The most effective and most often used murder weapon

[SecularMotion]

Last edited Fri Feb 26, 2016, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

[center][/center]

[guillaumeb]

1. Oh look, a picture of the Second Amendment.

I feel safer already.

[beevul]

2. And yet 99.9x percent of guns aren't used in murders. N/T

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. But you know...

...what they say about imitation.

[jimmy the one]

18. Invalid Premises Galore

beevul: And yet 99.9x percent of guns aren't used in murders.
2) 99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent.

You are still posting these blatant lies. I witted you last nov 17, 2015, that the figures you cite are for approx ONE YEAR ONLY. So your premise is invalid, since gun owners over the course of their lifetimes, are involved in shooting or killing someone far more than what you contend. You need to reword your signature line, & rethink (ha) your contentions.

Here is my post from nov 17, 2015. I suppose it won't do much good this time either, the 2nd Amendment Mythology is too ingrained in some people.

You do realize that is for one year don't you? When you take your 99.9% over the course of a gun owner's lifetime of 75 years, the pure percentage of gun owner's per capita who would shoot or kill someone rises to near 5.5%. But then this doesn't account for multiple shootings by one individual so the 5% would be lower, perhaps 2% - 3%. Not that high but dramatically higher than your 0.1% figure. http://www.rapidtables.com/calc/math/Exponent_Calculator.htm

Considering 'illicit' use of firearms, over the course of a gun owner's life this percentage would increase dramatically, due to accident shootings whether with or without consequence; shooting at property like stop signs & lights; brandishing; reported & unreported violent crimes with guns; myriad of misdemeanor offenses; - the percentage would likely be from 20 to 40% of gun owners illicitly using any of their firearms over the course of their lifetimes.
So beevul, is it the 20% to 40% (imo) of those gun owners who illicitly will use firearms over the course of their lifetimes that we should focus on with preventative laws? or should we leave them 'the hell alone'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=181601

Your sig line reminds me of this dated gun factoid from 'just facts', tho it's a different argument: just facts: "About 99.8% of firearms and more than 99.6% of handguns will not be used to commit violent crimes in any given year."
Reason for elimination: This statistic neglects key information such as the number of guns in the U.S. Thus, it can create a misleading impression, given that, in 2008, roughly 436,000 violent crimes were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp

[beevul]

22. If you spouted anything else, we might go into shock.

Invalid Premises Galore

If you spouted anything else, we might go into shock.

You are still posting these blatant lies.

Its a lie only in the sense that it contradicts your religious dogmas ahem anti-gun beliefs.

I witted you last nov 17, 2015, that the figures you cite are for approx ONE YEAR ONLY.

Uh, yeah, sure you did jimmy. Now be a good lad and go out and play and leave the discussion of adult topics to the adults, k?

You 'witted' me?

Sorry buddy, but no. You talk a big game to the skilled swimmers, from the shallow end of the pool.

So your premise is invalid, since gun owners over the course of their lifetimes, are involved in shooting or killing someone far more than what you contend.

Are they now? 2/3 of those who kill with a firearm generally kill only once. That pretty much destroys your line of reasoning. My premise leaves wiggle room to be off by minimum of a factor of 3 from known statistics, and still be correct.

Put that in your little anti-gun pipe and smoke on it for a while.

You need to reword your signature line, & rethink (ha) your contentions.

Just like an anti-gunner to try to rewrite factual history to suit their biases.

[jimmy the one]

24. to wit

I wrote: So your premise is invalid, since gun owners over the course of their lifetimes, are involved in shooting or killing someone far more than what you contend.

beevul replied: Are they now? 2/3 of those who kill with a firearm generally kill only once. That pretty much destroys your line of reasoning. My premise leaves wiggle room to be off by minimum of a factor of 3 from known statistics, and still be correct.

No you don't destroy my line of reasoning, since you altered my original premise and created a rebuttal to your own faulty reconstruction.
There are approx 30,000 gundeaths in america in a year, with approx 80 million gun owners. I was not speaking of individual gun owners killing more than once, tho this of course happens 1/3 the time presuming your figures are correct. Even if 30,000 gun owners per year for 75 years were to shoot someone, this would amount to over 2 million gun owners out of 80 million, or about 3%, much higher than your 0.1%..
I was referring to the 80 million gun owners in general who, according to your false premise: do not kill or shoot someone 99.9% of the time. They in fact do shoot or kill more than 0.1% of the time over the course of their lifetimes. In other words, if you could take a current snapshot of all gun owners, highlighting those who have shot anyone in their lifetimes, not just the past year, the figure would be higher than 0.1%.
This is proven by this sentence from the very post you replied to, which you conveniently overlook in your attempt to alter what I was contending:

I wrote to beevul in same post: When you take your 99.9% over the course of a gun owner's lifetime of 75 years, the pure percentage of gun owners per capita who would shoot or kill someone rises to near 5.5%.

Since I wrote 'per capita' over over the past 75 years, this establishes that you manipulated what I wrote.

beevul: You 'witted' me? Sorry buddy, but no. You talk a big game to the skilled swimmers, from the shallow end of the pool.

Yeah, I witted you back in november, & I'm witting you once again in march 2016 that your signature line is a BIG FAT LIE.

[beevul]

25. LOL. THATS your gambit?

No you don't destroy my line of reasoning, since you altered my original premise and created a rebuttal to your own faulty reconstruction.

In the above sentence, you accuse me of altering your original premise.

I was referring to the 80 million gun owners in general who, according to your false premise: do not kill or shoot someone 99.9% of the time.

In the very next sentence, you changed MY premise, since when I say 99.9 percent as in my sig, I'm measuring people, not time.

So actually its YOUR false premise, not mine. If that's what you call 'witting', I'm going to classify it as the rhetorical version of you trying to use your face to hurt my fists. Oh please, you're hurting me, stop.

Even if 30,000 gun owners per year for 75 years were to shoot someone, this would amount to over 2 million gun owners out of 80 million, or about 3%, much higher than your 0.1%..

First, you don't just get to factor out new gun ownership, or even assume that its not 10 times higher in number than the number of gun deaths annually. It is. And then some.

Second, you don't just get to count 75 years worth of those who did against 1 year of those who didn't.

Heres your math, genius: 79,970,000 x 75 = 5,997,750,000


Congratulations. You've done the impossible. I expected less than nothing from you in terms of a response, and the bullshit you're piously trying to peddle qualifies as less than less-than-nothing.

Like I said, You talk a big game to the experienced swimmers, from the shallow end of the pool.

[jimmy the one]

32. resident eevul

beevul: In the very next sentence, you changed MY premise, since when I say 99.9 percent as in my sig, I'm measuring people, not time.
So actually its YOUR false premise, not mine.

You are wrong again, I was speaking of gun owners as people, as I clearly stated; you clearly didn't comprehend English here:
I previously wrote: I was referring to the 80 million gun owners in general who, according to your false premise: do not kill or shoot someone 99.9% of the time.

First, you don't just get to factor out new gun ownership, or even assume that its not 10 times higher in number than the number of gun deaths annually.

I'm not factoring out new gun ownership; I'm using the 99.9% figure you provided for gun owners over one year not shooting or killing anyone. Over a 75 year time period, the 99.9% figure translates, per capita, into approx. 5.5% that a gun owner would have shot or gun-killed someone. This holds true for any size American population sample using your 99.9% figure, so I do not 'factor out new gun ownership'.
I noted 80 million gun owners since that is that current estimate & I used the figure to provide a 'snapshot', since the 'rolling estimate' today would be that ~5.5% of American gun owners have shot or killed someone, using pure statistics based on your 99.9%.
You need that book statistics for dummies.

beevul: Second, you don't just get to count 75 years worth of those who did against 1 year of those who didn't. Heres your math, genius: 79,970,000 x 75 = 5,997,750,000

This is just utterly stupid math, be ashamed. YOU set the one year parameter, not I.
If 0.1% of drivers get into a major car death accident over the course of one year, you think the overall 0.1% driver accident death rate will hold true for all drivers over the course of their driving, whether 50 years or 75 years? It can only go UP, as more and more drivers will have been involved in an accidental car death - it just won't be the same drivers every year getting into accidents. New drivers added to the pool would also be subject to the same yearly (approx.) 0.1% rate.

beevul: You've done the impossible. I expected less than nothing from you in terms of a response, and the bullshit you're piously trying to peddle qualifies as less than less-than-nothing.

It's not impossible to refute you, it's actually quite simple & pleasurable. You haven't refuted anything whatsoever, & your rebuttal is something a middle school arithmetic student might proffer. The only BS comes from beevul.
You. are. out. of. your. league.
You could have pieced it together better had you bothered to read & study what I reposted previously on this thread; note I changed 'use' to 'misuse' in para 2, from original. Note beevul's sig line laughably contends only 0.1% of gun owners 'misuse' or have 'misused' guns:

here is beevul's signature line: 99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent.

My previous repost: You do realize that is for one year don't you? When you take your 99.9% over the course of a gun owner's lifetime of 75 years, the pure percentage of gun owner's per capita who would shoot or kill someone rises to near 5.5%. But then this doesn't account for multiple shootings by one individual so the 5% would be lower, perhaps 2% - 3%. Not that high but dramatically higher than your 0.1% figure. http://www.rapidtables.com/calc/math/Exponent_Calculator.htm

Considering 'illicit' misuse of firearms, over the course of a gun owner's life this percentage would increase dramatically, due to accident shootings whether with or without consequence; shooting at property like stop signs & lights; brandishing; reported & unreported violent crimes with guns; myriad of misdemeanor offenses; - the percentage would likely be from 20 to 40% of gun owners illicitly using any of their firearms over the course of their lifetimes.
So beevul, is it the 20% to 40% (imo) of those gun owners who illicitly will use firearms over the course of their lifetimes that we should focus on with preventative laws? or should we leave them 'the hell alone'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=181601

[beevul]

34. Jimmy the wesker?

I previously wrote: I was referring to the 80 million gun owners in general who, according to your false premise: do not kill or shoot someone 99.9% of the time.

You added '99.9 percent of the time', I didn't. Therefore its YOUR premise, not mine.

I'm not factoring out new gun ownership

Yes. You are. Gun ownership grows at an annual rate that is higher than the number of gun deaths. Drastically higher.

You ignore that in your uh...'calculations'.

I'm using the 99.9% figure you provided for gun owners over one year not shooting or killing anyone. Over a 75 year time period, the 99.9% figure translates, per capita, into approx. 5.5% that a gun owner would have shot or gun-killed someone.

The rate of gun ownership growth being higher than the rate of firearm misuse resulting in death, which you have most studiously ignored, factors into those numbers too.

For every year you count the ones that did, you also have to count the ones that didn't, but you're only counting the ones that did. For (hypothetical) example:

In 2021 there were 100 million that didn't and 11 thousand that did, and in 2022 there were 101 million that did and 10 thousand that didn't.'

You'd count that as 101 million vs 21 thousand, tallying up the deaths, while pretending that the 101 million was the exact same static group as the 100 million. Your problem (in this case) is that it isn't the same static group after 1 year, let alone 75 years, but you know that and you're just playing games. Dishonest, disingenuous, and misleading ones, at that.

You need that book statistics for dummies.

Uh...yeah...sure. And you need remedial math.

This is just utterly stupid math, be ashamed.

Boy. I'd feel really foolish if I were you. That's the tally of BOTH sides, not your one sided bs.

YOU set the one year parameter, not I.

That one year parameter counts the ones who did and the ones who didn't, annually. What you're doing is tallying up the ones who did, without tallying up the ones who didn't. In hindsight, You didn't really think nobody would notice, did you?

If 0.1% of drivers get into a major car death accident over the course of one year, you think the overall 0.1% driver accident death rate will hold true for all drivers...

You aren't counting ALL gun owners, and even if you were, you're not counting them the same was as you count the misusers. You don't just get to use different methodology to count one versus the other, and not have it pointed out, sorry jimmy.

It's not impossible to refute you, it's actually quite simple & pleasurable.

The only way you would know one way or the other is by talking to someone who has because you sure haven't.

You haven't refuted anything whatsoever, & your rebuttal is something a middle school arithmetic student might proffer.

That's a nice bit of projection.

You. are. out. of. your. league.

Lieing on my deathbed on a morphine drip with Alzheimer's, (a handicap which would almost make it fair for you) maybe.

Until that day, dream on.

You could have pieced it together better had you bothered to read & study what I reposted previously on this thread; note I changed 'use' to 'misuse' in para 2, from original. Note beevul's sig line laughably contends only 0.1% of gun owners 'misuse' or have 'misused' guns:

LOL. OH Mister Jimmy thinks hes putting one over on me. What will I do...woe is me.

here is beevul's signature line: 99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent.

Yup. That's my sig. The astute reader will note that theres a context set by me, to the words "misuse guns", which I set by using the words "shoot or kill anyone".

The less than astute, and those that deliberately and purposefully ignore an obviously intended context because they have an axe to grind, not so much.

My previous repost: You do realize that is for one year don't you? When you take your 99.9% over the course of a gun owner's lifetime of 75 years, the pure percentage of gun owner's per capita who would shoot or kill someone rises to near 5.5%. But then this doesn't account for multiple shootings by one individual so the 5% would be lower, perhaps 2% - 3%. Not that high but dramatically higher than your 0.1% figure.

Blubbedy blub blub blub. Blubitty blubbity blubbity blub. Blubitty blub blub blubitty.

Considering 'illicit' misuse of firearms, over the course of a gun owner's life this percentage would increase dramatically, due to accident shootings whether with or without consequence; shooting at property like stop signs & lights; brandishing; reported & unreported violent crimes with guns; myriad of misdemeanor offenses; - the percentage would likely be from 20 to 40% of gun owners illicitly using any of their firearms over the course of their lifetimes.

I hear you Jimmy. I hear you saying, in not so many words, that you are not an astute reader, or worse.

So beevul, is it the 20% to 40% (imo) of those gun owners who illicitly will use firearms over the course of their lifetimes that we should focus on with preventative laws? or should we leave them 'the hell alone'?

Sick em Jimmy, especially the ones that use guns to pound in nails.

You crack me up some times, coming in here acting like you're iverglas or something.

You aren't. While she could pull out amazing pieces of sophistry and ALMOST make them stick, you really can't.

Since you learned how to use the reply system, I'll give you a D- though instead of an F.

[jimmy the one]

35. armed robbery is not misusing a gun?

Last edited Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)

beevul's signature line: 99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent.

beevul: Yup. That's my sig. The astute reader will note that theres a context set by me, to the words "misuse guns", which I set by using the words "shoot or kill anyone".

Beevul argues an expedient. So we should just focus on gun owners who wound or kill with their guns & leave other gun wielding violent crime offenders 'the hell alone'?
An armed robbery with a gun does not constitute misusing a gun? Shooting up property is not misusing a gun? Poaching is not misusing a gun? negligent gun handling is not misusing a gun? To think any reader with half a brain would think that 'misuse guns' pertained only to gunshot murder & injury is nutty. If you insist upon your expedient, more proof your sig line is absurd and a LIE.
In 2007, 385,178 total firearm crimes were committed, including 11,512 murders, 190,514 robberies, and 183,153 aggravated assaults

beevul: Gun ownership grows at an annual rate that is higher than the number of gun deaths. Drastically higher.

If you mean new gun owners annually total more than approx. 30,000 gundeaths yearly, that's likely usually true, but a red herring. You claim 99.9% of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone with a firearm. Over a year that is believable but collapses over time, even 5 years is enough to make your sig line a lie:

Hypothetical - note non fatal shootings & gundeaths combined are closer to 100,000 today.
80,000,000 gun owners - 2000 ------ 80,000 shootings & gundeaths (0.1% x gunowners)
81,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2001 ------ 81,000 ..... "
82,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2002 ------ 82,000 ..... "
83,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2003 ------ 83,000 ..... "
84,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2004 ------ 84,000 ..... "
........................................ total = 410,000

After 5 years, estimate approx 100 million applicable gun owners over 5 yrs allowing for new gun owners & deaths, vs. 410,000 shootings or gundeaths.
410,000 / 100 million = 0.41%, which is 4 times higher than your 0.1%, and uses today's figures rather than those from the 70's thru 2000, when they were up to twice the current rate. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
Looking back 50 years, the US gun homicide rate began rising in the 1960s, surged in the 1970s, and hit peaks in 1980 and the early 1990s. (The number of homicides peaked in the early 1990s.) The plunge in homicides after that meant that firearm homicide rates in the late 2000s were equal to those not seen since the early 1960s

When you take gundeath & gunshooting figures from the 70s, 80's, 90's, you could not contend 99.9% of gun owners did not shoot or kill anyone over a year, it would've been maybe 99.7% or so, creating more shooting gun owners.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764212.html --- gundeaths 1979 - 2010
non fatal gunshot injury: 1993 104,200 .. some years near 200,000
Overall Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000 2003 - 2013, United States All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages Disposition: All Cases 799,760 {over 10 yrs} http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

beevul: The rate of gun ownership growth being higher than the rate of firearm misuse resulting in death, which you have most studiously ignored, factors into those numbers too. For every year you count the ones that did, you also have to count the ones that didn't, but you're only counting the ones that did. For (hypothetical) example: In 2021 there were 100 million that didn't and 11 thousand that did, and in 2022 there were 101 million that did and 10 thousand that didn't.'
You'd count that as 101 million vs 21 thousand, tallying up the deaths, while pretending that the 101 million was the exact same static group as the 100 million. Your problem (in this case) is that it isn't the same static group after 1 year, let alone 75 years, but you know that and you're just playing games. Dishonest, disingenuous, and misleading ones, at that.

You speak of total number of people who have owned guns in the past 75 years, of course it will be much higher than the current 'living' yearly estimate of approx. 80 million gun owners. But you use current death statistics, during 80's & 90's the murder rate was 1.5 - 2 times higher than it is now, as well as gunshot injuries being a couple times higher.
I cited death statistics only to show that by using them alone, it would deflate your signature line. When you include gunshot injuries your signature line becomes more untenable, and more of a big fat lie over the years.

However, these high numbers of firearms are concentrated in an increasingly small minority of households. Data from the General Social Survey, found that American household gun ownership peaked in 1977, when more than half of American households (53.7%) reported having any guns. By 2014, only 32.4% of American households had a gun in the home — less than a third. From 1985 to 2014, the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun dropped by more than a quarter, down to 22.4%. http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/page/14/

[beevul]

36. Are you claiming I said that?

Beevul argues an expedient.

Jimmy the wesker grasps at straws and strawmen.

You claim 99.9% of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone with a firearm. Over a year that is believable but collapses over time, even 5 years is enough to make your sig line a lie:

Hypothetical - note non fatal shootings & gundeaths combined are closer to 100,000 today.
80,000,000 gun owners - 2000 ------ 80,000 shootings & gundeaths (0.1% x gunowners)
81,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2001 ------ 81,000 ..... "
82,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2002 ------ 82,000 ..... "
83,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2003 ------ 83,000 ..... "
84,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2004 ------ 84,000 ..... "
........................................ total = 410,000

You left out the other total, James. It comes to 410,000,000. What percentage of 410,000,000 is 410,000? Its math and math is hard, but I'm confident that with a few tries you'll get it.

When you take gundeath & gunshooting figures from the 70s, 80's, 90's, you could not contend 99.9% of gun owners did not shoot or kill anyone over a year, it would've been maybe 99.7% or so, creating more shooting gun owners.

As long as you tally both sides and stick to my context it will always be less than 1 percent, which is why you aren't tallying the humbers of those who don't, and why my sig enrages you so.

Too bad so sad.

You speak of total number of people who have owned guns in the past 75 years, of course it will be much higher than the current 'living' yearly estimate of approx. 80 million gun owners. But you use current death statistics, during 80's & 90's the murder rate was 1.5 - 2 times higher than it is now, as well as gunshot injuries being a couple times higher.

Still lower than 1 percent, if you're doing honest math.

I cited death statistics only to show that by using them alone, it would deflate your signature line.

And you failed. Miserably. As long as you tally both sides, the number stays below 1 percent.

As I said earlier, the numbers in my sig were chosen very deliberately, and leave room for error by a factor of multiples.


Too bad for you. Enjoy my sig, it isn't going anywhere.

[jimmy the one]

37. quintuple counting

Hypothetical - note non fatal shootings & gundeaths combined are closer to 100,000 today.
80,000,000 gun owners - 2000 ------ 80,000 shootings & gundeaths (0.1% x gunowners)
81,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2001 ------ 81,000 ..... "
82,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2002 ------ 82,000 ..... "
83,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2003 ------ 83,000 ..... "
84,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2004 ------ 84,000 ..... "
........................................ total = 410,000

beevul: You left out the other total, James. It comes to 410,000,000. What percentage of 410,000,000 is 410,000? Its math and math is hard, but I'm confident that with a few tries you'll get it.

There wouldn't be 410 million gun owners in existence after 5 years, which, allowing for maybe 10% deaths & giving up guns, would ridiculously be more than the ~325 million US population.
I allowed for a total of 100 million gun owners in existence {or gone} after 5 years for calculation purposes, which is far closer to the facts than your ridiculous contention of 410 million.
You find the shooting/kill percentage of existing plus dead or gone gun owners in America after 5 years, using your 0.1% claim. 410 thousand is 0.41% of 100 million, rough estimate.
.. you are now double counting gun owners to make an invalid contention. Ha, double count? quintuple counting.

[beevul]

38. Says you.

There wouldn't be 410 million gun owners in existence after 5 years, which, allowing for maybe 10% deaths & giving up guns, would ridiculously be more than the ~325 million US population.

So what? If, IF your goal is to tally those who did versus those who didn't, that's the applicable math.

I allowed for a total of 100 million gun owners in existence {or gone} after 5 years for calculation purposes, which is far closer to the facts than your ridiculous contention of 410 million.

Its not MY contention, jimmy, its YOURS:

80,000,000 gun owners - 2000 ------ 80,000 shootings & gundeaths (0.1% x gunowners)
81,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2001 ------ 81,000 ..... "
82,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2002 ------ 82,000 ..... "
83,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2003 ------ 83,000 ..... "
84,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2004 ------ 84,000 ..... "
........................................ total = 410,000

You wrote that. You came up with the hypothetical numbers. I just finished your math is all.

You find the shooting/kill percentage of existing plus dead or gone gun owners in America after 5 years, using your 0.1% claim. 410 thousand is 0.41% of 100 million, rough estimate.

That's funny, the calculator says its .1 percent. Your 'rough estimate' is off by a factor of 4.

.. you are now double counting gun owners to make an invalid contention. Ha, double count? quintuple counting.

Nope, I'm just tallying them once. You on the other hand tally up the deaths and injuries but don't bother with the rest.

[jimmy the one]

39. you flunked the quiz

beevul: So what? If, IF your goal is to tally those who did versus those who didn't, that's the applicable math

You above unwittingly agree that your signature line is applicable for one year only, since you are disregarding the average yearly gun owner total, which is the valid way to do this.

Your signature line is falsely contending that 99.9% of ALL living gun owners in a drop-back period, do not shoot or kill anyone; written as it is, that's what you are contending: 99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent.

You cannot validly claim that is true over time, just because it is approximately true for one year.

beevul: Its not MY contention, jimmy, its YOURS:

You lie again. My table below clearly says 'gun owners', not 'gun owners who did not shoot/kill'. You are actually doing nothing whatsoever with your junk science, just reducing a fraction from larger amounts over 5 years, rather than one year, ergo the stat will remain the same.

80,000,000 gun owners - 2000 ------ 80,000 shootings & gundeaths (0.1% x gunowners)
81,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2001 ------ 81,000 ..... "
82,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2002 ------ 82,000 ..... "
83,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2003 ------ 83,000 ..... "
84,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2004 ------ 84,000 ..... "
........................................ total = 410,000

After 5 years time in the hypothetical, there were actually 410,000 shootings/killing by gun owners, along with approx. 100 million ACTUAL gun owners in existence over that time period.

beevul: You wrote that. You came up with the hypothetical numbers. I just finished your math is all

You botched the statistics & probability quiz, is all.

I contended: You find the shooting/kill percentage of existing plus dead or gone gun owners in America after 5 years, using your 0.1% claim. 410 thousand is 0.41% of 100 million, rough estimate.

beevul: That's funny, the calculator says its .1 percent. Your 'rough estimate' is off by a factor of 4.

Try it again, you messed up. I'll help. First, remember 0.41% = 0.0041 scalar;
Next, enter 0.0041 in the entry box, then click on X (for multiply), then enter 100,000,000 in the box, and see what the answer is.

[beevul]

40. Again, says you.

Your signature line is falsely contending that 99.9% of ALL living gun owners in a drop-back period, do not shoot or kill anyone; written as it is, that's what you are contending: 99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent.

Who said anything about living. Oh that would be you again. Maybe you should take up some remedial reading before you criticize anyone elses failures, mkay?

You cannot validly claim that is true over time, just because it is approximately true for one year.

Put your money where your big mouth is and cite 1 year in the last 30 in which it wasn't true.

My table below clearly says 'gun owners', not 'gun owners who did not shoot/kill'.

No shit dick tracy. You're only counting one side. Thanks for the confirmation.

You are actually doing nothing whatsoever with your junk science, just reducing a fraction from larger amounts over 5 years, rather than one year, ergo the stat will remain the same.

Yes, the stat remains the same, at .1 percent.

Try it again, you messed up. I'll help. First, remember 0.41% = 0.0041 scalar;
Next, enter 0.0041 in the entry box, then click on X (for multiply), then enter 100,000,000 in the box, and see what the answer is.

I don't have to get all fancy james. I simply go to http://www.percentagecalculator.net/ , and in the second set of fields it asks x is what percent of x. of course, I use the proper numbers, and ask the correct question, where you don't.

100,000,000 isn't the correct number, 410,000,000 is, which works out to...*gasp*....1 percent. 410,000,000 is the sum of the column you refuse to add.

*snicker*

[jimmy the one]

43. altered figures do not refute anything

beevul: I don't have to get all fancy james. I simply go to http://www.percentagecalculator.net/ , and in the second set of fields it asks x is what percent of x. of course, I use the proper numbers, and ask the correct question, where you don't.
100,000,000 isn't the correct number, 410,000,000 is, which works out to...*gasp*....1 percent. 410,000,000 is the sum of the column you refuse to add.

You have suddenly invalidly altered what you wrote in your post 38 above, which is what I replied to, not your specious crap immediately above.

I wrote, from post 38: You find the shooting/kill percentage of existing plus dead or gone gun owners in America after 5 years, using your 0.1% claim. 410 thousand is 0.41% of 100 million, rough estimate.

beevul replied, post 38: That's funny, the calculator says its .1 percent. Your 'rough estimate' is off by a factor of 4.

My contention was valid; your altered result using altered figures does not refute in any way what I contended.

PS: I wouldn't even need a calculator to divide 410 million by 410,000. Just a few seconds of thought.

[beevul]

47. Hah.

PS: I wouldn't even need a calculator to divide 410 million by 410,000. Just a few seconds of thought.

Coming to the correct number of 410 million, on the other hand, not so much...

[tortoise1956]

30. As usual, you twist facts to suit your fanciful imagination

I actually took you off my ignore list to answer this line of fertilizer, since your numbers were so far away from reality.

Here is a link to a count of gun deaths since 1968:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/

So, there have been a total of 1.5 million gun deaths in the past 50 years. Out of that number, one must subtract suicides, since that is a one-time shot and they no longer count in the gene pool. I'll be generous and say that 1/2 that figure represents homicides. So, 750 k gun deaths over 47 years. That works out to a little less than 1% of 80 million. 47 years of active gun ownership is a good round number, since the usual minimum age to own a gun is 18. However, I'll extend it to 60 years (lifespan of 60 years) and multiply the number of homicides by 1.25. Hell, I'll even round it up to 1 million (a factor of 1.33). That brings the percentage to 1.2% MAXIMUM.

And that only holds true if every death is by a legal gun owner, since by definition criminals with stolen guns are not owners. Here is a link to a story from Politifact with a ballpark estimate that 3-10% of crimes are committed with legally obtained guns:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/

Using 10% will brings the figure down to around 0.12% (roughly). And that is with a whole lot of fudging the numbers in your favor. 0.1 % is probably a much more accurate estimate than 3%, no matter how you try to pretzel the truth.

anything else you want to misrepresent?

[jimmy the one]

33. sleeping dogs should stay asleep

tortoise: So, 750 k gun deaths over 47 years. That works out to a little less than 1% of 80 million... and multiply the number of homicides by 1.25.
... that only holds true if every death is by a legal gun owner

You're omitting one important detail. Beevul's contention, and that which I refuted, involved gun owners either gun killing or gunshot wounding someone else (or themselves, on edit).
Woundings generally occur in combat about 8 to 1 ratio over deaths, so the predominance of gun shot casualty would be woundings.
Here's beevul's signature line again:

beevul's sig line: 99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent.

Beevul's signature line is just one big fat lying example of rightwing garbage.
Best put me back on ignore tortoise, help you save face.

[tortoise1956]

41. Oh, you wound me...

The numbers as stated in the post, using inflated figures that actually skew the results toward a higher figure, come out to around 0.1% of gun owners killing someone in their lifetime. The last time I looked, the CDC said that about twice as many Americans are wounded every year by guns as are killed. (estimate, with very high uncertainty, but I'll use it for now)

So, once again:

1.5 million fatalities = 3 million non-fatalities

allowing for 1/2 the gun deaths to be murder, we arrive at 3.75 million events divided by 80 million gun owners = 4.7%. Since I gave you a break last time, I'll do it again and call it 5%. Once again applying the 10% factor to account for illegal shootings, we come up with 0.5%.

So, using inflated figures, we can say that Beevul's 0.1% figure may not be correct. However, it is STILL much closer than the 3% hogwash you threw out there.

So basically your face is the only one that needs saving - AGAIN - Jimmy the Zero.

[jimmy the one]

42. simple explanation

beevul: You cannot validly claim that is true over time, just because it is approximately true for one year.
Put your money where your big mouth is and cite 1 year in the last 30 in which it wasn't true.

tortoise: The numbers as stated in the post .. come out to around 0.1% of gun owners killing someone in their lifetime.

I think I have a way to explain this. I feel remiss for not having thought of it sooner.

beevul's signature line: 99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent.

If we go with 100,000,000 (100 million) gun owners, 0.1% of them = 100,000. So beevul's current premise is that 0.1%, or approx 100,000 gun owners, do not shoot or kill anyone, ever, in their lifetimes. His figures are indeed borne out close enough to a one year crime report on gunshot injury by shooting or killing. Remember that is for one year only.
So, in the year we are in, 2016, we can estimate that 100,000 gun owners will shoot or kill someone this year.
However, beevul & tortoise claims fall apart, since it assumes that none of the other 99.9 million gun owners alive in 2016 have EVER SHOT OR KILLED ANYONE in their past lives.
Which is utterly ridiculous & unsustainable to the both of youse.
Obviously you are wrong. Readers can see how wrong you are now. Such a simple solution.

As readers can see, beevul's signature line is contending that 99.9% of all gun owners in existence during the year 2016, have not shot anyone. This is untrue.
The true percentage of gun owners over a drop back period up to 75 years as stated previous, will not conform to the pure statistical result of approx 5% - raising 99.9% to the nth degree where n = number of years in dropback, due to a complex input involving inter alia gun owner death, recidivism, gun owner & population growth, but it will be far more than 0.1% which beevul's sig line contends.
Beevul needs edit his signature line to read 'for one year only'.

[jimmy the one]

44. don't go apoplectic due another error

tortoise: allowing for 1/2 the gun deaths to be murder, we arrive at 3.75 million events divided by 80 million gun owners = 4.7%. Since I gave you a break last time, I'll do it again and call it 5%. Once again applying the 10% factor to account for illegal shootings, we come up with 0.5%.

You are getting more & more absurd. Why do you eliminate 90% of the shootings? beevul clearly is including the criminal element in his signature line, since he is saying to focus on the 0.1% who misuse guns: '99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent.

What beevul is doing is claiming that the 0.1% who kill or shoot anyone, IS LARGELY THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT, aka illegal shootings. Geez, hope you don't go apoplectic, if you do, lie down & elevate your legs.

tortoise: The last time I looked, the CDC said that about twice as many Americans are wounded every year by guns as are killed.

The wounded figures are closer to 8 times higher than the number of homicides, which would be the appropriate comparison to 'battle'. Odd that 8x tends to hold true, +/- one or two.

tort: So basically your face is the only one that needs saving - AGAIN - Jimmy the Zero

No, jimmy the one with a clean face. You however, should wash yours.

[underpants]

3. It's empty

Just saying

[tortoise1956]

31. Not necessarily

There might be a round still chambered - you can't tell from this angle.

That would be just like a cold-blooded killing device - hide the evil bullet from sight...

[Fairgo]

4. and it's obviously aroused

...apologies, sorry, that was uncalled for.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. Apologies accepted, but you should seek treatment for that case of Markley's Syndrome:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22markley%27s+law%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[Straw Man]

8. Umm ... no.

and it's obviously aroused

If you knew anything about semi-automatic pistols, you'd know that it had already shot its load and is now spent.

Sorry, that was uncalled for too.

[Duckhunter935]

6. funny looking AR-15

Assault weapon

[Straw Man]

9. A SIG? Really?

Crime must be paying better these days.

[pablo_marmol]

10. Actually, the Wright/Rossi prison survey demonstrated that

criminals and non-criminals alike prefer handguns that are modern and reliable in higher calibers.

[Straw Man]

11. Yeah, but ...

... there are a lot of handguns that fit that description and are a whole lot cheaper than a SIG.

[ileus]

13. Especially a single action sig...you can buy 2 plastic striker junkers for that one sig.

[Still In Wisconsin]

28. Like a Taurus for example.

Ugly looking things but they shoot just fine.

[Still In Wisconsin]

26. That was my thought.

These ain't cheap!

[ileus]

12. Mine are life saving devices...and some of them are beautiful.

If a firearm is being used as a weapon, it's being used incorrectly.

[Logical]

16. Like a fire extinguisher? nt

[GreydeeThos]

20. Fire extinguishers do not make good weapons

Using a fire extinguisher as a weapon is defiantly using it incorrectly.

[Logical]

21. No, the gun wackos love to say a gun is just a tool, like a fire extinguisher, which is BS. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Tool- "a device or implement...used to carry out a particular function"

So, no BS.

Real BS is claiming that inanimate objects cause people to do things.

The Lord of The Rings wasn't a historical novel, and guns were not invented by
Sauron...

[krispos42]

14. Which is why we need to ban rifles with pistol grips

Right?

[ileus]

15. also be most effective anti murder weapon...

[benEzra]

17. If handguns were used in less than 200 murders a year nationwide,

you'd still be trying to outlaw them.

[doggie breath]

19. Not really a Sig Sauer fan myself

I personally prefer Ruger, Smith and Wesson and Colt for handguns.

Must be why mine, in over 30 years of possession, have killed, shot, harmed or maimed no one.

Think I need to trade them in on something more effective?

[ileus]

23. I don't know my Sig 220 and 229 have never harmed anyone/thing either. ???

[whatthehey]

27. Well technically no, but OK as an exemplar, in one way at least I guess

This would be closer





the humble 38 special revolver is used more than anything else as far as a tool for direct homicide. If you are saying "I want to kill person X right now" then that's used the most.

But far far more people are killed, and even far far more people are killed by others, with these. By a multiple of about 12 and about 5 respectively.




The real question however is: So?

[whatthehey]

46. Sure - as a variant of a very common firearm most used in homicides

I doubt the OP was making the claim that that specific model of semi-auto was the most common model userd either, only that semi-autos were. This is not true, although to be honest getting close.
Regardless of specific model arcana, the .38 specials were and still are ubiquitous, cheap and easy to maintain and load, which is the only reason they are used most often. That's why silliness like the OP's makes no sense. Street criminals have no loyalty to model or type they just want cheap and easy and, if they have maintained a few brain cells through the meth and crack and heroin haze, reliable. A few pro hitmen may be more loyal to the quieter and penetrative .22 with hot loads but your average gang-banger gets whatever he can buy and load for cheap. 9mms are getting there, but .38s were still in the lead last numbers I saw, and given the indifferent maintenance, cleaning and loading regimen of that particular echelon, probably a more sensible bet. Glock fans tout their ability to work after much abuse and little care and doubtless that's true to a point, but even though I can't shoot one worth a damn with the usual long DA pull at least, if I were, ludicrous schlock TV example though it were, forced to grab one at random when it absolutely had to go bang, the revolver it would be. I suspect the criminal element have much the same thoughts.