But as soon as you go there, you have to weigh 1,220,000 reported violent crimes (most criminal violence goes unreported) against ~19,000 murders (virtually all murders are reported).
You’re 64 times more likely to report a violent crime than to be murdered, and several times more likely than that to experience (but not report) a violent crime.
Guns are used far more often to stop those violent crimes than to commit murder.
Indeed. Especially when virtually all defensive gun use involves the attacker running away as soon as they realize the danger they are in. These attempts are some of the least likely types of violent crime to be reported.
And again your last sentence is yet another claim that you could not prove. It could be the case but it might not be and neither one of us has any way to prove it because the pro-gun lobbies shut down any rational scientific study that might demonstrate that guns are the issue (not claiming guns are the problem but they stifle any research into it).
I am aware of how the CDC was censured for non-scientific propaganda they were peddling in the 90s. I am also aware that the justice department (the appropriate entity for this sort of study) has never been restricted in the way you suggest.
I am also aware that the CDC did conduct a study (during Obama’s administration) that largely confirmed pro-gun claims, and has subsequently been suppressed.
Yes, my language is biased. I am fully cognizant of my biases here. I am also aware of your biases, as I hope you are as well. Let neither of us suffer any pretense of neutrality.
What I don’t think that either of us has is malicious intent: I think we are both concerned about protecting ourselves, eachother, and society in general from harm.
Where our respective biases come in is our understanding of harm: the sources and severities.
I think you would say it is more important to prevent harm from occurring in the first place.
I would say that prevention is not (entirely) feasible, and that the individual should be empowered to meet harm with overwhelming force.
That is, indeed, a better question.
But as soon as you go there, you have to weigh 1,220,000 reported violent crimes (most criminal violence goes unreported) against ~19,000 murders (virtually all murders are reported).
You’re 64 times more likely to report a violent crime than to be murdered, and several times more likely than that to experience (but not report) a violent crime.
Guns are used far more often to stop those violent crimes than to commit murder.
Your last sentence is impossible to prove.
Indeed. Especially when virtually all defensive gun use involves the attacker running away as soon as they realize the danger they are in. These attempts are some of the least likely types of violent crime to be reported.
And again your last sentence is yet another claim that you could not prove. It could be the case but it might not be and neither one of us has any way to prove it because the pro-gun lobbies shut down any rational scientific study that might demonstrate that guns are the issue (not claiming guns are the problem but they stifle any research into it).
I am aware of how the CDC was censured for non-scientific propaganda they were peddling in the 90s. I am also aware that the justice department (the appropriate entity for this sort of study) has never been restricted in the way you suggest.
I am also aware that the CDC did conduct a study (during Obama’s administration) that largely confirmed pro-gun claims, and has subsequently been suppressed.
Your phrasing is extremely biased. The CDC is prevented from engaging in a lot of research into gun crime period regardless of the potential results.
No politician wants actual evidence in that debate because it is far too profitable for them to leave questions unanswered.
Pot calling the kettle black?
Yes, my language is biased. I am fully cognizant of my biases here. I am also aware of your biases, as I hope you are as well. Let neither of us suffer any pretense of neutrality.
What I don’t think that either of us has is malicious intent: I think we are both concerned about protecting ourselves, eachother, and society in general from harm.
Where our respective biases come in is our understanding of harm: the sources and severities.
I think you would say it is more important to prevent harm from occurring in the first place.
I would say that prevention is not (entirely) feasible, and that the individual should be empowered to meet harm with overwhelming force.
No hypocrisy here. Im not taking biased positions on research.
I don’t think your psychic powers are as strong as you think nor is your ability to determine my views on guns working at all.
Turns out I was wrong. Good day.