[Nakura]

I do believe you owe me an apology.

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual

That does not match what you said.

How doesn't it? The report clearly states that firearms are used for defense more often than they are used to commit crimes; up to three million times more, even. While "far more often" isn't a set range, I'm fairly certain that over three million times more often would qualify as "far more often," in the eyes of most people.

[Grizzly]

That's some very selective reading there.

[Nakura]

Karajorma has the right idea. This thread has, from the start, been a transparent attempt by Nakura to yet again bring up and talk about his favourite subject. Does anyone really believe he actually thought that HLP was the place to go for career advice about joining the NRA? Does that seem logical to any of you? Or does it perhaps make more sense that he was just looking for a reason to start having the same conversation he's enjoyed having so many times before?

Stop engaging with him!

Nakura: This was the exact kind of thread that brought you to grief before. I'm leaving it open because several mods and admins have posted in it already, and I'm trusting their judgement, but consider this a further repetition of the statements made when your ban was lifted, and a warning about threads of this type in the future.

I legitimately want to work for the National Rifle Association. My uncle seems to think that they would only hire people that have published papers in several scholarly journals, however. To get back on topic, do you guys think he is right? Do you think that a young, college-educated civil liberties activist has any chance being hired by a massive political organization like the National Rifle Association?

[Black Wolf]

Karajorma has the right idea. This thread has, from the start, been a transparent attempt by Nakura to yet again bring up and talk about his favourite subject. Does anyone really believe he actually thought that HLP was the place to go for career advice about joining the NRA? Does that seem logical to any of you? Or does it perhaps make more sense that he was just looking for a reason to start having the same conversation he's enjoyed having so many times before?

Stop engaging with him!

Nakura: This was the exact kind of thread that brought you to grief before. I'm leaving it open because several mods and admins have posted in it already, and I'm trusting their judgement, but consider this a further repetition of the statements made when your ban was lifted, and a warning about threads of this type in the future.

Quoting to bring this over from page 4. This thread ends when everyone decides to stop being manipulated into repeating this argument over and over again for Nakura's benefit.

[EDIT]Didn't realize I had already been quoted - didn't get the red text warning about new posts for some odd reason.

[Phantom Hoover]

Do you think that a young, neofascist stooge for the gun lobby has any chance being hired by a massive political organization like the National Rifle Association?

ftfy

[Nakura]

Karajorma has the right idea. This thread has, from the start, been a transparent attempt by Nakura to yet again bring up and talk about his favourite subject. Does anyone really believe he actually thought that HLP was the place to go for career advice about joining the NRA? Does that seem logical to any of you? Or does it perhaps make more sense that he was just looking for a reason to start having the same conversation he's enjoyed having so many times before?

Stop engaging with him!

Nakura: This was the exact kind of thread that brought you to grief before. I'm leaving it open because several mods and admins have posted in it already, and I'm trusting their judgement, but consider this a further repetition of the statements made when your ban was lifted, and a warning about threads of this type in the future.

Quoting to bring this over from page 4. This thread ends when everyone decides to stop being manipulated into repeating this argument over and over again for Nakura's benefit.

While it's nice to sharpen my debate skills, that was never the intent of this thread. I legitimately came here seeking career advice. Did you see me post this on MMO-Champion or Steamgifts or any of the other forums I frequent? No. I know better than to create a political debate thread in GenDisc. I legitimately want to work for the NRA and can show you chat logs that I have sent my friends and family members well before I posted this message and before it got derailed to prove it.

I have treated every member of this forum as though they were acting in good faith, so why not show me the same respect?

[Ghostavo]

I do believe you owe me an apology.

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual

That does not match what you said.

How doesn't it? The report clearly states that firearms are used for defense more often than they are used to commit crimes; up to three million times more, even. While "far more often" isn't a set range, I'm fairly certain that over three million times more often would qualify as "far more often," in the eyes of most people.

*searches for info on Kleck's paper*

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/28/controversial-pro-gun-researcher-helped-write-f/194660

Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway has labeled Kleck's result "an enormous overestimate" and pointed out that the results require one to believe, for instance, that "burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time."

I couldn't find much on Cook and Ludwig's papers, but if the first Cook is the same researcher as the second referred Cook, I would assume the papers' values are somewhat similar, or an updated/improved figure. Which contrasts wildly with the first *cough* paper.

[Nakura]

I do believe you owe me an apology.

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual

That does not match what you said.

How doesn't it? The report clearly states that firearms are used for defense more often than they are used to commit crimes; up to three million times more, even. While "far more often" isn't a set range, I'm fairly certain that over three million times more often would qualify as "far more often," in the eyes of most people.

*searches for info on Kleck's paper*

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/28/controversial-pro-gun-researcher-helped-write-f/194660

Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway has labeled Kleck's result "an enormous overestimate" and pointed out that the results require one to believe, for instance, that "burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time."

I couldn't find much on Cook and Ludwig's papers, but if the first Cook is the same researcher as the second referred Cook, I would assume the papers' values are somewhat similar, or an updated/improved figure. Which contrasts wildly with the first *cough* paper.

Even if Keck's numbers are a bit off, that still leaves all of the other journals. Surely they can't all be wrong. Even the lowest study records 500,000, which is nearly twice as many defensive uses compared to offensive uses.

[Ghostavo]

I do believe you owe me an apology.

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual

That does not match what you said.

How doesn't it? The report clearly states that firearms are used for defense more often than they are used to commit crimes; up to three million times more, even. While "far more often" isn't a set range, I'm fairly certain that over three million times more often would qualify as "far more often," in the eyes of most people.

*searches for info on Kleck's paper*

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/28/controversial-pro-gun-researcher-helped-write-f/194660

Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway has labeled Kleck's result "an enormous overestimate" and pointed out that the results require one to believe, for instance, that "burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time."

I couldn't find much on Cook and Ludwig's papers, but if the first Cook is the same researcher as the second referred Cook, I would assume the papers' values are somewhat similar, or an updated/improved figure. Which contrasts wildly with the first *cough* paper.

Even if Keck's numbers are a bit off, that still leaves all of the other journals. Surely they can't all be wrong. Even the lowest study records 500,000, which is nearly twice as many defensive uses compared to offensive uses.

A bit off? Over 100% use in defense is "a bit off"? The only other study cited is Cook's which points to 108 thousand.

[karajorma]

While it's nice to sharpen my debate skills, that was never the intent of this thread. I legitimately came here seeking career advice.

Whether you were attempting that or not, the fact remains that your arguments you have used on this forum are in bad faith. The statistics you quote frequently do not mean what you claim they mean (In the case you asked for an apology over, there were two figures given and you bold-faced picked the one that agreed with your position)

You have constantly refused to address the flaws in your arguments (I asked you last time why murder rates and not gun homicide rates or violent crime rates in general were important and you gave a rather pointless answer to that which completely failed to address the central point of why that was a good metric for your argument).

For that reason I'm closing this thread. You gotten as much advice as you're going to get.

[Goober5000]

Since this post was still in the moderator queue before the thread was closed...

Do you think that a young, neofascist stooge for the gun lobby has any chance being hired by a massive political organization like the National Rifle Association?

ftfy

You've been warned before, repeatedly, about making personal attacks.  You'll now spend a week in Political Prisoners.