Trayvon in Tulsa?

[beevul]

20. You just don't know when to quit.

"If you come up with some evidence in your next reply, I'll be happy to reconsider."

Reconsider what?

" I'm not sure you understand what peer review means. It's one of the main features that distinguishes science from mysticism, evolution from creationism, medicine from voodoo, etc. I'm sure that the voodoo community thinks that all the scientific literature is UNIVERSALLY known to be discredited EXCEPT for the anti-voodoo crowd..."

Play the "peer reviewed" card all you like. Bellisiles was peer reviewed too. How'd that work out, eh?

"See my response to sarisataka. DGU counts don't imply anything about whether a gun makes you safer or less safe. In particular, NCVS does not show that people who defended themselves with a gun fared any better than those who used other self-protective measures. And it definitely doesn't show that people who carry or own guns are improving their safety by doing so."

Yeah, I read it. Of course it doesn't show that people that carry are improving their safety by doing so. It was not designed to show such things. You yourself said that "Safety is not measured by how many times people claim to have used guns for self-defense, but by how often people are hurt or killed." Well, if safety ISN'T measured by times when people AVOID being hurt or killed due to the presence and or use of a gun - DGU - then obviously your going to get the wrong answer. Because you're asking the wrong question.



Beyond that, as I said, hemenway has been debunked so many times in this forum, everyone is TIRED of doing it.

Which brings us back to the DGUs which you'd so much like to ignore.

I'll say it again:

You quote studies about gun possession, and guns in the home, one highly questionable, and the other nearly universally discredited and refuted, then you ask for OUR evidence to refute...something which those studies don't even conclude, or support.

CARRYING a gun, thats what your asking for evidence about, right?

The "studies" you cited are about gun possession, and guns in the home, not carrying a gun, so they (besides being a discredited refuted pile of dogs breakfast) don't really support the idea that gun CARRY is less safe. Which, whether you've stated it in those terms or not, is exactly the pantload you're trying to push.

But go ahead, tell us all how safety is measured by how often people are hurt or killed where a gun is present, but that avoiding death or injury where a gun is equally present doesn't count.

Thats a hoot.