Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jimmy the one

(2,717 posts)
24. to wit
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:52 AM
Mar 2016

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.

Oh look, a picture of the Second Amendment. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #1
And yet 99.9x percent of guns aren't used in murders. N/T beevul Feb 2016 #2
But you know... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #7
Invalid Premises Galore jimmy the one Mar 2016 #18
If you spouted anything else, we might go into shock. beevul Mar 2016 #22
to wit jimmy the one Mar 2016 #24
LOL. THATS your gambit? beevul Mar 2016 #25
resident eevul jimmy the one Mar 2016 #32
Jimmy the wesker? beevul Mar 2016 #34
armed robbery is not misusing a gun? jimmy the one Mar 2016 #35
Are you claiming I said that? beevul Mar 2016 #36
quintuple counting jimmy the one Mar 2016 #37
Says you. beevul Mar 2016 #38
you flunked the quiz jimmy the one Mar 2016 #39
Again, says you. beevul Mar 2016 #40
altered figures do not refute anything jimmy the one Apr 2016 #43
Hah. beevul Apr 2016 #47
As usual, you twist facts to suit your fanciful imagination tortoise1956 Mar 2016 #30
sleeping dogs should stay asleep jimmy the one Mar 2016 #33
Oh, you wound me... tortoise1956 Apr 2016 #41
simple explanation jimmy the one Apr 2016 #42
don't go apoplectic due another error jimmy the one Apr 2016 #44
It's empty underpants Feb 2016 #3
Not necessarily tortoise1956 Mar 2016 #31
and it's obviously aroused Fairgo Feb 2016 #4
Apologies accepted, but you should seek treatment for that case of Markley's Syndrome: friendly_iconoclast Feb 2016 #5
Umm ... no. Straw Man Feb 2016 #8
funny looking AR-15 Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #6
A SIG? Really? Straw Man Feb 2016 #9
Actually, the Wright/Rossi prison survey demonstrated that pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #10
Yeah, but ... Straw Man Feb 2016 #11
Especially a single action sig...you can buy 2 plastic striker junkers for that one sig. ileus Feb 2016 #13
Like a Taurus for example. Still In Wisconsin Mar 2016 #28
That was my thought. Still In Wisconsin Mar 2016 #26
Mine are life saving devices...and some of them are beautiful. ileus Feb 2016 #12
Like a fire extinguisher? nt Logical Feb 2016 #16
Fire extinguishers do not make good weapons GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #20
No, the gun wackos love to say a gun is just a tool, like a fire extinguisher, which is BS. nt Logical Mar 2016 #21
Tool- "a device or implement...used to carry out a particular function" friendly_iconoclast Mar 2016 #29
Which is why we need to ban rifles with pistol grips krispos42 Feb 2016 #14
also be most effective anti murder weapon... ileus Feb 2016 #15
If handguns were used in less than 200 murders a year nationwide, benEzra Feb 2016 #17
Not really a Sig Sauer fan myself doggie breath Mar 2016 #19
I don't know my Sig 220 and 229 have never harmed anyone/thing either. ??? ileus Mar 2016 #23
Well technically no, but OK as an exemplar, in one way at least I guess whatthehey Mar 2016 #27
This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #45
Sure - as a variant of a very common firearm most used in homicides whatthehey Apr 2016 #46
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The most effective and mo...»Reply #24