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
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read