Gun Control & RKBA

Simo 1939_1940

(768 posts)

19. I think that the reason that the gun-restrictionist crowd goes after DGU with such

Reply to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 12:43 PM

Nov 2012

a vengeance is because it's the very last straw that they can flail toward.

They have lost on ALL fronts - judicial, legislative, and in the court of public opinion. All they have left is their "moral" certitude - and the prevalence of DGU's destroys that as well.

Even if you choose to believe that the scientific Kleck/Gertz DGU count is inflated - as well as surveys that confirm their findings within the scientific margin of error - these surveys demolish the notion that defensive gun use is rare. And they indicate that DGU's are at least as common as offensive gun use, if not more common, even if the DGU numbers are substantially reduced.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Estimating the Number of DGUs [View all] mikeb302000 Nov 2012 OP

And yet you can't provide any proof glacierbay Nov 2012 #1

For you they're all good ones, right? mikeb302000 Nov 2012 #28

And *I'll* bet you can't produce even one link showing that he believes what you claim... friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #40

Yeah, thought so. All sizzle and no steak, as usual... friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #46

Gun nut trick number 23 mikeb302000 Nov 2012 #49

Proof is posted. Clames Nov 2012 #53

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed likewise. friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #56

at least provide some evidence gejohnston Nov 2012 #57

"This is not a scientific study..." Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #2

yep, that is where I stopped reading. Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #13

The actual number can't be known gejohnston Nov 2012 #3

I suppose in your mind that these aren't DGU's glacierbay Nov 2012 #4

Those don't count... ileus Nov 2012 #12

They might be. There are about 500 good ones a year. nt mikeb302000 Nov 2012 #29

And we are to accept without question your diktat about the number of DGUs? friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #41

A guy with a blog quotes a guy with a blog. Stop the presses. nt rrneck Nov 2012 #5

Blogs citing only blogs often escalate into huge non-stories slackmaster Nov 2012 #17

Actually, mikeb302000 Nov 2012 #30

We dont have to with you. nt rrneck Nov 2012 #36

propaganda professor.....LOL ileus Nov 2012 #6

I think it is funny that you have to cite an old blog to flog your own blog. ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #7

What do I think? Straw Man Nov 2012 #8

I'm not saying they're DGUs ... but ... holdencaufield Nov 2012 #9

"This is not a scientific study..." Gosh, Mike, you really don't care at all... Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #10

My opinion is that it's a frivolous, low-value speculative brain fart that contributes nothing... slackmaster Nov 2012 #11

Thanks PropagandaProfessor Nov 2012 #14

You stated yourself that your methodology was not scientific slackmaster Nov 2012 #16

for example? gejohnston Nov 2012 #20

Welcome to DU! hrmjustin Nov 2012 #21

You would lose the Ponderosa. GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #23

What you're leaving out of your calculations is the number of false DGUs. mikeb302000 Nov 2012 #32

No, I easily showed over 1,000 DGU shootings. GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #43

Your numbers are horrendously off. AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #24

"that actually produce a fatality" I didn't see that qualifier. nt mikeb302000 Nov 2012 #33

Read it again. AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #37

Knee-jerk reactions. Straw Man Nov 2012 #27

Thanks to you Propaganda Professor mikeb302000 Nov 2012 #31

What truth? Clames Nov 2012 #44

The truth? Straw Man Nov 2012 #45

I'm afraid any list of so-called DGUs is chock full of criminal acts jckelly Nov 2012 #15

As opposed to the popular adage mikeb302000 Nov 2012 #50

I have four words for that gejohnston Nov 2012 #58

I think you gun restrictionist agenda is a complete failure. aikoaiko Nov 2012 #18

Failure? Really? mikeb302000 Nov 2012 #34

McDonald also lost at the circuit level- at first, then was upheld at the USSC. friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #39

Federal appeals court strikes down concealed carry ban [Illinois] hack89 Dec 2012 #63

Big news. Peoria will be really safe now. nt mikeb302000 Dec 2012 #65

I think that the reason that the gun-restrictionist crowd goes after DGU with such Simo 1939_1940 Nov 2012 #19

The United States Department of Justice pins the number at 60k-100k per year depending on year. AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #22

Too True jckelly Nov 2012 #25

Your 98% positivity is tainted by paranoia. nt mikeb302000 Nov 2012 #35

How would you know? I rather doubt you were there at the time. friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #38

maybe your right jckelly Nov 2012 #42

And your 500 DGU figure is pulled out of your taint. n/t Common Sense Party Nov 2012 #48

Wait... What!? Glassunion Nov 2012 #26

Mike is an expert only in accomplishing own-goals. PavePusher Dec 2012 #60

Well, not really. mikeb302000 Dec 2012 #66

You are not helping your point. Glassunion Dec 2012 #68

Is that "upwards of" 500? Common Sense Party Nov 2012 #47

Yeah, upwards of 500. nt mikeb302000 Nov 2012 #51

Which means LESS THAN 500 in your lexicon? Common Sense Party Nov 2012 #52

Not the first time mikey had been caught incorrectly using that phrase. Clames Nov 2012 #54

I remember it well. Common Sense Party Nov 2012 #55

Checking in again PropagandaProfessor Dec 2012 #59

When you ignore entire types of DGU hack89 Dec 2012 #61

Why don't you tell us how to verify the 4th category. nt mikeb302000 Dec 2012 #67

You tell us first how you can completely ignore it hack89 Dec 2012 #69

It is somewhat difficult to have a "productive discussion" on the subject of DGUs ... spin Dec 2012 #64

FWIW, I did a quick google after your earlier thread, and petronius Dec 2012 #62