ANTI-GUN RESEARCHERS ADMIT TO INCLUDING INJURIES FROM NON-GUN OBJECTS IN “FIREARM INJURY” DATA

'A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal claimed one child or youth is injured by a firearm daily in Ontario alone.
This news was very quickly picked up by a number of liberal Canadian media outlets, including the CBC (Canada’s public broadcaster) and the Toronto Star.

The problem? The study isn’t exactly accurate.'
I am shocked that they would exaggerate or manipulate data to get their way.


Source: https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/03/anti-gun-air-guns/

 

The pro gun research side has their share of unethical researchers too. Kleck is the worst

Kleck is best known for his 1995 study with Marc Gertz that claims that up to 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use occur every year. Media figures and the National Rifle Association frequently cite this study to bolster their claims that owning firearms makes people safer.

But critics point to the study's "serious methodological difficulties" -- it extrapolates a very rare event, the slightly more than one percent of respondents to a survey that said they had used a gun in self-defense over the past year, to the entire population of 200 million adults. This means that even slight deficiencies in the accuracy of the survey, whether due to false positives or a sample that is not perfectly indicative of the overall population, can lead to large differences in the result. 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."

Contra Kleck, data from the National Crime Victimization survey produced by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics suggests that there are roughly 100,000 instances of defensive gun use per year.

 

hmmm....so there are somewhere between 100,000 and 2.500,000 DGU annually?

 

Can I use fake data as the upper limit of what I want to quote? Lol

 

The Anti-Gun folks use the most deception when it comes to their statistics, Crimes of violence are not limited to the use of firearms, many other methods are used.

Many Crimes or ancillary incidents are improperly added to Criminal statistics and are not broken down properly as to incidents of Law Abiding Citizens defending themselves from Criminal actions.

If a Criminal kills a victim, and a rope was the method, the victim is still dead.

Many personal defense incidents go unreported.

 

Well let's agree not to use fake data ....ok? Lol

 

The anti-gun side can only argue with fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; every day, their posts prove this simple truth.

 

It seems the same applies to the pro gun side. LOL

 

Not hardly, the Pro-Gun side uses actual defensive encounters of personal defense.

Anti-Gun advocates claim personal defense never happens.

 

well...even if we go with the low bid of 100k (which I suspect is way off)..thats 100k less victims of crime

 

I have no problem with guns for personal defense. But that does not mean that there should be no gun control

 

I showed clear evidence of lying with statistics on the pro gun side too.

 

We already have gun control. There are thousands of gun laws on the books.
You want MORE gun control.
If you got MORE gun control, then you would push for even MORE gun control, because there will still be gun deaths.
I'ts a never ending cycle.

 

Its not working. And we need to fix it

 

There is no fix, because the end game of our anti gun politicians is to have a gun free America at some point in the future.
The solution is to focus on the offender, not the gun.

 

Other first worls countries have already greatly reduced gun violence, We can too.

 

Not until you get rid of the hundreds of thousands of firearms in America. First step would be to repeal the 2A, and disarm the lawful American.

 

Control ammo and the gun becomes non lethal

 

Sure... make it happen.
I suppose there would be a constitutional challenge.
Sure glad we soon will own the SCOTUS.

 

When will that be if you are replacing a Scalia with a Scalia?

 

Not after Hillary wins and places anti-gun justices n the court that will overturn Heller.
We don't need to repeal the 2nd once we have a liberal majority on the court!
:rotfl:

 

Stand back and watch.

 

What am I watching? Who else is being replaced?

 

It only takes one for the time being and we are on the right path.

 

Uh....you are right back where you were. LOL