When they are backing their statements with published peer reviewed research then I will definitely quote them. Otherwise it is an opinion not a fact
https://everytownresearch.org/repor...ely-lethal-intimate-partner-violence-problem/ Direct quote from the executive summary https://everytownresearch.org/research/ Let me find a source with more direct citations http://jaapl.org/content/early/2020/02/05/JAAPL.003929-20 https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0 An Australian perspective https://wlsq.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Guns-and-domestic-violence_-The-facts.pdf
It is a survey and an online one at that. If it were vehicular transport a meta analysis/systematic review would be a Lamborghini whilst this would be a clapped out push bike with flat tyres
Let me know when the anti-gun left actually begins doing that okay? Telling lies by combining statistics with half-truths and omissions is a lot of fun!
I'm referring to the linked study I gave you. That's one of those studies that purports to show that guns in the home increase homicides. Is this an acceptable study?
When you actually show me exactly how and where that is happening I will concede a point but don’t bother with a cut and paste from some NRA astroturf site
Apologies I thought you were still talking about the OP. So Academic Critique time Article is nearly 10 years old It is peer reviewed It is published It looks at a narrow range effect and determinate of possible correlation So….. what am I supposed to see? I gather this is supposed to be some sort of “gotcha” trap - well instead of mucking around how about you tell me more and we can discuss the points from there?
About 20 years ago I was riding a mountain bike on a suburban road about 10:30 p.m. and this truck with three punks in it intentionally sideswiped me. They went about a hundred yards and turned around and came back. I retreated behind a small wall only a few foot tall in the dark and told them to bring their asses down here and get shot. I only had a silver bike pump in my hand but it worked. They came within about 80 ft of me but would not get out of the truck. If I would have had a gun you can bet I would have opened fire because they made an attempt on my life and came back to make good on it. There are people out there in this world who do things like that simply for their own entertainment. They are a great reason to carry a gun
And if this happened in Australia…..oh! Wait! Perhaps WE do not have idiots who think they can deliberately side swipe others
And I would have been fully justified to open fire on them had I been carrying. Probably would have done some future victim a favor.
I don't need a peer-reviewed study or any sort of statistics to tell me that a case of high speed acute lead poisoning would stop punks like that cold in their tracks.
Fortunately for me my bluff must have worked and there is no doubt in my mind that if my bluff had of failed, they probably would have beat me to death for more of their further entertainment. I was going about 15 miles an hour at the time and could have easily fallen under the truck.
~ Something similar happened to me years ago in downtown Los Angeles. From the article quoted : • Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker.
I have zero fear of statistical gun violence. A far more concerning thing in our daily world is reckless and distracted or just out and out violent drivers willing to use their vehicle as a weapon. But it doesn't matter if they meant to hit you or not if you are dead you are still dead
~ How are those Covid-19 quarantine camps going along ..? " No guns ‐ no choice " Acts intended to cause injury was the most common principal offence in Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics Released 10/02/2022
I will remember you don't take survey's and polls seriously when you're discussing election polling next. You do understand that whether you like it or not, threats of force constitute a defensive gun use. No need to be salty about it. Yes inside the home is where a lot of crimes happen. If the daughter's boyfriends are sneaking in your house to commit statutory rape, yeah that's a crime. Local cocaine dealer trying to get money from a pissed off client by home invasion? Crime. Burglars of an inhabited dwelling IE a home invasion? Crime. Do any of these things need to be reported to police if no shots are fired? Not particularly.
Its preventing things, that doesn't mean it stops everything. In fact the DGUs would show you per se that crimes are being halted. Which is why you don't want to examine them.
yeah like the famous "if you have a gun in your house" which the anti gun researches counted as including a gun that an intruder brings to a home that has no firearms or to one that does have firearms but was not owned nor possessed by the occupants. One anti gun study that used such statistics had 95% of the incidents it included as ones where the shooter brought the gun to the house and then claimed that house was one in which a "gun was present"
Like I told her... Twisting statistics and lying with half truths and omissions. The anti-gunners largely depend on such.
the anti gunners are almost always forced to tell lies because they are not usually honest about their true motivations. The main motivation behind activist gun banners is to punish law abiding gun owners for political reasons. But they cannot openly admit that so they proffer a pretext-a facade for their desires that is based on "crime control". Since they really don't understand guns, gun laws or criminology, when they try to defend that facade, their arguments look specious and forced and are seething in lies. Almost all anti gun "studies" are commissioned by entities that want to ban guns and demand the researchers start with the premise that gun bans or restrictions are needed.
Cherry picking stats is common. If we look at the big picture, the number one murderer is government. The number one victim is unarmed.