fall head first into the cesspool of lies and swear the water is fine. It seems to me a reasonably funded group should call these people out on the subterfuge in a courtroom. They are literally making up "facts" and presenting them as truth.

I have little to offer as combat against these people but what I can do is take another newbie out for his first time behind the trigger. So that's my goal. Teach another who possesses slim knowledge the truth.

[ungawa]

Second, the Brady fabulists like to cite a changing and bogus factoid about a gun in the home being 6 times or 20 times or 40 times more likely to "kill a family member or someone you know" than to be used to kill an intruder.

A kitchen knife is 200x more likely to be used against yourself or somebody in your home than an intruder. So is a lamp I have heard. Not sure if that is statistically defensible but it is pretty funny.

[JStem1283]

Maybe they should put how many times said gun saved a life rather than the few instances they were used in crimes.

Perhaps all car manufacturers should have a list of all the people each model has killed as well so you can decide if the Camry or Civic has more death on its hands before purchasing.

Sorry, logic just came pouring out of my finger tips.

[Carnes]

Logic is good, as is statistics.

It is a shame (and no surprise) that rhetoric is no longer mandated in the public education system.

Control the first, and then the second, and the rest, will fall.

[Gun]

Damn, I'd love some of us to walk into such an operation and set it straight.

What makes you think this didn't happen?

Would they really show contrary viewpoints.

[pennlineman]

They can't argue with actual facts so they just lie, use trickery and play on the reality most first time buyers haven't a clue...so the lies are easy to use against them.

Damn, I'd love some of us to walk into such an operation and set it straight.

They are not merely people who have a different opinion. Their hatred of freedom makes them the enemy, plain and simple. The sooner people come to terms with this the better.

[jsaranczak]

"This gun right here was used to murder a family of four in Georgia"

"So you're saying this is the gun I should buy then?"


That would be my reaction lol