re: Harvard: guns were used for self defense in less than 1% of crimes

quote:

---

Harvard: rape was used as a reason for abortion in less than 1% of cases.

---

FI.

Let me explain now that I have a moment why this "study" wasn't.

It was a great example of "studying" something you already know the answer to because of how you intend to construct your study.

1. They did a study of the likelihood your gun would protect you and INCLUDED in that study, EVERYONE. So, people who don't even own a gun contributed to the stat. But that's silly. Would you study the likelihood that Myless Brennan will throw a TD pass this year by including the passing how many games you expect his center to throw a TD pass? Then say, "no sense throwing because there's virtually no chance a person involve in a football game will throw a TD?"

2. But OK. Let's roll with their study. No stat of likelihood is useful unless you discuss comparables. So. They claim that in 1:100 cases, a person might use a gun to defend themselves. OK. So, that's 1 positive case even using their stupid approach to calculating the ratio. This is a good time to point out that like all of these studies, NOT included are the number of times the mere presence of a gun deterred the crime. In any case. As someone pointed out. How often do police stop a crime in progress to defend someone? I suspect the number is LOWER. Yet, I don't think Harvard will be advocating the elimination of police.

Bottom line. This is one of MANY "studies" done by people where the result is 100% known in advance because the result is designed IN to the "study".

Then, they foist it upon Americans who all fricking suck at numbers and viola'. Idiot journalists pick it up.

the percentage doesn't matter. it's the possibility that one might be needed. it's actually how america became an independent nation instead of still being a british colony. fortunately, those colonists didn't listen to the gun statistics

quote:

---

I do think that gun ownership should have required training.

---

I think voting should require you be gainfully employed and a test of your basic understanding of civics.

quote:

---

Gun ownership is a right, and in many cases, a need. The left try to drive focus onto only one.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

do think that gun ownership should have required training.

---

Any other rights you think need to be means tested or have training?

What training and how much? Does this need to be done prior to owning or applying for ownership of said gun? Do you think there shou..never mind. Just easier to ignore.

quote:

---

How many times does a stewardess show off the personal flotation devices compared to the times they are used?

---

If she shows them off, I generally let her use them

Civilians kill over 3 times more criminals than cops. Thats around 3000 a year. Definitively not %1 of "homicides" if self defense is now called a "homicide." Let's put that in perspective. All rifles contributed to 374 murders while shotguns contributed to 300+. If self defense is divorced from homicides then one can say that homeowners killed roughly 5 times more criminals than criminals killed with long guns. Homeowners would even have killed more than revolvers used by criminals. And we haven't included how many perpetrators fled upon seeing an armed homeowner nor can we gauge how many were stopped by the fear of there being an armed homeowner.

Sure would be nice if Harvard would concentrate on real research rather than a biased glorified survey.

Damn,those motherfrickers at Harvard are geniuses.

Willing to bet,less than 1% of dehydration victims,die in a swimming pool.

(no message)