In states without universal background checks, women can defend themselves at a lesser expense and hassle.
We must throw the leftist playbook right back at them.The best way to expose the other side as a fraud is to be a mirror .
If that were true it would be working for Congress right now.
I wonder if they realize they lose credibility with smart people when they publish stuff like this, and that smart people are the underlying engines of the world. Consumers and voters are fuel, the rich and powerful are drivers, but the smart people are the engines.
So if I’m a smart, powerful person who consumes and votes, does that make me a perpetual motion machine?
yes!
I only wish we had more engines here in America. I can’t help but wonder as to the average American’s understandings of research methodology and how figures like the one above are absolutely worthless.
There seems to be a real problem with taking statistics at face value without a clue on how to work backwards through the manner in which the number was derived to see if any useful generalizations can be made.
I didn’t realize how much BS these were until i took a college statistics class
Most of the engines we build here now are made with foreign parts, and then we send them over to benefit their home countries.
Domestic parts would rather be made into lawyers and financial instrument salesmen and politicians who are more like a parasitic loss mechanism and a dragging on the national vehicle.
Apparently not so smart people vote more for dumb people.
“I wonder if they realize they lose credibility with smart people when they publish stuff like this”
No they don’t, but it doesn’t matter. The people who run the civilian disarmament complex are themselves quite smart. They often have Ivy League degrees and high IQ’s (Josh Sugarman is not dumb, just dishonest and misguided). Being smart is no defense against believing stupid ideas and it doesn’t mean you are immune to irrational thinking, especially if it is emotionally satisfying. Aside from that, their goal is to bamboozle the ignorant, low information voter into accepting the myths of gun control. They aren’t after the smart voter, it’s the stupid voter they need because there are lots of them.
And by the way, an awful lot of “smart” people still believe socialism and communism are the perfect political systems, if you only let THEM decide how to make it work.
You may or may not be able to educate “smart” people out of their delusions, but you can’t fix stupid.
Lol, those aren’t smart people. Lots of idiots have PhDs and lots of smart people never set foot in a college.
-D
I work at a university. I am surrounded by PhDs on a daily basis.
They may be especially smart in a specific discipline but most have no common sense and are out of touch with reality.
Well at least they finally learned how to keep their finger off the trigger in anti gun propaganda.
I saw that too. Someone in the anti crowd is actually learning from us despite themselves.
Let’s not tutor them too much. It’s preferable they look like the fools they are.
Don’t anybody tell them to point the gun away from their head…
Interestingly, in countries where women can’t vote or express their opinions, 100% of them are happy and satisfied……..
and men in those countries find Burkas and a little ankle showing sexy. . . . .
The “multicultural” movement wants the world to become Saudi Arabia.
Look how well it’s worked in Europe.
That’s not necessarily what they want, but it’s what they’ll get. Are getting.
so in Chicago there are NO gun deaths?
Or NYC.
I’ve finally had enough. When Demand Action rolls into Chicago approaches hard core gang members, unarmed, on the street and demands the end of violence every day for 6 months will I give any credibility to the organization.
Zero chance of that happening.
If they roll into Chicago and approach hard core gang members, unarmed, they might get their “Demand” answered in a not to pleasant fashion.
zero chance of them making it out of Chicago alive if they try that . . . .
But how many are stabbed/beaten to death? You know, because bullets make you so much more deader than a knife or baseball bat.
If there isn’t a similar infographic out TOMORROW by the NRA, SAF, or some other organization to point out that overall violence against women by their “intimate partner” is not affected by background checks, then we’re failing.
No, that would be validating and encouraging those harpies.
68% of statistics are made up on the spot. 🙂
Sex Panther – “60% of the time it works…every time”
Why have we not opened the NICS yet? If I had the ability to verify whether someone buying a gun from me in a private sale was forbidden by law from owning a gun, I would absolutely do so — and I think most sellers would, even in the absence of an intrusive and unenforceable mandate.
If there are privacy issues, let’s get them on the table so we can fix them. But the NICS is a resource that could, and should, be used to help address the issues that the MDA crowd claim to be concerned with. If they won’t accept anything less than a de facto universal registration scheme, they at least ought to have to explain why they refuse to support a “sensible, life-saving compromise.”
NICS is a closed system because it’s not about the check, it’s about the 4473. The ATF can force FFLs to keep the 4473 under threat of loss of licence. But it can’t force private sellers to maintain the records, and that’s what the ATF really wants.
Exactly.
Understood — my question was more rhetorical than actual (hence the reference to de facto universal registration). What I’m getting at is, isn’t this something that we should be hammering MDA and their ilk on? Isn’t it something pro-gun politicians should be forcing anti-gunners to either vote for, or appear hypocritical for refusing to support a measure that could actually pass? It seems like a win-win for us; I’d actually be pleased if the NICS opened up, and if the Senate refuses to pass it or the President refuses to sign it, their supporters will be demoralized and their opposition will be energized.
Clever Ad, use a little fact and a lot of bias! It reminds me of Biden’s comment about “garden variety slap” in reference to domestic violence. They don’t care about domestic violence if a gun isn’t involved. They are in effect saying violence is ok if no guns are involved. “Fewer women shot to death by intimate partners” It implies they are fully aware of stabbings, beating, asphyxiations, poisonings, and burnings, but lack of interest about non gun related deaths. Internal to their ad is their concern with “gun deaths” but lack concern for the problem of domestic violence. It is so twisted.
Unfortunately, as we POTG ALL know, the relevancy and truth of statistics are important when emotion is involved. They could write that 150% of gun sales lead anything, the truth will not set them free.
Curious to know the stats on how many women use a gun to protect themselves from an abusive “intimate partner”.
And ~100% of football teams that take a knee to end the game win.
Try taking a knee when you’re down 21 and see if confusing causation and correlation helps you there.
Looks like a Glock 26 with a pinkie extension. Some people should ‘Man Up’ and practice shooting like you are going to carry. OHHHH! Ya’ll are talking about the text. I was too fixated on the firearm. sorry.
actully, I think it is a Glock 30 . . . . that is no pinkie extension. I have several for my G26.
Thanks for the correction.
{sigh} no pictures of Shannon Watts.
How about background checks on intimate partners?
Seems to me the gun is not the root cause; the shitbag abusing their intimate partner is the problem. Me thinks someone was raised wrong. Someone let those MDA folks konw that they’re failing.
I’m sure this goes both ways man v woman and woman v man but only one targets their demographic and the resultant emotions.
If you accept that correlation is causation, it points to intimacy as the cause of death.
And there you have it! Quick, to the cloisters…
Sounds to me more like an argument for Date-Control. Apparently women should run background checks on their “intimate partners”.
Typical divide-and-conquor tactic……pit women against men to try and win the gun debate.
The only counter is to unite women and men against the Anti-Gun crowd.
The joy of twitter and hashtags like that….. You can use them to counter-broadcast information.
“Because a restraining order is just a piece of paper. #savewomenslives http://t.co/aLhgLGOHP1”
If you cut and paste that http bit of short code you can see the ‘updated’ infographic I made.
It is my firm belief, that crime stats comparisons are almost entirely worthless. There are many many factors that arguably affect crime. Crowded or sparse, rich or poor, families or deadbeats. One would like to clone a city and change nothing except make one pro-gun, one anti-gun and then compare. But even then, the effect of any particular gun law (or lack thereof) cannot be determined.
So let us assume, arguendo, that proportionately, fewer women are shot to death by “intimate partners” in say California. Is that because of virtually universal background checks? Or is it because fewer households have a gun? Or is it because partners are less likely to use a gun due to noise in a more crowded environment? Or ad nauseam.
So I propose this. Rather than looking at generic comparisons between places that differ wildly in other aspects, look at the general trends in each. E.g. Britain has always had a far lower murder rate than the US….but ours has been steadily dropping, theirs have hit higher than the average for the last century. The trend shows betterment here, things getting worse there. This while we have more carrying and owning guns than before, and they less. Even here we cannot attribute the trend to just gun laws. But it undermines a correspondence of more guns=more violence.
Anyhow, no way of easily checking the random assertion even on the face of it. And what exactly is UBC? In one sense, only California and RI have UBC, whereas other states have background checks for gunshows, say. But in any case, is the population of the 2-15 states, I don’t know, equal to the combined of the rest, less than it, more than it? If less, say 38% less, there would be, with an equal rate of incidences, 38% FEWER women shot…
Chicago had 27% fewer murders than the entire state of California. So Chicago is safer, right? But its murder rate is almost 4 times higher. They want to assert less of a chance of getting killed. But what they state is just a matter of fewer. Which means nothing. Most states do not have UBC. So, yes such stats will be FEWER as there are FEWER people for them to apply to.
Even if that claim was true, someone who is determined to harm a “intimate partner” will find other ways. The kitchen for example has plenty of items that can be used with lethal results.
Interesting to note that this group doesnt acknowledge that women also shoot “intimate partners”
I find it ironic how people here are outraged about “misleading statistics” and such, and happily repeat the oft-quoted “there’s lies and then there’s statistics” when it’s anti-gun, yet immediately bring up similarly poorly verified “more guns, less crime” stats when it’s time to defend 2A.
“38% Fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners”
My guess is it’s something like a percentage of total firearm murders of women. In those states where there are more restrictive firearm laws and more murders, the rate of women shot by their partners will be lower.
The percentage of women assaulted by their partner is 99% less on the streets of Chicago than on Main Street in Disneyland.
I just realize I made a mistake. It should have been Chicago has 73% fewer murders than California, yet 4 times the murder rate (Chicago: 516 murders, California: 1884, or 19.1 per 100k versus 5.0 per 100k ) I can both say there were fewer murders in Chicago and Chicago has a much higher murder rate. Saying “fewer” means nothing without any sense of proportion
They are traitors. They lie. Next question.
Stop voting for these libtard (democrat) monsters.
In states without universal background checks, women can defend themselves at a lesser expense and hassle.
We must throw the leftist playbook right back at them.The best way to expose the other side as a fraud is to be a mirror .
If that were true it would be working for Congress right now.
I wonder if they realize they lose credibility with smart people when they publish stuff like this, and that smart people are the underlying engines of the world. Consumers and voters are fuel, the rich and powerful are drivers, but the smart people are the engines.
So if I’m a smart, powerful person who consumes and votes, does that make me a perpetual motion machine?
yes!
I only wish we had more engines here in America. I can’t help but wonder as to the average American’s understandings of research methodology and how figures like the one above are absolutely worthless.
There seems to be a real problem with taking statistics at face value without a clue on how to work backwards through the manner in which the number was derived to see if any useful generalizations can be made.
I didn’t realize how much BS these were until i took a college statistics class
Most of the engines we build here now are made with foreign parts, and then we send them over to benefit their home countries.
Domestic parts would rather be made into lawyers and financial instrument salesmen and politicians who are more like a parasitic loss mechanism and a dragging on the national vehicle.
Apparently not so smart people vote more for dumb people.
“I wonder if they realize they lose credibility with smart people when they publish stuff like this”
No they don’t, but it doesn’t matter. The people who run the civilian disarmament complex are themselves quite smart. They often have Ivy League degrees and high IQ’s (Josh Sugarman is not dumb, just dishonest and misguided). Being smart is no defense against believing stupid ideas and it doesn’t mean you are immune to irrational thinking, especially if it is emotionally satisfying. Aside from that, their goal is to bamboozle the ignorant, low information voter into accepting the myths of gun control. They aren’t after the smart voter, it’s the stupid voter they need because there are lots of them.
And by the way, an awful lot of “smart” people still believe socialism and communism are the perfect political systems, if you only let THEM decide how to make it work.
You may or may not be able to educate “smart” people out of their delusions, but you can’t fix stupid.
Lol, those aren’t smart people. Lots of idiots have PhDs and lots of smart people never set foot in a college.
-D
I work at a university. I am surrounded by PhDs on a daily basis.
They may be especially smart in a specific discipline but most have no common sense and are out of touch with reality.
Well at least they finally learned how to keep their finger off the trigger in anti gun propaganda.
I saw that too. Someone in the anti crowd is actually learning from us despite themselves.
Let’s not tutor them too much. It’s preferable they look like the fools they are.
Don’t anybody tell them to point the gun away from their head…
Interestingly, in countries where women can’t vote or express their opinions, 100% of them are happy and satisfied……..
Touché.
+1000
and men in those countries find Burkas and a little ankle showing sexy. . . . .
The “multicultural” movement wants the world to become Saudi Arabia.
Look how well it’s worked in Europe.
That’s not necessarily what they want, but it’s what they’ll get. Are getting.
so in Chicago there are NO gun deaths?
Or NYC.
I’ve finally had enough. When Demand Action rolls into Chicago approaches hard core gang members, unarmed, on the street and demands the end of violence every day for 6 months will I give any credibility to the organization.
Zero chance of that happening.
If they roll into Chicago and approach hard core gang members, unarmed, they might get their “Demand” answered in a not to pleasant fashion.
zero chance of them making it out of Chicago alive if they try that . . . .
But how many are stabbed/beaten to death? You know, because bullets make you so much more deader than a knife or baseball bat.
If there isn’t a similar infographic out TOMORROW by the NRA, SAF, or some other organization to point out that overall violence against women by their “intimate partner” is not affected by background checks, then we’re failing.
No, that would be validating and encouraging those harpies.
68% of statistics are made up on the spot. 🙂
Sex Panther – “60% of the time it works…every time”
Why have we not opened the NICS yet? If I had the ability to verify whether someone buying a gun from me in a private sale was forbidden by law from owning a gun, I would absolutely do so — and I think most sellers would, even in the absence of an intrusive and unenforceable mandate.
If there are privacy issues, let’s get them on the table so we can fix them. But the NICS is a resource that could, and should, be used to help address the issues that the MDA crowd claim to be concerned with. If they won’t accept anything less than a de facto universal registration scheme, they at least ought to have to explain why they refuse to support a “sensible, life-saving compromise.”
NICS is a closed system because it’s not about the check, it’s about the 4473. The ATF can force FFLs to keep the 4473 under threat of loss of licence. But it can’t force private sellers to maintain the records, and that’s what the ATF really wants.
Exactly.
Understood — my question was more rhetorical than actual (hence the reference to de facto universal registration). What I’m getting at is, isn’t this something that we should be hammering MDA and their ilk on? Isn’t it something pro-gun politicians should be forcing anti-gunners to either vote for, or appear hypocritical for refusing to support a measure that could actually pass? It seems like a win-win for us; I’d actually be pleased if the NICS opened up, and if the Senate refuses to pass it or the President refuses to sign it, their supporters will be demoralized and their opposition will be energized.
Clever Ad, use a little fact and a lot of bias! It reminds me of Biden’s comment about “garden variety slap” in reference to domestic violence. They don’t care about domestic violence if a gun isn’t involved. They are in effect saying violence is ok if no guns are involved. “Fewer women shot to death by intimate partners” It implies they are fully aware of stabbings, beating, asphyxiations, poisonings, and burnings, but lack of interest about non gun related deaths. Internal to their ad is their concern with “gun deaths” but lack concern for the problem of domestic violence. It is so twisted.
Here in MA only 29% of female murders are by firearm, so yes, you’re less likely to be shot, but dead is dead. http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/injury-surveillance/violentdeaths/homicide-bulletin-2009.pdf
Unfortunately, as we POTG ALL know, the relevancy and truth of statistics are important when emotion is involved. They could write that 150% of gun sales lead anything, the truth will not set them free.
Curious to know the stats on how many women use a gun to protect themselves from an abusive “intimate partner”.
How’s that 90% working out for them?
http://xkcd.com/552/
63% of statistics are 42% accurate.
And ~100% of football teams that take a knee to end the game win.
Try taking a knee when you’re down 21 and see if confusing causation and correlation helps you there.
Looks like a Glock 26 with a pinkie extension. Some people should ‘Man Up’ and practice shooting like you are going to carry. OHHHH! Ya’ll are talking about the text. I was too fixated on the firearm. sorry.
actully, I think it is a Glock 30 . . . . that is no pinkie extension. I have several for my G26.
Thanks for the correction.
{sigh} no pictures of Shannon Watts.
How about background checks on intimate partners?
Seems to me the gun is not the root cause; the shitbag abusing their intimate partner is the problem. Me thinks someone was raised wrong. Someone let those MDA folks konw that they’re failing.
I’m sure this goes both ways man v woman and woman v man but only one targets their demographic and the resultant emotions.
If you accept that correlation is causation, it points to intimacy as the cause of death.
And there you have it! Quick, to the cloisters…
Sounds to me more like an argument for Date-Control. Apparently women should run background checks on their “intimate partners”.
Typical divide-and-conquor tactic……pit women against men to try and win the gun debate.
The only counter is to unite women and men against the Anti-Gun crowd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUK6zjtUj00
So many words, so little said.
The joy of twitter and hashtags like that….. You can use them to counter-broadcast information.
“Because a restraining order is just a piece of paper. #savewomenslives http://t.co/aLhgLGOHP1”
If you cut and paste that http bit of short code you can see the ‘updated’ infographic I made.
It is my firm belief, that crime stats comparisons are almost entirely worthless. There are many many factors that arguably affect crime. Crowded or sparse, rich or poor, families or deadbeats. One would like to clone a city and change nothing except make one pro-gun, one anti-gun and then compare. But even then, the effect of any particular gun law (or lack thereof) cannot be determined.
So let us assume, arguendo, that proportionately, fewer women are shot to death by “intimate partners” in say California. Is that because of virtually universal background checks? Or is it because fewer households have a gun? Or is it because partners are less likely to use a gun due to noise in a more crowded environment? Or ad nauseam.
So I propose this. Rather than looking at generic comparisons between places that differ wildly in other aspects, look at the general trends in each. E.g. Britain has always had a far lower murder rate than the US….but ours has been steadily dropping, theirs have hit higher than the average for the last century. The trend shows betterment here, things getting worse there. This while we have more carrying and owning guns than before, and they less. Even here we cannot attribute the trend to just gun laws. But it undermines a correspondence of more guns=more violence.
Anyhow, no way of easily checking the random assertion even on the face of it. And what exactly is UBC? In one sense, only California and RI have UBC, whereas other states have background checks for gunshows, say. But in any case, is the population of the 2-15 states, I don’t know, equal to the combined of the rest, less than it, more than it? If less, say 38% less, there would be, with an equal rate of incidences, 38% FEWER women shot…
Chicago had 27% fewer murders than the entire state of California. So Chicago is safer, right? But its murder rate is almost 4 times higher. They want to assert less of a chance of getting killed. But what they state is just a matter of fewer. Which means nothing. Most states do not have UBC. So, yes such stats will be FEWER as there are FEWER people for them to apply to.
Even if that claim was true, someone who is determined to harm a “intimate partner” will find other ways. The kitchen for example has plenty of items that can be used with lethal results.
Interesting to note that this group doesnt acknowledge that women also shoot “intimate partners”
I find it ironic how people here are outraged about “misleading statistics” and such, and happily repeat the oft-quoted “there’s lies and then there’s statistics” when it’s anti-gun, yet immediately bring up similarly poorly verified “more guns, less crime” stats when it’s time to defend 2A.
“38% Fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners”
My guess is it’s something like a percentage of total firearm murders of women. In those states where there are more restrictive firearm laws and more murders, the rate of women shot by their partners will be lower.
The percentage of women assaulted by their partner is 99% less on the streets of Chicago than on Main Street in Disneyland.
I just realize I made a mistake. It should have been Chicago has 73% fewer murders than California, yet 4 times the murder rate (Chicago: 516 murders, California: 1884, or 19.1 per 100k versus 5.0 per 100k ) I can both say there were fewer murders in Chicago and Chicago has a much higher murder rate. Saying “fewer” means nothing without any sense of proportion
They are traitors. They lie. Next question.
Stop voting for these libtard (democrat) monsters.
Comments are closed.